Powerbook and PowerMac Updates - October 19th?

[Evangelion]

On the other hand, considering the hype that a lame iPod update and a builtin webcam in the iMac generated - maybe some papers would push real news off the front page and feature an Apple story!

Curious: what's so lame about the iPod-update? they reduced the size, increased the HD-space, added a black version, added features and increased the size of the screen, while keeping the price at the same level. How exactly is that "lame"?

 

[Bear]

One consideration would be "how much software do you plan to buy for the Mac"?

If the answer is "A lot", then realize that you may need to buy new copies or upgrades when the MacIntel version of the software comes out.

So, figure in twice the cost of whatever software you plan to buy (unless it's lightweight stuff that you'll be happy to run more slowly in Rosetta).

Figuring double is overkill. Most software you'll be able to pay just the upgrade price to get a version with Universal Binaries. In short, I expect someone has purchased software that has cost $5000 that the upgrade price will be somewhere between $500 and $1500.

Also, people tend to upgrade software over time anyway, so this cost isn't that big a deal. Or to put it another way, next year, software will start to come with Universal binaries. After a couple of years, a person gets an Intel based Mac - they move their software licenses from their old PPC system. Some of the softwrae will alredy have Universal Binarie, so maybe they only need to update a fraction of their software. So again, the price of getting new software is minimized.

 

[AidenShaw]

this doesn't add up

Dothan might be the lowest common nominator among future Macs. If the develop for Dothan, all their software will run just fine on Merom, just faster . But if the would develop for merom (for example), they might grow accustomed to capabilites that would not be present in all future Macs (since some of them would use Dothan).

Intel doesn't go backwards, though. When an ISA feature is added to the CPU, it is found in all the later ones....

Dothan's successor "Yonah" is dual-core, SSE3 - but still 32-bit. Yonah's successor "Merom" is 64-bit, SSE3.

All the current Celeron, Pentium and Xeon chips are 64-bit, SSE3. The DTK system is a P4 with 64-bit and SSE3.

Also, consider the fact that if they wait for Merom across the board, then all MacIntels could be 64-bit. But no - OSX86 is a 32-bit operating system with only 32-bit apps.

There will be another O/S porting exercise in Apple's future - the port from 32-bit OSX86 to 64-bit OSX64.... "Fat" binaries will become "Fatter" binaries - you'll need both x86 and x64 instruction packages in the files.

Also note, that unlike PowerPC, an x64 chip is faster in 64-bit mode than in 32-bit mode. If you're running a 32-bit O/S on a Merom, all the speed-enhancing changes to the x64 architecture will be idle - they only get turned on with 64-bit O/S and applications.

If Merom is faster at 32-bit, it'll only be because of faster clock, better cache and other changes. All the 64-bit goodness will be unutilized.

 

[Evangelion]

Intel doesn't go backwards, though. When an ISA feature is added to the CPU, it is found in all the later ones....

I wasn't talking about ISA, I was talking about such things as number of cores, amount of cache, FSB-speeds and the like. True, Dothan will run software designed for later Intel-CPU's, I'm not disputing that. But those other CPU's might have capabilities not found in Dothan, even though they are compatible.

 

[AidenShaw]

Curious: what's so lame about the iPod-update? they reduced the size, increased the HD-space, added a black version, added features and increased the size of the screen, while keeping the price at the same level. How exactly is that "lame"?

Minor bumps in all regards, right? Just like every other manufacturer does, keep making minor improvements.

And they finally stopped hiding the video capability of the PortalPlayer chip - hooray!

I wasn't talking about ISA, I was talking about such things as number of cores, amount of cache, FSB-speeds and the like.

But that's all minor and speculative - the big change in Merom over Yonah is 64-bit. That's the only reason to "wait" for Merom, a minor speed bump or cache change isn't big enough news. (assuming that the OSX86 and S/W is ready)

True, Dothan will run software designed for later Intel-CPU's, I'm not disputing that.

No, Dothan will *not* run software designed for later ISAs.

Maybe you just got a bit dyslexic, but the true statement is:

"True, later Intel-CPUs will run software designed for Dothan, although not as fast as it could be."

 

[robbieduncan]

I wasn't talking about ISA, I was talking about such things as number of cores, amount of cache, FSB-speeds and the like.

Real-world user applications don't code to these features anyway. Unless you are writing in assembly language you can ignore pretty much all of this.

You write code to the APIs provided (mostly by the OS). It's up to Apple to ensure that the OS and it's APIs run as well as possible on the platform. Even then I doubt much of the code care about FSB-speeds!

 

[Evangelion]

Minor bumps in all regards, right? Just like every other manufacturer does, keep making minor improvements.

