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 More Motorola?
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
uh ok
To the person who said that iRumor's posts contradict each other and that they said 1.6ghz g4s will be released:
They say DEVELOPMENT of new procs has stopped thus if they have already developped the 1.6ghz why not sell them? But they wont come out with higher ones etc.
Another thing, the rumor that there will be Quad Proc G4s also makes sense with this one ---> moto stopped making faster units so apple aware of this and not having alot of options decided to stick 4 of those on a board to achieve decent speed etc.
Also to all those people wanting AMD: do you know how hot they get? even though they are more efficient than the P4s per mhz, doesnt mean they eat the same amount of energy as G4s, In fact they are much hotter than the pentiums! Of course the new motherboard with the 7lb heatsink would support this, but also quad G4s so who knows.
Oh and to the rumors of 2ghz g3s, I have not been following this closely but they released info of a 1ghz g3 almost (if not longer than) a year ago, so it would be possible that they have a 2ghz one right now - the reason apple doesnt put those in ibooks is that how would consumers react if a 1200 dollar ibook would be higher clocked than the top end towers?
To the person who said that iRumor's posts contradict each other and that they said 1.6ghz g4s will be released:
They say DEVELOPMENT of new procs has stopped thus if they have already developped the 1.6ghz why not sell them? But they wont come out with higher ones etc.
Another thing, the rumor that there will be Quad Proc G4s also makes sense with this one ---> moto stopped making faster units so apple aware of this and not having alot of options decided to stick 4 of those on a board to achieve decent speed etc.
Also to all those people wanting AMD: do you know how hot they get? even though they are more efficient than the P4s per mhz, doesnt mean they eat the same amount of energy as G4s, In fact they are much hotter than the pentiums! Of course the new motherboard with the 7lb heatsink would support this, but also quad G4s so who knows.
Oh and to the rumors of 2ghz g3s, I have not been following this closely but they released info of a 1ghz g3 almost (if not longer than) a year ago, so it would be possible that they have a 2ghz one right now - the reason apple doesnt put those in ibooks is that how would consumers react if a 1200 dollar ibook would be higher clocked than the top end towers?
If Apple releases quad G4s on the 5th, then I'll want one!!!!!!!!😱 😀 😀
(Guarenteed!!!!!!!!!!!)😉
This wont be the case if Apple adopts AMD's processors however...........🙁
(Guarenteed!!!!!!!!!!!)😉
This wont be the case if Apple adopts AMD's processors however...........🙁
mischief
macrumors 68030
There is no reason to assume....
that if CPU manufacturing moves to AMD that it will be an AMD chip and not a PPC designed by IBM and APPLE to be BUILT by AMD.🙄
Time for a "what if".
What If:
Apple buys out their options at Moto per the AIM contract. Apple then turns to IBM and AMD/nVidia to design a custom architecture sharing IBM's G3, Moto's Altivec and AMD's High speed mobo architecture. The resulting chip would be a BEAST and require a "Custom ASIC" Bus interface that could easily include toys like nForce, Rapid I/O and DDR.
So: Take an IBM 750FX, add AltiVec, DDR support, Core-Connect (IBM), L3 Cache Support, Rapid I/O, 3DNOW (AMD), and throw it all in a blender with a little Vodka.....😀 😎 😱 😛 😉 🙄
that if CPU manufacturing moves to AMD that it will be an AMD chip and not a PPC designed by IBM and APPLE to be BUILT by AMD.🙄
Time for a "what if".
What If:
Apple buys out their options at Moto per the AIM contract. Apple then turns to IBM and AMD/nVidia to design a custom architecture sharing IBM's G3, Moto's Altivec and AMD's High speed mobo architecture. The resulting chip would be a BEAST and require a "Custom ASIC" Bus interface that could easily include toys like nForce, Rapid I/O and DDR.
So: Take an IBM 750FX, add AltiVec, DDR support, Core-Connect (IBM), L3 Cache Support, Rapid I/O, 3DNOW (AMD), and throw it all in a blender with a little Vodka.....😀 😎 😱 😛 😉 🙄
G4scott
macrumors 68020
Ok... Let me start out by saying this... Apple will not ditch the PowerPC line of chips for at least 3 years. We will see 1.4-1.5 Ghz G4's in August, and we will see the G5 in the middle of next year. Apple knows that even if Motorola can't keep up in the microprocessor world, IBM is more than willing to jump in and pick up where Motorola left off.
