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.
No G5's until (late) 2003
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: geez
Well, hell Alex. I guess we're all just doomed to sit back and watch Apple fade into the sunset.
Because I tell ya right now. MOTOROLA is not going to improve their performance. Just home many years are we supposed to give them? Jeez, they just announced thousands and thousands of layoff's. That does not improve this situation.
Whatever Apple does, MOTOROLA HAS TO GO. They are not doing what is necessary to bring the Mac back in line, and competitive with the PC Platform.
All of Apple's Megahertz speak isn't going to cut it any more. You know, it never really even cut it back when it first started, it's just that the Gap was a hell of a lot narrower back then than it is now, and people didn't bring it to task as quickly.
Apple is getting their ass kicked, and hard decisions need to be made.
The only other alternative is this. Apple will have to back off the whole performance angle, and shift to a totally new Marketing strategy that doesn't even MENTION processors or performance.
It will have to be a 100% solutions based campaign. "Here's what you can really do with a Mac, and how you go about doing it".
In closing, either the Processor/Performance Angle has to be completely obliterated from from the Mac as a component of the product, or Apple has to fire Motorola and move on.
They simply cannot keep doing things the way they are.
I'm sorry if this upsets folks, but it's the way it is. I like Mac's, and I own Mac's, including a new LCD iMac SuperDrive. I also own several PC's, including servers and client machines.
Mac users are going to have to face the reality of this terrible situation we're in, and accept that fact that change is needed.
TL
Well, hell Alex. I guess we're all just doomed to sit back and watch Apple fade into the sunset.
Because I tell ya right now. MOTOROLA is not going to improve their performance. Just home many years are we supposed to give them? Jeez, they just announced thousands and thousands of layoff's. That does not improve this situation.
Whatever Apple does, MOTOROLA HAS TO GO. They are not doing what is necessary to bring the Mac back in line, and competitive with the PC Platform.
All of Apple's Megahertz speak isn't going to cut it any more. You know, it never really even cut it back when it first started, it's just that the Gap was a hell of a lot narrower back then than it is now, and people didn't bring it to task as quickly.
Apple is getting their ass kicked, and hard decisions need to be made.
The only other alternative is this. Apple will have to back off the whole performance angle, and shift to a totally new Marketing strategy that doesn't even MENTION processors or performance.
It will have to be a 100% solutions based campaign. "Here's what you can really do with a Mac, and how you go about doing it".
In closing, either the Processor/Performance Angle has to be completely obliterated from from the Mac as a component of the product, or Apple has to fire Motorola and move on.
They simply cannot keep doing things the way they are.
I'm sorry if this upsets folks, but it's the way it is. I like Mac's, and I own Mac's, including a new LCD iMac SuperDrive. I also own several PC's, including servers and client machines.
Mac users are going to have to face the reality of this terrible situation we're in, and accept that fact that change is needed.
TL
Wow. I'm not too concerned. Whatever the reason for the G5 hold up, I'm sure it's a good one. Steve and company know the future of the company rests on their ability to deliver this baby and make sure it kicks ass. And kick ass it must. We'll see.
I got a feeling though that when the G5 is finally unleashed, Steve will be saying, 'Oh ye of such little faith, why did you doubt?'.
I got a feeling though that when the G5 is finally unleashed, Steve will be saying, 'Oh ye of such little faith, why did you doubt?'.
Re: Re: Re: geez
Maybe they are laying off the middle management deadwood they most certainly probably have. so they can build a modern plant (as hinted in the french article) that actually CAN provide timely and useful yields.
In fact with their past performance, if there was to be a g5 at ALL by MWSF, they would have to do exactly this... build a modern plant that can push out the product. The design is in place, it is simply their management and manufacturing that holds things back 2 years by not being able to follow through. That is why legions are screaming for Moto to farm out the actual work to someone who CAN do it. (and why the Chicken Littles say there is no recourse BUT to go with AMD)
Maybe they are laying off the middle management deadwood they most certainly probably have. so they can build a modern plant (as hinted in the french article) that actually CAN provide timely and useful yields.