50% more capacity, significantly larger screen, considerably thinner, more features. I'm sorry but I can't really consider these to be "minor improvements". Is the device radically different? No. Is there a need for the iPod to be radically different? No.

No, Dothan with *not* run software designed for later ISAs.

For the last time: I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISA! I WAS TALKING ABOUT CPU'S! For example, A64 supports bot regular x86 and x86-64. But I did not talk about the ISA'S, I talked about the CPU

Real-world user applications don't code to these features anyway. Unless you are writing in assembly language you can ignore pretty much all of this.

You write code to the APIs provided (mostly by the OS). It's up to Apple to ensure that the OS and it's APIs run as well as possible on the platform. Even then I doubt much of the code care about FSB-speeds!

Well, you could design the CPU with certain hardware in mind. And, after all, Apple is telling developers to develop for Dothan. Why make that recommendation if it doesn't matter unless you are coding in asm?

 

[jholzner]

I'd like to point out that all of the PowerBooks except the 12" have now moved to 3-5 day shipping time. First the powermacs did yesterday but not the PB. Now both have. Looks like updates are coming but not to the 12" as suggested in the rumor.

 

[AidenShaw]

what's your definition of ISA ??

For the last time: I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ISA! I WAS TALKING ABOUT CPU'S! For example, A64 supports bot regular x86 and x86-64.

Of course, since A64 supports both the x86 ISA and the x64 ISA.

But I did not talk about the ISA'S, I talked about the CPU

I think that what you're calling the CPU, I'm calling the ISA - the "Instruction Set Architecture". Programmers (and compilers) don't twiddle logic gates, they "call" the processor's ISA - the "API" for the CPU.

x86 and x64 are two different ISAs. SSE2 and SSE3 refer to two different sets of ISA features. SSE3 in the x64 ISA is architecturally different from SSE3 in the x86 ISA.

Dothan supports the SSE2 32-bit ISA architecture. Yonah supports the SSE3 32-bit ISA. Merom supports the SSE3 64-bit ISA.

If you give a Dothan instructions from an SSE3 ISA, the CPU will give you an invalid instruction fault. If you give Dothan or Yonah instructions from the x64 ISA, all kinds of mayhem may result ("instruction fault" if you're lucky, but it might be that an x64 instruction starts with the same bit pattern as a different instruction from the x86 ISA, and the wrong instruction executes.).

In my definition, you are *exactly* talking about ISAs.

 

[Evangelion]

I think that what you're calling the CPU, I'm calling the ISA - the "Instruction Set Architecture".

Then we are talking about two different things. I'm talking about the processor that is inside the computer, you are talking about the ISA that that CPU implements. And the CPU can impelement more than one ISA. And I'm not talking about the ISA, I'm talking about the processor.

In my definition, you are *exactly* talking about ISAs.

No, no and no. I'm talking about PROCESSORS, not ISA's. Processor is not an ISA. Pentium 4 is not an ISA. but a CPU that implements certain ISA's. Opteron is not an ISA, it's a CPU that implements certain ISA's. You talk about ISA's, I talk about processors, and the two are two different things.

 

[HelloKitty]

From AppleInsider:
Unless plans change drastically over the next several months, AppleInsider sources expect these new Pro machines to be the last PowerPC-based systems to ever emerge from Apple's Cupertino, Calif.-based design studios.

Is this true?? Isn't it true that Apple won't be switching the PowerMacs until end of 2007 as addressed by Steve Jobs?..

If this is the case, then we probably won't see any updates on these Dual Core machines until end of 2007?..Hmmm..

Well..still wondering what kind of Pro line Apple will come up with when they make the switch

 

[~Shard~]

From AppleInsider:
Unless plans change drastically over the next several months, AppleInsider sources expect these new Pro machines to be the last PowerPC-based systems to ever emerge from Apple's Cupertino, Calif.-based design studios.

Is this true?? Isn't it true that Apple won't be switching the PowerMacs until end of 2007 as addressed by Steve Jobs?..

If this is the case, then we probably won't see any updates on these Dual Core machines until end of 2007?..Hmmm..

Well..still wondering what kind of Pro line Apple will come up with when they make the switch

Nothing odd with this at all. The 970MP PowerMacs will be the last PPC PowerMacs. They will be released next week, see a marginal update mid-2006, and then we will see the Intel PowerMacs in early 2007 based on Conroe/Woodcrest. What exactly are you confused/concerned about?