When Apple first introduced the G4's, IBM had to make some of them because Motorola couldn't churn out enough working 500mhz chips. I'm pretty sure that IBM can make chips with alti-vec on them, and if the need arises, then they will.
Apple will NOT and I emphasize, NOT switch to the x86 platform any time soon. That would be a disaster, and then we'd be stuck with the same problem m$ will be stuck with when the x86 platform can't go any faster... The x86 architecture is OLD. It's like OS 9, it's been upgraded and patched so many times, it's hard to tell what it is now. The x86 platform is heading straight towards a brick wall at 3 Ghz, and Apple wants to stay clear from that disaster.
Motorola has plenty of tricks up their sleeves, but they just can't seem to get high speed chips out in enough numbers to make Apple happy. But, if Motorola fails Apple, there will always be IBM. Besides, Motorola is taking hard hits with the economy and losses. They're just trying to save their asses, so that there will be a Motorola 2 or 3 years from now.
Apple has too much at stake to ditch the PowerPC platform. Whether they keep up with Motorola, or switch to IBM, your Mac will still be using a chip with the PowerPC architecture.
Oh, and a note on Mac processors, there will be 1.4-1.5 Ghz G4's with DDR in August, and we will have G5's by this time next year. I am positive of this, and not just because of reading some rumor sites. The immediate future of Apple and Motorola may look grim, but we've been through worse, and we have to endure this downturn in the economy and see things through.
Stick with Apple, and you will see...
When Apple first introduced the G4's, IBM had to make some of them because Motorola couldn't churn out enough working 500mhz chips. I'm pretty sure that IBM can make chips with alti-vec on them, and if the need arises, then they will.
Apple will NOT and I emphasize, NOT switch to the x86 platform any time soon. That would be a disaster, and then we'd be stuck with the same problem m$ will be stuck with when the x86 platform can't go any faster... The x86 architecture is OLD. It's like OS 9, it's been upgraded and patched so many times, it's hard to tell what it is now. The x86 platform is heading straight towards a brick wall at 3 Ghz, and Apple wants to stay clear from that disaster.
Motorola has plenty of tricks up their sleeves, but they just can't seem to get high speed chips out in enough numbers to make Apple happy. But, if Motorola fails Apple, there will always be IBM. Besides, Motorola is taking hard hits with the economy and losses. They're just trying to save their asses, so that there will be a Motorola 2 or 3 years from now.
Apple has too much at stake to ditch the PowerPC platform. Whether they keep up with Motorola, or switch to IBM, your Mac will still be using a chip with the PowerPC architecture.
Oh, and a note on Mac processors, there will be 1.4-1.5 Ghz G4's with DDR in August, and we will have G5's by this time next year. I am positive of this, and not just because of reading some rumor sites. The immediate future of Apple and Motorola may look grim, but we've been through worse, and we have to endure this downturn in the economy and see things through.
Stick with Apple, and you will see...
Re: Re: rewrite
Well, sort of true. The OS provides services that the source code takes advantage of. However, once a program is compiled, it is in "machine code" for the particular target CPU. That's not portable to a different CPU architecture unless you use a heavy, performance-killing VM/emulation layer (think VirtualPC).
If Macs were to move from PPC to AMD Hammer, for instance, or Intel Itanium, or Sun SPARQ (heaven forbid not x86!), no matter how nice the OS is, all apps would need a recompile to run at "respectable" levels.
But, that having been said, I can hardly see Apple changing processor immediately after the OS X changeover ... this would be a huge PR mistake. You either change them both at once, or space out the changes so that people don't end up buying the same app three times in the space of a year.
Well, sort of true. The OS provides services that the source code takes advantage of. However, once a program is compiled, it is in "machine code" for the particular target CPU. That's not portable to a different CPU architecture unless you use a heavy, performance-killing VM/emulation layer (think VirtualPC).
If Macs were to move from PPC to AMD Hammer, for instance, or Intel Itanium, or Sun SPARQ (heaven forbid not x86!), no matter how nice the OS is, all apps would need a recompile to run at "respectable" levels.