In fact with their past performance, if there was to be a g5 at ALL by MWSF, they would have to do exactly this... build a modern plant that can push out the product. The design is in place, it is simply their management and manufacturing that holds things back 2 years by not being able to follow through. That is why legions are screaming for Moto to farm out the actual work to someone who CAN do it. (and why the Chicken Littles say there is no recourse BUT to go with AMD)
Regarding Motorola's fabbing, I seem to remember reading a press release on Motorola's site a couple of days ago saying that they were going to use the fabbing plant of some renowned third party. If this is so, we won't have to wait for an entire plant to be built from the ground. I think things will work out. 
Originally posted by Ouroboros
Regarding Motorola's fabbing, I seem to remember reading a press release on Motorola's site a couple of days ago saying that they were going to use the fabbing plant of some renowned third party. If this is so, we won't have to wait for an entire plant to be built from the ground. I think things will work out.
You speaking of Taiwan? Hey what else is assembled in Taiwan? Hmm...
---Moto Farms Out---
TSMC is the world's largest dedicated semiconductor foundry, providing the industry's leading process technology and the foundry industry's largest portfolio of process-proven library, IP, design tools and reference flows. The company has one advanced 300mm wafer fab in production and one under construction, in addition to six eight-inch fabs and one six-inch wafer fab. TSMC also has substantial capacity commitments at two joint venture fabs (Vanguard and SSMC) and at its wholly-owned subsidiary, WaferTech. In early 2001, TSMC became the first IC manufacturer to announce a 90-nanometer technology alignment program with its customers. TSMC's corporate headquarters are in Hsin-Chu, Taiwan. For more information about TSMC please go to http://www.tsmc.com.
Re: Re: Re: geez
I agree completely with everything you said up to this point.
That's an alternative, but it's not the only alternative. I see a number of alternatives in addition to switching to x86 and in addition to emphasizing usability over performance (which I don't think would work very well):
- Use dedicated on-board DSPs/ASICs to accelerate specific hardware functions dramatically, Amiga-style. I think this would be a great idea. What was the name of that company Apple bought a few months back with which it was rumored to be doing just this?
- Switch to IBM PPCs or POWER derivatives.
- Farm out PPC manufacturing to companies like Samsung and Toshiba, who can do it right.
- Rely more on multiprocessing. If, five years into the future, the Moto PPC turns out to be 4x slower than the Intel P5, why not utilize 4 or more low-power PPCs in an SMP or NUMA configuration?
- On a related note, re-write the OS X kernel and system libraries for pervasive multithreading, BeOS-style, for massive speedups on both uni- and multi-processors.
- Wait.
Obviously Apple has a number of options - even more than I listed here. Each of these I believe would be better than moving to an AMD x86 chip, except probably the last one.
Alex
I agree completely with everything you said up to this point.
That's an alternative, but it's not the only alternative. I see a number of alternatives in addition to switching to x86 and in addition to emphasizing usability over performance (which I don't think would work very well):
- Use dedicated on-board DSPs/ASICs to accelerate specific hardware functions dramatically, Amiga-style. I think this would be a great idea. What was the name of that company Apple bought a few months back with which it was rumored to be doing just this?
- Switch to IBM PPCs or POWER derivatives.
- Farm out PPC manufacturing to companies like Samsung and Toshiba, who can do it right.
- Rely more on multiprocessing. If, five years into the future, the Moto PPC turns out to be 4x slower than the Intel P5, why not utilize 4 or more low-power PPCs in an SMP or NUMA configuration?
- On a related note, re-write the OS X kernel and system libraries for pervasive multithreading, BeOS-style, for massive speedups on both uni- and multi-processors.
- Wait.
Obviously Apple has a number of options - even more than I listed here. Each of these I believe would be better than moving to an AMD x86 chip, except probably the last one.
This I agree with too. But rather than adopting AMD and making their systems more similar to everyone else's, I think Apple needs to do just the opposite: Make them less similar. I think they should distance themselves as much as they can from PCs, because it's the uniqueness factor of the Mac that has always and I believe will continue to be their mass-market appeal. Make the Mac more like an appliance, a tool, a digital hub, something that isn't offered anywhere else. I do believe x86 would be a death spell for Apple any way it's sliced.
Alex
Missing the point?