 

[BenRoethig]

The last PPC PB revision can be summed up as a skeleton crew manning a sinking ship: not enough manpower, not enough resources to solve the problems. Now we're not even upgrading to the 7448???!!! Apple apparently was waiting all this time for the 7448 to be available in quantity, but I'm betting they've done nothing else productive with all that time. No attempt to do PCI-express, etc. So we'll end up with the same updated components that we could have had weeks ago--ATI 9800, 7200rpm HHD, etc.--and not even a 7448, for all the extra waiting. If Apple still gave a crap about the PB maybe they would have had enough people and resources to overcome the apparent 7448 reliability problems and maybe even do PCI-express. Now, however, we're looking at getting the same sucker bump we could have had weeks ago, since Apple didn't even put enough resources into making a pin-compatible CPU upgrade work. Apple has somehow managed to be both shortsighted and too forward thinking (think Intel) at the same time. The 7448 was the one part of the PB revision everyone pretty much took for granted, but Apple has proved so negligent, and thus so incompetent, that now we are stuck at 1.67 gHz with the current 7447A and its 166 FSB.

If Appleinsider is right about the 7448, I'm calling this debacle the 2005 PowerBook Speed Dump. That being said, let's not le the PB anger flood the thread--the new PMs sound awesome and I am now seriously considering buying one of those instead. I'll go have some kool-aid and calm down.

Not that it matters to anyone, but a 9800 (or x800) would melt the current line. It is designed to desktop replacement notebooks. Unless you want a Dell XPS with an Apple logo, the chip is not an option. X700 Max. That being said, I don't think you'll see PCI-Express unless there's a move to low Power G5s or until they move to Intel next year. The G4 architecture would need a major update to be able to handle PCI-E and DDR2. It'd be like putting a major shopping mall on a single lane dirt road.

 

[balamw]

not gonna get a pb until the intels are in them. i want to get ms windows to use excel.
the excel in the mac office sucks for graphs.

Windows Excel sucks for scientific/engineering graphs, you must mean business charts. Excel does them OK.

Codeweavers is planning a version of crossover office for OS X, so you should be able to do what you intend without even leaving OS X.

B

 

[ksz]

you generally quote computational rate more in terms of Flops not the frequency of the clock of the chip.

It's even more complicated than that. Flops is the floating point operations per second which is not necessarily the best single benchmark. SPECint and SPECfp were popular for a while since they reported both the integer and FP performance separately. Supercomputers are still generally measured by their TeraFLOPS, but that is due primarily to the fact that they are designed for complex scientific and modeling operations -- i.e., the typical supercomputer applications are extremely math-heavy.

The point is that if you are getting a real-world performance of X operations per second with a 2.5 GHz PPC, then going to quad-core will *essentially* quadruple that to 4X operations per second, give or take a few for bus and I/O contention.

 

[Butts M Biggilo]

Have you seen this??

 

[joecool85]

Nothing odd with this at all. The 970MP PowerMacs will be the last PPC PowerMacs. They will be released next week, see a marginal update mid-2006, and then we will see the Intel PowerMacs in early 2007 based on Conroe/Woodcrest. What exactly are you confused/concerned about?

I agree with all of this. I would dare say 85% chance this is spot on.

 

[HelloKitty]

Nothing odd with this at all. The 970MP PowerMacs will be the last PPC PowerMacs. They will be released next week, see a marginal update mid-2006, and then we will see the Intel PowerMacs in early 2007 based on Conroe/Woodcrest. What exactly are you confused/concerned about?

I thought AppleInsider meant that there will be no revisions to these Dual Core machines at all until end of 2007. My mistake..

Just a thought, I think those Dual Core machines will probably sell much better (or terrific) if Apple comes up with some kinda "insurace" plan that Microsoft does on the XBOX, you know, if you purchase the plan for $200 (or whatever), we can get you a new machine if you pay another $500 (or whatever) once the new Intel machines come out

Well..I guess it's impossible, since they're Apple Computer, and they always make us spend money

 

[ksz]

You are touching a very interesting subject in the computer world. Indeed there are people out there who don't see any benefit for themselves to have a new and faster computer with a more modern OS and Applications. Many Software got to a point where it is just close to perfect as it is and can't be really improved anymore. The group of these people gets bigger with every day. Take for example a word processor. Word 5.1 for Mac was doing almost everything very well for the average user back then, not much room for improvements. If you compare the actual MS Word with that old Word from 1991(!!!!). Since then many features were added, but basically most of them are never used by the average user.
...<cut>...

New killer apps that require more computational power will encourage upgrades. For game players, Doom3 was such an application. It justified upgrades to the latest $500 graphics processors. If you are content to play Doom1 forever, that is one thing, but newer versions of software and new types of software will continue to be produced. For many, Word 5.1 might be sufficient for a long time, but for others the collaboration, rich-media, more flexible layout and formatting commands, and other features of the newer version will justify an upgrade.