But, that having been said, I can hardly see Apple changing processor immediately after the OS X changeover ... this would be a huge PR mistake. You either change them both at once, or space out the changes so that people don't end up buying the same app three times in the space of a year.
Re: Apple must go Intel
Why not? Intel is ignoring it (Itanium is not x86 compatible ... two years from now x86 is essentially dead unless AMD's Hammer hybrid takes off).
Why not? Intel is ignoring it (Itanium is not x86 compatible ... two years from now x86 is essentially dead unless AMD's Hammer hybrid takes off).
I have just three words....... RISK verses CISK. Which one would you rather have? Personally, I think the RISK processor technology has way more potential than the aformentioned.
No thanks on the x86 chips.
No thanks on the x86 chips.
Re: Re: Re: Re: rewrite
Yes, the OS provides a whole set of services. But, again, look at your example: unless you are downloading source code and compiling it yourself on Mandrake Linux for PPC and Mandrake Linux for Intel, every app you download in binary form will have one for the PPC architecture and one for the Intel architecture. The hardware is not COMPLETELY insulated from the application unless you go to a VM (Java-style) model where the "application" instructions get translated to hardware instructions. An application is compiled for a specific processor, and that is where it runs.
Which, again, leaves Apple with providing a VirtualPC type of layer (but in reverse), or leaves all developers to recompile all applications for the two architectures, and possibly distribute both versions side-by-side. Or, more likely, both (provide the slow but workable VM for apps not yet recompiled and re-bought, and ask developers to support both platforms for a time). For the consumer, you end up with both confusion (same product name and version for two different architectures on the store shelves) and frustration (history shows that even though it's just a recompile, the developers will generally charge full price to move from one platform to the other, or will at least charge something for the "upgrade").
Yes, the OS provides a whole set of services. But, again, look at your example: unless you are downloading source code and compiling it yourself on Mandrake Linux for PPC and Mandrake Linux for Intel, every app you download in binary form will have one for the PPC architecture and one for the Intel architecture. The hardware is not COMPLETELY insulated from the application unless you go to a VM (Java-style) model where the "application" instructions get translated to hardware instructions. An application is compiled for a specific processor, and that is where it runs.
Which, again, leaves Apple with providing a VirtualPC type of layer (but in reverse), or leaves all developers to recompile all applications for the two architectures, and possibly distribute both versions side-by-side. Or, more likely, both (provide the slow but workable VM for apps not yet recompiled and re-bought, and ask developers to support both platforms for a time). For the consumer, you end up with both confusion (same product name and version for two different architectures on the store shelves) and frustration (history shows that even though it's just a recompile, the developers will generally charge full price to move from one platform to the other, or will at least charge something for the "upgrade").
I can't see Apple ever moving to x86 based chips.
Like people have said, Apple have the option of buying the rights to altivec and the desktop PPC line from motorola, IBM could and already have in the early stages of the G4s introduction make G4s for apple.
Like people have said, Apple have the option of buying the rights to altivec and the desktop PPC line from motorola, IBM could and already have in the early stages of the G4s introduction make G4s for apple.
DakotaGuy
macrumors 601
Imagine this...
Okay what if Apple does what some of you would like to see and go with an x86 chip. Then Apple says what the heck, everyone knows the Intel name, so lets use that one. Some of you will be overjoyed to get your hands on that 3GHz Pentium 4 Power Mac, then of course we could put a big blower in the TiBook and get one of those nifty Mobile P4's in there. What do they run at... 1.2GHz. Okay now on to the consumer line...well we might as well throw out that G4 iMac, cause we can't have some PPC and some x86, so lets stick about a 1.6 P4 in there. Okay now we have to keep the price down on the eMac and the iBook, so we dump the G4 out of the eMac and stick a PIII running around 1.2Ghz and last that poor iBook...well heck if we are having this much fun dump that crappy G3 "Sahara" and stick in the worlds famous Celeron.
I DO NOT like this idea at all. Maybe you will go ahead on the pro machines, but the consumer machines will be crap. If you go Pentium 4 across the line...it would turn into a GHz marketing nightmare...this is all a dumb idea. Stick with Power PC...If Motorola won't do it, then buy out their part of the alliance and work with IBM.