Perhaps I've got this all wrong, but my impression is that Apple kit, besides being a hell of a lot nicer to use and have about the place, actually achieves at least as good a workrate as the best PCs in most areas. Isn't this what matters? It sounds as if MWNY will bring a pretty good quantum leap in performance, too.
Perhaps I've got this all wrong, but my impression is that Apple kit, besides being a hell of a lot nicer to use and have about the place, actually achieves at least as good a workrate as the best PCs in most areas. Isn't this what matters? It sounds as if MWNY will bring a pretty good quantum leap in performance, too.
Macs are plenty fast...developers need to catch up
With Xserve performance like this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020628/bs_nf/18421
RC5 performance like this:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop
Blast performance like this:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
It is obvious the Mac can be much faster than the PC with EXISTING processors. The question is, will more developers catch up and use Altivec as explained on:
http://www.xml.com/pub/r/1327
and
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html
By the way, you can forget PC benchmarks:
http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm
Altivec is even on the eMac and Flat Panel iMac.
It isn't the question of is the G4 fast enough. It is the question of whether developers will develop for the G4 more now that the iBook and older 15" CRT iMacs are the only G3s left standing.
With Xserve performance like this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20020628/bs_nf/18421
RC5 performance like this:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html#storytop
Blast performance like this:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html
It is obvious the Mac can be much faster than the PC with EXISTING processors. The question is, will more developers catch up and use Altivec as explained on:
http://www.xml.com/pub/r/1327
and
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html
By the way, you can forget PC benchmarks:
http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm
Altivec is even on the eMac and Flat Panel iMac.
It isn't the question of is the G4 fast enough. It is the question of whether developers will develop for the G4 more now that the iBook and older 15" CRT iMacs are the only G3s left standing.
Re: Missing the point?
A very reasonable observation, and one I do not disagree with.
Unfortunatley, this has turned out to be an un-marketable aspect of the Mac.
Not because it isn't true, but because people simply aren't willing to listen to it.
Stupid Humans
TL
A very reasonable observation, and one I do not disagree with.
Unfortunatley, this has turned out to be an un-marketable aspect of the Mac.
Not because it isn't true, but because people simply aren't willing to listen to it.
Stupid Humans
TL
Pieces de rechange
Going right back to the original post for a minute, my technical French is not quite up to scratch, but surely "pieces de rechange" means redundant (power supply, etc). Otherwise it makes no sense at all. What spare parts would they ship with?
Going right back to the original post for a minute, my technical French is not quite up to scratch, but surely "pieces de rechange" means redundant (power supply, etc). Otherwise it makes no sense at all. What spare parts would they ship with?
Re: Re: Re: RE: AltiVec will keep Apple ahead
It least it would be an Amiga with much better management. Commodore had the desktop video market all sewn up. Upper management (Irving Gould and Medhi Ali) installed a new director of engineering... The guy who came up with the IBM PC Jr! This guy put the new high end systems on the shelf and made the team design a bunch of systems that nobody wanted. Ever heard of the Amiga 600? Basically an Amiga 500 redone with surface mount chips and it cost a lot more to build! Other systems developed (Amiga 1000+) never saw the light of day. The Amiga 4000 was supposed to be the Amiga 3500 and was released years late. By that time the upper management had built their tax shelter in the Bahamas and skipped town. I see Commodore as an Enron, before Enron.
In Apple, I see some hope. Gawd!, was April 29, 1994 really that long ago? And why do I remember the date of Commodore's collapse?
It least it would be an Amiga with much better management. Commodore had the desktop video market all sewn up. Upper management (Irving Gould and Medhi Ali) installed a new director of engineering... The guy who came up with the IBM PC Jr! This guy put the new high end systems on the shelf and made the team design a bunch of systems that nobody wanted. Ever heard of the Amiga 600? Basically an Amiga 500 redone with surface mount chips and it cost a lot more to build! Other systems developed (Amiga 1000+) never saw the light of day. The Amiga 4000 was supposed to be the Amiga 3500 and was released years late. By that time the upper management had built their tax shelter in the Bahamas and skipped town. I see Commodore as an Enron, before Enron.
In Apple, I see some hope. Gawd!, was April 29, 1994 really that long ago? And why do I remember the date of Commodore's collapse?