Depends on how vague some of the rumors are, some are so logical rog that they fit like a puzzle. Then again, some information being "FACT" paints the picture quite nicely. I'm not arguing specs for everything... just arguing that the facts are there, the evidence is pointing it as such, and what it looks like or when it ships is still "Rampant speculation".
True, most stuff is kept so tightly under wraps it's hard to get a hold of, but the IBM deal isn't just a passing whim and wasn't a "RUMOR" but a factual tidbit that was presented by IBM to the masses. As in, it wasn't hidden. Therefore... if you can put 2 + 2 together... 4 comes screaming out in a hurry when you get the ol' comprehension working.
If they're releasing processors that are announced with AltiVec-compatible SIMD technology, which they "ARE" (not a matter of *IF* but *WHEN*)... it's obvious "WHY". There's not many other applications for this technology, it's obvious Motorola is lagging behind. It's obvious Apple's not primed and ready for a change to Intel/AMD (not an easy port with Carbon hanging around [ask Quark and Adobe]; and what of supporting the old PPC platform as well as the x86 platform at the same time... it'd be a mess). It's obvious from IBM's previous lack of interest in SIMD (it's why they split from the G4 roadmap ::gasping:
that something had to change their mind; since they continued to evolve the G3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit form with more emphasis on 64-bit for their servers; especially with Apple "HOPING" to bank the farm on G4 (which didn't work bad, but not as much as Apple had hoped). It's obvious that Linux/AIX isn't geared towards SIMD nor does SIMD have any viable rationale to IBM as a whole as they're not a "WORKSTATION" company on anything but ::gasping:: Intel, where MMX is available, and where Windows XP takes advantage of it.
Yet for Apple:
OS X uses a lot of AltiVec calls just in the system alone, being that ubiquitous "VELOCITY ENGINE" They always taunt.
64-bit benefits both IBM and Apple in servers, like Apple's XServe. The fact that it's MP-capable, means we could be seeing Dual Processor Servers and Workstations. IBM might even go crazy and use more...
Having another customer to offset the costs benefits IBM, as it reduces development costs and gives them a customer to recoup some of the investment in the technology. IBM lost quite a bit of this when they ixnayed on the G4, and if Apple dumps PowerPC altogether... they'd lose out "COMPLETELY". Apple supporting multiple processor platforms? Not likely. Most people aren't as stupid as Dvorak, and most can see how counter productive this truly is. More likely to see an evolution of the rumored PowerPC 615 technology that fused a x86 core into a 64-bit PPC. Once again... didn't happen then, not too likely now. The added cost and inefficiencies would make it more of a nightmare than sorting the G4 out was for Motorola.
Apple needs an alternative to the ever-slipping Motorola, who struggles with G4's and has from last information I saw... killed the G5. If Apple sticks with Motorola... what are they going to run? G4's? What comes after that? How do you keep pace with your competition?
Answer: You don't.
The PPC 970 is reverse compatible with the previous Apple processors, meaning it can run 32-bit code as is, like... RIGHT NOW. Moving to anything else would require more rewriting of the OS, porting of applications "YET AGAIN", etc. etc. Not a fun task when you just "FINALLY" are setting up shop on PPC, and still have yet to optimize some of the threadings in the system.
So, like I said prior... I don't want anyone on this thread to go out saying "WHOOPEEEE PPC 970 MACHINES TOMORROW! I'M ORDERING!!", but I am saying that if you pay attention to what's going on... it's quite obvious which direction things are going in. SIMD is of little use to IBM as there's not enough applications (much less an Operating System) to make usage of it, and it's not an area that IBM focuses much on. Their workstations are mostly Intel-based, running XP (MMX with support from Microsoft, who is the leading workstation vendor out there with the many CAD and Rendering programs out there running on it). Their servers however run on all manners of processors, and use either Linux or XP on their Itanium line, or AIX or Linux on their PowerPC, or Power4 line. Then they have a whole gamut that use other server OS's that are non-PPC/Power but IBM designed nonetheless.
None of which need SIMD.
Linux/POSIX apps. are written to be portable. They rarely call anything specific in terms of assembly-style code (in fact, Unix is a derivative of C). SIMD units in and of themselves are vector processors that are unique to their platform. This doesn't fall into line with Linux/POSIX apps... and a big part of why IBM avoided it in the past.