Okay what if Apple does what some of you would like to see and go with an x86 chip. Then Apple says what the heck, everyone knows the Intel name, so lets use that one. Some of you will be overjoyed to get your hands on that 3GHz Pentium 4 Power Mac, then of course we could put a big blower in the TiBook and get one of those nifty Mobile P4's in there. What do they run at... 1.2GHz. Okay now on to the consumer line...well we might as well throw out that G4 iMac, cause we can't have some PPC and some x86, so lets stick about a 1.6 P4 in there. Okay now we have to keep the price down on the eMac and the iBook, so we dump the G4 out of the eMac and stick a PIII running around 1.2Ghz and last that poor iBook...well heck if we are having this much fun dump that crappy G3 "Sahara" and stick in the worlds famous Celeron.
I DO NOT like this idea at all. Maybe you will go ahead on the pro machines, but the consumer machines will be crap. If you go Pentium 4 across the line...it would turn into a GHz marketing nightmare...this is all a dumb idea. Stick with Power PC...If Motorola won't do it, then buy out their part of the alliance and work with IBM.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rewrite
I hope you are wrong on this, however if you are right, the application programmers should be shot. The way I understand application programming, which I am doing right now. You program in something, for instance C++, you then run a compiler program. The compiler program makes an exicutible file, that has married the C++ code to the OS APIs. This compiler can be issued from Apple, or some third party vendor. Therefore you can take the written C++ code and port it into any OS/Hardware combo as long as you have a compiler available for that platform.
Going from OS 9.x to OS X was very different because even though OS X is a mix of some existing technology, it was pretty much new. They needed to build new APIs, the APIs that they had are completly different than any before.
If what you are saying is true, than C programming would be completely different on a PPC machine, compaired to a WinTel machine. This I know is not true.
I will concide this, Apple will probably not go to the x86 processer, but not because of technical details. It will be because they are too proud to use a processors that they have been bashing for years. It's simple, they are too darn proud to allow us consumers the oppertunity for less expensive computers. They've got you, and your wallet.
I hope you are wrong on this, however if you are right, the application programmers should be shot. The way I understand application programming, which I am doing right now. You program in something, for instance C++, you then run a compiler program. The compiler program makes an exicutible file, that has married the C++ code to the OS APIs. This compiler can be issued from Apple, or some third party vendor. Therefore you can take the written C++ code and port it into any OS/Hardware combo as long as you have a compiler available for that platform.
Going from OS 9.x to OS X was very different because even though OS X is a mix of some existing technology, it was pretty much new. They needed to build new APIs, the APIs that they had are completly different than any before.
If what you are saying is true, than C programming would be completely different on a PPC machine, compaired to a WinTel machine. This I know is not true.
I will concide this, Apple will probably not go to the x86 processer, but not because of technical details. It will be because they are too proud to use a processors that they have been bashing for years. It's simple, they are too darn proud to allow us consumers the oppertunity for less expensive computers. They've got you, and your wallet.
ibookin'
macrumors 65816
I agree. Apple is in no position to either design or manufacture its own CPUs. I think that Apple would do much better by persuading IBM to license the AltiVec patent from Motorola and then use the 1.5-2GHz G3 in their machines. A G3-based PowerMac with AltiVec and a GeForce 4 would smoke both the current line of PowerMacs and PCs. I don't think Apple should abandon the PowerPC platform just yet, but they should stop using Motorola's chips.
pianojoe
macrumors 6502
Is there a G5?
Sorry if this is a stupid question:
Has Apple ever announced, or admitted, that it will use a new processor called "G5" in forthcoming machines, or is it just our "common sense" to assume that after the G3, and the G4, there must be a G5?
I understand that this assumption is based on Motorola's roadmap, but did Apple ever comment on this?
Sorry if this is a stupid question:
Has Apple ever announced, or admitted, that it will use a new processor called "G5" in forthcoming machines, or is it just our "common sense" to assume that after the G3, and the G4, there must be a G5?
I understand that this assumption is based on Motorola's roadmap, but did Apple ever comment on this?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rewrite
First of all, the compiler handles the CPU, not the OS frameworks and libraries. It won't, for instance, change your Aqua windowing calls to MS Windows windowing calls. It wont change your OpenTransport network calls to WinSock (but if you used posix instead you'd be 90% of the way there...). But, yes, as has been stated: if OSX itself, and all related Apple services, were on x86 hardware, moving an application over should just require a recompile (except that there are a significant number of apps that rely upon specific hardware characteristics, like the endian ordering of integers, that would require a bit of extra love and care).