The new PMs are not aimed at the average user. The Mac mini and iMac are targeted for them.

As for me, my only Mac is an Aluminum PowerBook 15" running at 1.25 GHz. It was purchased in October of 2003 and it gets bogged down when importing and editing video with Final Cut Express. It can run several lightweight processes at once, but it cannot chew on much more. When ripping CDs to AAC for my iTunes music collection or converting a movie to MPEG2 for burning to DVD, it likewise takes up a lot of CPU cycles. It is not practical to perform several multimedia tasks in parallel. My main attraction to the quad-core PPC is in the ability to run several heavyweight processes concurrently and speedily.

 

[jholzner]

Was that for real? That's funny but somone is going to lose their job! It's gone now though

 

[Mr Maui]

It would be kind of disappointing if Apple do end up making a substantial change to the G5 towers at this late date, because that in turn points to the x86 switch being completed at the later end of Jobs' vague estimates. ...

This is what Steve said at WWDC anyway. PMs = 2007.

Yes they will. You can't run OS X on Dell, you you will be able to run Windows on Mac.

Don't bet on it. Windows may run on the Devo boxes ... may ... however, I'm sure Steve doesn't want to makes his boxes vulnerable to Windows viruses, nor to give Bill Gates an angle into his company. JMO

 

[hayesk]

Was that for real? That's funny but somone is going to lose their job! It's gone now though

I didn't even think for a second that would be real.

 

[Mr Maui]

So they would sell the machine for only 100$ less than the old Dual 2.3GHz machine, even though it is only 200MHz faster? Not gonna happen... And I would consider that a ripp-off as well and wouldn't buy a machine like that...

groovebuster

P.S.: Regarding the rest of the line-up it also wouldn't make sense to put two single core processors into the machines instead of one dual core processor. Since one processor will be always cheaper than two. My bet is that the whole PowerMac line moves to dual core processors and that the single cores are exclusive iMac in the future. It would be the perfect distinction Apple was hoping for for so long...

You know with the top iMac having a faster processor than the lowest PowerMac (albeit one versus two ... before flaming begins ), you know Apple is about to do something with the Pro line. Slower chips in Pro versus faster chips in Consumer will not fly for long. iMac all in ones will start being bought even by professionals soon.

 

[AidenShaw]

the compiler has an ISA switch

Well, you could design the CPU with certain hardware in mind. And, after all, Apple is telling developers to develop for Dothan. Why make that recommendation if it doesn't matter unless you are coding in asm?

The compiler has several switches that specify which level of the ISA to use.

The compiler uses that switch to generate assembly instructions appropriate for the desired target ISA.

If you specify the switch -msse3, the compiler will generate code that will fail on a Dothan.

For more info, see:

http://developer.apple.com/document...gration_sse_overview/chapter_2_section_4.html

The instruction set architecture (ISA) for SSE is similar to other parts of the x86 ISA. No operations take more than two register operands.
...
The Intel SIMD vector architecture was deployed over time as a series of four vector extensions to the x86 ISA. The first was MMX, followed by SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. SSE3 is the most recent, and is an optional feature of machines supported by MacOS X for Intel. The other three are guaranteed to be there, so you need only worry about SSE3.

 

[Some_Big_Spoon]

That's because PowerBooks aren't really modern pro machines (machines we have now would have been "Pro" few years ago). When they're all you can get, you use what you got. I hate the current powerbooks for so many reasons, but if I want to use the software, I have to buy the craptacular hardware.

From the sounds of the rumors, next update will also be crap in terms of speed... but maybe they'll make it come in black! Then all will be forgiven!

New killer apps that require more computational power will encourage upgrades. For game players, Doom3 was such an application. It justified upgrades to the latest $500 graphics processors. If you are content to play Doom1 forever, that is one thing, but newer versions of software and new types of software will continue to be produced. For many, Word 5.1 might be sufficient for a long time, but for others the collaboration, rich-media, more flexible layout and formatting commands, and other features of the newer version will justify an upgrade.

The new PMs are not aimed at the average user. The Mac mini and iMac are targeted for them.

As for me, my only Mac is an Aluminum PowerBook 15" running at 1.25 GHz. It was purchased in October of 2003 and it gets bogged down when importing and editing video with Final Cut Express. It can run several lightweight processes at once, but it cannot chew on much more. When ripping CDs to AAC for my iTunes music collection or converting a movie to MPEG2 for burning to DVD, it likewise takes up a lot of CPU cycles. It is not practical to perform several multimedia tasks in parallel. My main attraction to the quad-core PPC is in the ability to run several heavyweight processes concurrently and speedily.