Get the message?
Who else could want a large desktop-sized processor that's more geared towards servers or workstations, that has a unique non-x86 architecture and works with SIMD?
Not Microsoft... they ditched on PowerPC after NT4.
BeOS? Done. They were focusing on Intel/AMD anyhow...
Palm? They're moving to ARM. Plus this would be farrrrrrrr too inefficient for PDA's. Even the G3 is out of it's league in this area, where Digital DNA (another Motorola chipset) is more geared.
So that's the point... this isn't as much a rumor as it is a fact that fits in a certain place that "NOONE" is talking about, at least not within the companies anyhow. LOGIC dictates where it's going... but what the final piece looks like is a mystery.
Yet if you tabulate and look at things as they stand...
Apple recently launched new Powerbooks, with the Ti laptops due to be changed, it's only a matter of time I feel before Apple launches the mid-level Aluminum Powerbook to slot between the 12" and 17" models and replace the Titanium model. This might even come around the time Apple ups the processor speeds, which I expect more than a processor switch.
Apple just launched new eMacs with "BRAND NEW" motherboard architectures... which to me means it's not highly likely for a drastic change for a bit.
Apple will likely launch new iMacs with updated innards...
The machines that haven't been updated much?
Desktops. Lonnnnnng overdue, and slow-selling. The area that is most awaited. When you compare the G4 to the P4, it's losing ground fast. Even the AMD low-end offerings (Duron) are closing in on the G4. The G4 is still comparable to the PC laptop market, but in the desktop... they're behind *RIGHT NOW*. The Mac as an OS is a better OS, but with the hardware it's saddled with... ounce for ounce, the G4 with a superior OS is getting beat at some tasks in the hallmark apps like Photoshop and After Effects/Premiere to what Apple can do with Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and After Effects on Mac. That's a biggggggggg deal when this is your market.
The XServes were recently updated, but if the desktop is more powerful than your servers... you might have problems. Plus the 64-bit nature of the processor would help with server-based functionality in terms of storage and database number crunching. This is the "HIGH END" of AphÕj so it's only logical that they will be replaced faster if something new processor-wise comes along that is more powerful.
iBooks. They're still on G3's, and I'm pretty sure they're bound for a lower-end G4 here soon. If it is faster than the Powerbook line... why would anyone buy the Powerbook? It might even share it's architecture with the Powerbook lineup that's out there now, just coming with slower processors and a DVD-ROM or CD-ROM vs. getting a Superdrive or Combo drive like the Powerbook lineup. It however might be available with a Combo drive as an option on a model or something. I just doubt we'll see Apple selling these things for a hefty price, and I doubt Superdrives will be an option "RIGHT NOW".
It's not rocket science. I'm not discussing enclosure designs, not saying anything about Cube shaped desktops or all aluminum enclosures. It's the simple stuff that you can just logically piece together based on what's out there. IBM has no reason to be adding SIMD to a processor lineup if they're not courting a customer that can actually make usage of it. The fact that IBM themselves have said that "IT IS" backwards compatible with AltiVec also has to make you scratch your head. This isn't "RUMOR" or "SPECULATION" but "FACT".
IBM will use the PPC 970 (AS IS) but... will they make usage of the SIMD portion?
I don't think so.
Yet, having it on the chipset helps Apple out, offsets some of the costs, and gives IBM a bigger slice of a pie that they once held a larger share of. Now they might have the whole damn pie before too long, while Motorola sits on the outside looking in, perhaps even leaving the PowerPC fray as a PC processor maker, and just focusing their efforts on embedded applications, which is actually a bigger market than Apple believe it or not. IBM isn't so much embedded with their chips, and is a better fit to Apple. Always was, always will be. After all, the Power in PowerPC comes from the fact that the PowerPC was based on the Power line of processors, like the Power3 and Power4 and forthcoming Power5. IBM is more geared towards servers because, for them, that's where the $ is at. Much as it is for Sun. Much as it is for SGI, HP, Intel (Itanium), et al.
So like I said... it's a "WHEN" not an "IF"... but that could be anytime from WWDC to Q2 2004. Don't get all hyped, but if Apple can release with a September date at the latest... that's in the prime shopping time of the year (Christmas) and would help Apple "STRONGLY" on sales into 2004.