You are missing the point.
Recompiling isn't difficult (usually). What is difficult is that you then have to distribute two different versions of your application.
Say you, as a consumer, own a copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. You go out and buy a new Mac today, move Photoshop over to the new computer (removing it from the old computer of course), and the world is okay. However, if the "new" Mac was an x86 machine running OSX/86, you wouldn't be able to just move your Photoshop copy over. You'd have to go to the store and "upgrade" to the same program compiled for the new processor.
This makes upgrading hardware inordinately expensive for anyone with any software investment whatsoever. You know how much success Apple has always had getting WinTel users to switch over to the Mac? Having to rebuy all their software is the biggest reason.
And, of course, lest you think there might be a silver lining on that cloud, no, WinTel users would not find the WinTel -> Mac switch easier. They would still have to buy new software, not because the machine code would be utterly different, but because the OS and related services are completely different (and that difference is not just a recompile on the part of the application programmer).
First of all, the compiler handles the CPU, not the OS frameworks and libraries. It won't, for instance, change your Aqua windowing calls to MS Windows windowing calls. It wont change your OpenTransport network calls to WinSock (but if you used posix instead you'd be 90% of the way there...). But, yes, as has been stated: if OSX itself, and all related Apple services, were on x86 hardware, moving an application over should just require a recompile (except that there are a significant number of apps that rely upon specific hardware characteristics, like the endian ordering of integers, that would require a bit of extra love and care).
You are missing the point.
Recompiling isn't difficult (usually). What is difficult is that you then have to distribute two different versions of your application.
Say you, as a consumer, own a copy of Adobe Photoshop 7. You go out and buy a new Mac today, move Photoshop over to the new computer (removing it from the old computer of course), and the world is okay. However, if the "new" Mac was an x86 machine running OSX/86, you wouldn't be able to just move your Photoshop copy over. You'd have to go to the store and "upgrade" to the same program compiled for the new processor.
This makes upgrading hardware inordinately expensive for anyone with any software investment whatsoever. You know how much success Apple has always had getting WinTel users to switch over to the Mac? Having to rebuy all their software is the biggest reason.
And, of course, lest you think there might be a silver lining on that cloud, no, WinTel users would not find the WinTel -> Mac switch easier. They would still have to buy new software, not because the machine code would be utterly different, but because the OS and related services are completely different (and that difference is not just a recompile on the part of the application programmer).
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but people should pop over to ArsTechnica.com and read some articles about processor design. At one time there were significant differences between RISC and CISC but over time those differences have faded. RISC processors have become more CISC like and vice-versa. There is an article comparing and contrasting the P4 and G4 which is the most appropriate to this discussion.
Overall the discussion about ISAs in this forum seems pretty silly. I doubt anyone writing and complaining about various ones or expounding on others develop at the level where an ISA even matters. Unless you are developing in very specific parts of a kernel, the ISA of the underlying architecture is of almost no concern. The frameworks and OS APIs are what matter to nearly all developers these days.
That said, anyone who seriously thinks Apple will turn to AMD and AMD will embrace Apple in the near team (2002-2003) is on crack.😀 As others have said so much better than I, Apple has way too much invested in G4 and AltiVec and too much on their plate with Mac OS X transitioning to even think about that. Similarly, AMD is not going to do anything right now that would jeopardize their 64-bit effort.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
Meaning PPC's made by IBM
What I find so alarming is that people in this forum are saying we'll jump ship to AMD or Intel. Not's not bloodly likely, folks... not unless they're doing the manufacturing of a PPC chip. It's far more likely that IBM will simply pick up the reigns for PPC chip production, and include AltiVec-- which Apple or IBM can purchase the rights from Motorola.
In order to change the actual chip platform, it'd require another "dark-age" of transition. Apple doesn't want or need this right now. Do you _really_ think they'll get all these publishers who just got done with an Carbon app to now make it a Carbon x86 app? Thay're not even making Cocoa apps yet! A lot of the perceived slowdown in OS X is because software engineers are not building exclusively for OS X in it's native language-- objective C. When was the last time you used a Cocoa app that seems slow? Never.
