Other Uses for the PowerPC 970

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
Maybe Apple is going to work with IBM and release MOSX for the PPC970 Blades O

Maybe that's what apple is doing with marklar too, all those wonderful 100+ processor intel systems out their with MOSX on them.... oh that would be nice...

Mainly because what I have read about Marklar, the interface is very clunky but runs very good as a server O

So maybe the mid range or higher server market is where they are going with it

But a PowerMac G5/PPC970 is just a wonderful thought.

If Apple developed a version of OSX server to work on these 970 blade systems (and possibly even an X86 version for Xeon and Itanium systems), it could be a very good business move.

 

[sedarby]

Originally posted by BenRoethig


If Apple developed a version of OSX server to work on these 970 blade systems (and possibly even an X86 version for Xeon and Itanium systems), it could be a very good business move.

Yes, and then they can just get out of hardware all together!

Think about it, they could drop this whole have to catch up with Windows thing and just push the software to new levels. Of course, this would probably be the end of Apple as we know it.

 

[praetorian_x]

Re: Re: why would the PowerPC 970 be a secret?

Originally posted by dongmin


If they announced 970-based Powermacs to be available in 6 months, NO ONE except for the truly clueless and desperate would buy the higher end models for the next 6 months. It would kill sales and Apple would be stuck with months of inventory that they can't get rid of. It would be suicide.

This is moderately true. Apple has enough cash on hand to deal with this situation though. Really, if apple wants to make any serious movement in the corporate world, they are going to have to adopt a more standardized roadmap based system. Currently, it is just too hard to plan around future platform changes. Uncertainty breeds a wait-and-see attitude, which further depresses sales.

Honestly, anyone who has bought a powermac in the last year and a half has probably had a niggling suspicion that their purchase was a stop-gap measure on the way to The Next Big Thing. Yes, a roadmap would hurt apple in the short run. But, long term, by smoothing out demand and eliminating uncertainty, it would likely be beneficial to them. And it would certainly be beneficial to their customers.

Cheers,
prat

 

[BenRoethig]

Originally posted by sedarby


Yes, and then they can just get out of hardware all together!

Think about it, they could drop this whole have to catch up with Windows thing and just push the software to new levels. Of course, this would probably be the end of Apple as we know it.

Think about this, the high end server/workstation market is dominated by unix variants. Mac OS X server has the potential become the standard OS in this market the way Windows has (unfortunately) become the standard OS on the desktop. No other operating system has the power, ease of use, and x11 compatibility that OSX has.

Why would this be the end of Apple? Apple does not currently build a high end server/ workstation. The desktop/ lowend server operations would be unaffected. In the end Apple could get some profits out of this which would only help the desktop systems.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Re: Re: why would the PowerPC 970 be a secret?

Originally posted by dongmin


If they announced 970-based Powermacs to be available in 6 months, NO ONE except for the truly clueless and desperate would buy the higher end models for the next 6 months. It would kill sales and Apple would be stuck with months of inventory that they can't get rid of. It would be suicide.

That's right.

Many call it the "Osborne Effect" after the defunct "luggable" PC clone maker in the 80's.

Google search turned up this clip from a Wired Magazine article (third paragraph from the bottom):

Announcing an upcoming product so as to freeze your rival's sales is a classic example of this strategy. But be careful. If you announce a spiffy new product, sales of your current product might suffer just like your competitors'. This outcome is known as the Osborne Effect, after the defunct pioneer portable-computer firm. Osborne was so successful in convincing people how great its next model would be, they waited for it, killing Osborne's cash flow.

 

[arn]

Yep... there is very little hard evidence that Apple will be using the 970's.

Most of it is speculation due to the design of the processor.

That being said, there have been minor rumors floating around that Apple will be using it... but most of what you've seen on the websites has been speculation.

arn

 

[ffakr]

Re: Altivec

Originally posted by Blackcat
Servers have no real need for Altivec, so the fact it is included means something.

Wrong! Encryption/Decryption algorithms tend to parallize very well. Internet servers running secure services take a big performance hit when the number of secure connections rise.
This is why a number of companies sell plug in encryption cards for servers... and they don't tend to be cheap.

Altivec can be extremely important to a server, especially as more services rely on encryption. Long live SSL and SSH!

 

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by arn
Yep... there is very little hard evidence that Apple will be using the 970's.

Most of it is speculation due to the design of the processor.

Well a better way to state that would be: "Yep... there is very little hard evidence THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GO PUBLIC WITH that Apple will be using the 970's."



Dave

 

[arn]

Originally posted by DaveGee


Well a better way to state that would be: "Yep... there is very little hard evidence THAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GO PUBLIC WITH that Apple will be using the 970's."

heh... Like I said... there have been rumors floating around less public places... but most of what is on the mac-web has been speculation.



arn

 

[jho4th]

silly question, but...

Hey... this is a silly question, but is the designation "G4" a motorola term or an apple term? What I'm asking is, if apple goes to the ibm970, will it be the "G5" or will they have to use something else?

Totally insignificant, pointless, etc... but just curious.

 

[ffakr]

Re: silly question, but...

Originally posted by jho4th
Hey... this is a silly question, but is the designation "G4" a motorola term or an apple term? What I'm asking is, if apple goes to the ibm970, will it be the "G5" or will they have to use something else?

I believe the "G" generational moniker has been adopted by both Apple and Motorola. The G4 is marketed by Motorola under the proper series number... ie. PPC 7455... but Motorola does present their processors on their roadmaps as G4, G5, G6 (well, at least they used to ;-)

 

[Foocha]

Think about this, the high end server/workstation market is dominated by unix variants. Mac OS X server has the potential become the standard OS in this market the way Windows has (unfortunately) become the standard OS on the desktop.

Much as I love Mac OS X, I think it's optimistic to imagine that it could take on Linux in server space, which has the advantage of:
- being free
- running on cheaper hardware
- being a lot faster
- better documentation

In my view, OS X Server has more of a role in file serving in a mixed client environment, where it competes toe-to-toe with Windows 2000 Server, not UNIX.

Let's hope that Apple has got something up its sleeve on the hardware-front. It's pretty key to the future of the company right now - however good the OS and the Apps are, without a great hardware platform to run them on, Apple will be doomed (Be teaches us that a software-only option is no option at all...)

 

[Sol]

XGrid

My guess is that it will be called the G5.

Considering all the talk about blade systems I am surprised no one has mentioned the XGrid (a recent Apple trademark/future product). I imagine software that could use the processing power of networked computers running some application, plug-in, etc. The software exists all-ready in 3D software, compositing, and other high end applications.

 

[Frobozz]

Re: is it worth buying a G4 PowerMac this year?

Originally posted by effectivity
Any thoughts? If IBM can put their plans in print, why can't Apple? It would help many people with their buying decisions.

The difference between the 500 MHz system you are on now and a dual 1.42 will be night and day. You will NOT be disappointed by the speed increase. I have a dual 1 gig that I upgraded from a single 400... WOW WOW WOW it is faster. It's not just the CPU speed that makes the difference... it's all the other components.

My guess is that the 970 will debut with 1.8 GHz clock speed that will be incrementally faster than the existing dual 1.42's. It's not going to be so much faster that you won't believe the difference. It certainy will be from what you have now, but if you need something NOW then you should just get the dual 1.42.

Personally, I will be waiting for the second revision of the 970 based macs.

 

[GPTurismo]

A) Apple should not get out of the hardware business. It's to much money to be lost.

B) If they do market osx for other systems, it should be for servers only, and then they can continue making consumer and professional level desktops and workstations. But if the there were more server choices for Netinfo networks, more abilities for graphic workstations to tie directly to the "Render Farms" people would more seriously look at OSX >_>

C) I love arn :\

 

[jettredmont]

Re: why would the PowerPC 970 be a secret?

Originally posted by effectivity
Why would Apple want to keep a new 64 bit machine secret? If I knew it was coming, I could budget for it. As I don't know it's coming, I'm not able to plan ahead. I can stick with a slow machine for 6 more months if I know the new machine is going to be much faster than what is available now.

If you knew the 64-bit 970 was coming, then you wouldn't buy a 32-bit G4 today. You said it. That's why Apple doesn't pre-release product plans.

Add to that, of course, the fact that once you publicly state you will be using something like the 970 it becomes a lot harder to back down, and you lose influence over your suppliers (for instance, right now IBM knows that Apple could switch over to another processor line and/or just plain skip the initial 970 should the 970 production not match up to IBM's statements; if Apple were on record saying they'd have a 970 out late this year then IBM gains a lot more influence in the relationship than it enjoys now).

And, of course, Apple has often derided the PC industry for substance-free hype and vaporware, and pre-announcing products that aren't at least 90% of the way out the door starts down that same path that MS and Intel have so often taken advantage of.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: Altivec

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Agreed,thats in there for apple! I think we will see a 970 in the mac announced this summer!

Not to rain on you parade, but this news makes an early debut of the 970 on Mac hardware much less likely.

An "early debut" before IBM's production facilities are in full swing would only be possible if IBM's primary use for the processor was Apple, and only if Apple was only going to ship a limitted amount of this processor immediately (say, in the XServe line).

I seriously doubt that IBM will be inclined to give Apple its pre-full-production chips instead of debuting the chip in their own blades. Of course, contracts might be drawn up to the contrary, but this news makes that at least somewhat less likely.