Concerning AltiVec-- they won't drop that any time soon. It's a MASSIVE speed boost over comparable CPU's per clock cycle. If they don't license it from Motorola, they can always make their own version (like Intel), but make it compatible with AltiVec. After all, if they make a AltiVec eXtreme, it could be so fast as to emulate original AltiVec code. Apple has done work with people who even do real time code-morphing.
To summarize: if the manufacturer of the chip changes, it will be to take the place of PPC/Altivec manufaturing... and NOT to change computing platforms.
What I find so alarming is that people in this forum are saying we'll jump ship to AMD or Intel. Not's not bloodly likely, folks... not unless they're doing the manufacturing of a PPC chip. It's far more likely that IBM will simply pick up the reigns for PPC chip production, and include AltiVec-- which Apple or IBM can purchase the rights from Motorola.
In order to change the actual chip platform, it'd require another "dark-age" of transition. Apple doesn't want or need this right now. Do you _really_ think they'll get all these publishers who just got done with an Carbon app to now make it a Carbon x86 app? Thay're not even making Cocoa apps yet! A lot of the perceived slowdown in OS X is because software engineers are not building exclusively for OS X in it's native language-- objective C. When was the last time you used a Cocoa app that seems slow? Never.
Concerning AltiVec-- they won't drop that any time soon. It's a MASSIVE speed boost over comparable CPU's per clock cycle. If they don't license it from Motorola, they can always make their own version (like Intel), but make it compatible with AltiVec. After all, if they make a AltiVec eXtreme, it could be so fast as to emulate original AltiVec code. Apple has done work with people who even do real time code-morphing.
To summarize: if the manufacturer of the chip changes, it will be to take the place of PPC/Altivec manufaturing... and NOT to change computing platforms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: rewrite
Apple's OS X package architecture allows you in theory (haven't seen it done in application yet with OS X) to package two different binary executables within a folder renamed with a .app extension. The OS can then manage the execution of the correct binaries based on the hardware profile.
Apple's OS X package architecture allows you in theory (haven't seen it done in application yet with OS X) to package two different binary executables within a folder renamed with a .app extension. The OS can then manage the execution of the correct binaries based on the hardware profile.
Re: uh ok
If you read more closly. They talk about the G5 NOT the G4.
"Then, in the middle of 2003, we will welcome the G5. This new supercomputer will feature a processor with speeds in excess of 1.6Ghz, and early versions will top out with a dual 1.8Ghz processor."
It's all right here. Also note: "and early versions..." This means they don't have a clue of what they are talking about.
If you read more closly. They talk about the G5 NOT the G4.
"Then, in the middle of 2003, we will welcome the G5. This new supercomputer will feature a processor with speeds in excess of 1.6Ghz, and early versions will top out with a dual 1.8Ghz processor."
It's all right here. Also note: "and early versions..." This means they don't have a clue of what they are talking about.
I hope so
After the huge mess when moto couldn't produce Faster G4 over 500 mhz, apple should have dropped them. Even now, IBM puts out a 1mhz G3 before Moto puts out their 1Mhz G4. What a slap in the face. Moto sucks at making modern day processors period. They need to stick to communications products only. The G4 is not much faster than the G3 still, but it has more enhancements. Then main reason they moved to the G4 so quick was to distance themselves from the IBM G3. Apple guessed wrong. They should have asked IBM to support a new chip with enhancements. I'm sure Apple was promised the sky by Moto, but Moto had no idea what the were getting into. IBM would have kept it real and produced on time results. I hope Apple will move to Amd or IBM soon.
After the huge mess when moto couldn't produce Faster G4 over 500 mhz, apple should have dropped them. Even now, IBM puts out a 1mhz G3 before Moto puts out their 1Mhz G4. What a slap in the face. Moto sucks at making modern day processors period. They need to stick to communications products only. The G4 is not much faster than the G3 still, but it has more enhancements. Then main reason they moved to the G4 so quick was to distance themselves from the IBM G3. Apple guessed wrong. They should have asked IBM to support a new chip with enhancements. I'm sure Apple was promised the sky by Moto, but Moto had no idea what the were getting into. IBM would have kept it real and produced on time results. I hope Apple will move to Amd or IBM soon.