I strongly suspect that IBM and Apple continue to negotiate over the 970. In that view, IBM stating the 970 will have a home in its own blades can be seen as a negotiating move which will increase it's position in the negotiations.

 

[Foocha]

Apple's "no comment on unannounced products" is all very well for consumer products like iPod and iLife, but is entirely inappropriate if they are serious about getting into enterprise servers.

When you're making serious decisions about what server platform you're going to adopt, Apple's absence of a road map or any adequate level of documentation makes it impossible to make an informed decision.

We need a road map on the future for OS X Server, and some indication of what Apple plans for X Serve hardware in the future.

 

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by BenRoethig


Think about this, the high end server/workstation market is dominated by unix variants. Mac OS X server has the potential become the standard OS in this market the way Windows has (unfortunately) become the standard OS on the desktop. No other operating system has the power, ease of use, and x11 compatibility that OSX has.

First, I hope everyone here recognizes that the X11 work Apple has done and what it has in Beta right now is the piece that lives on the "workstation", not on the server. If you are operating your servers headless (which is true the majority of the time in high-end server farms, less so in lower-end corporate servers...) then Apple's recent X11 work doesn't affect your server at all. You have always been able to run your X11 apps there on an XServe or the like; you just need a computer with a good X11 client to see the graphical output (and Windows, unfortunately, only has passable X11 systems available for it).

Second, Apple's current offerings are definitely not "high end servers". They are low-end servers. High end servers are nearly exclusively 64-bit and nearly exclusively headless, and nearly exclusively managed using standard, tried-and-true Unix tools without any Apple enhancements. Breaking into this market would be nice, but OS X isnt a huge advantage here; it just isn't a liability as Windows is.

That, of course, does not mean that Apple couldn't work its way into the high-end server market the way it has the low-end server market. But, one step at a time. Apple is doing this the right way, with caution and humility, and that is the only way it will be able to displace any high-end players.

 

[Blackcat]

Re: Re: Re: Altivec

Originally posted by jettredmont

I seriously doubt that IBM will be inclined to give Apple its pre-full-production chips instead of debuting the chip in their own blades. Of course, contracts might be drawn up to the contrary, but this news makes that at least somewhat less likely.

Servers are mission-critical things, especially IBM servers. It makes sense to sell the first batch to Apple then put the next batch in your own stuff once production has ramped up.

Also, Apple could sell several hundred thousand 970 PowerMacs by 2004 if they're as good as we hope. IBM won't sell that many Blades at $28,000 for a 14 unit rack ($4800 minimum).

 

[MOSiX Man]

The G is getting old

I think that Apple should differentiate the PPC 970 from the rest of the PPC family, by giving it a new classification. Maybe something along the lines of:

'the PowerPC X1'

Considering that many jaded hardware junkies see the current PPC family as slow, differentiation may be good for marketing. Also, the 970 is really a distant cousin, in many respects, to all of the 'G' series PPCs. And, of course, the X ties into Apple's OS, too.

 

[Foocha]

I agree - it's time to drop the G - but I think Apple's overusing the X as it is (XServe is their worst example yet!)

 

[Blackcat]

Originally posted by Foocha
I agree - it's time to drop the G - but I think Apple's overusing the X as it is (XServe is their worst example yet!)

According to Steve that's "ten"Serve anyway

I'm going for PowerMac Extreme myself.

 

[Flowbee]

Re: The G is getting old

Originally posted by MOSiX Man
I think that Apple should differentiate the PPC 970 from the rest of the PPC family, by giving it a new classification. Maybe something along the lines of:

'the PowerPC X1'

I just hope they don't call it "PowerPC Extreme."

I don't know about anyone else, but I was a bit embarrassed when they announced the name 'Airport Extreme'... it sounds so 1999.

Edit: Just saw the post above. I guess there are opposing viewpoints.

 

[ryan]

Re: Re: is it worth buying a G4 PowerMac this year?

Originally posted by Frobozz

[snip]My guess is that the 970 will debut with 1.8 GHz clock speed that will be incrementally faster than the existing dual 1.42's. It's not going to be so much faster that you won't believe the difference. It certainy will be from what you have now, but if you need something NOW then you should just get the dual 1.42.
[snip]

By IBM's accounts the 970 is 2x as fast as a G4 running at the same MHz, so a 1.8GHz 970 would be like having a 3.6GHz G4, almost a full 1GHz faster than the combined speed of a dual 1.42GHz G4. Given than most apps and parts of OSX are not able to take full advantage of dual processors I bet the 970 would/will be blazingly fast even in comparison to today’s fastest G4 PowerMac.

But given all that I would agree with your overall assessment, if you need a faster machine now, buy one now. Or as I like to say, the fastest machine of tomorrow won't get the work you need done today completed any quicker.