Slashdot Mirror
IBM to Release 64-Bit, 1.8GHz Processor in 2003
Professor_Quail writes "A Forbes article supposed to be released tomorrow gives some details about the new PowerPC processor that IBM and Apple have been working together on; the chip is slated to be introduced at the end of next year. The introduction of this chip should put to rest any speculation that Apple is moving to an Intel platform."
All it really says is that they plan to go into production of the 64 bit chips toward the second half of next year. "Industry" experts say that it would be used in the Mac. This is certainly a far cry from Jobs saying it - if anything, I think it makes the race between the two competing chip manufacturers all the more interesting. Apple, I should think, will select the company which will allow it to compete most effectively in the marketplace - not the first one who says in a press release that they plan to release bigger, faster, more powerful chips sometime next year..
But that's a big *IF* . But it would be cool to have another option out there.
I'm sure they'll spin the 64-bit thing as being 'better' just like they've convinced their loyal followers that the mhz-myth makes an 800mhz G4 perform like a 2+ Mhz Athlon or Intel processor. By the time they even finish developing this 1.8ghz chip, those of us using 32bit chips will be chuggling along at 4ghz or so and waiting for the 5ghz on the horizon.
C'mon ... Mac OS/X for x86 doesn't really have much to do with Intel, but with Microsoft. A Mac OS/X running on Intel hardware is nothing but Microsoft's worst nightmare in terms of what it can do to its market. So it's just a trumpcard in negotiations with Microsoft (i.e. "If you stop Office/Mac, we drop the atomi^M^M^M^M^M Mac OS/X for x86").
The Raven
The Raven
I'd rather have a Power4 (which is available now of course) than wait a year for a crappy stripped Power4.
-Kevin
For Apple, I'd say large image processing, and video editing.
The key is going to be HUGE memory support when Apple comes out with it, 16Gb or more.
It's the efficiency of the processor that matters, which is measured in IPC, the "instructions per cycle" that it can execute.
Be careful. Some architectures require more instructions to do the same thing. For instance, on 6502 or x86, you can load an integer from memory and add it to a register in one instruction, whereas on ppc, arm, or mips, this takes two.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Further proof that OS-X is NOT an unix OS is the fact that you can't backup HFS+ files using standard GNU tar."
/etc/fstab and so forth."
GNU is not UNIX.
"Also, OS-X doesn't include simple items such as
fstab does not a UNIX make. Besides, fstab is there and useable if you want. NetInfo is used as first choice only.
OSX is as much a UNIX as Linux is, if you wish to be pedantic. Both use GNU/BSD tools on top of a kernel.
Why bother bickering over which is the most UNIX-like or UNIX-based? This isn't a pissing contest.
-- Jared Earle | "There is no spork"
The Didge Viper revs to less than 6krpm.
What can beat it? Normal street cars cant. Take your 1.8L super-big-exhaust-turbo civic/integra/prelude/whatever and see what happens.
YOU GET SMOKED!
Why? Because the viper has mad displacement. More displacement means more energy per revolution, aka more computation per clock, ala AMD or the P3. P4 is more like the rice burner, revving to insane RPM but generally not doing much per revoltion. It only gets "fast" because it revs so high.
Well, let's see, pay more and it works or pay less and babysit it ... gee, what's my time worth again? More than about $3,000 once every five years or so, for sure. (Yes, I said five years. I'm on a three-year-old machine now any my previous two Macs held up for five years each before they were just plain obsolete.)
Isn't this the same reason most of us are moving away from Sun to begin with?
No, it's because they cost $40k each just for the right to win the pissing contest with the ISP next door. EVERY situation I've seen a large Sun used it could have been handled with Linux on a couple of Xeons or on an Xserve and MOSXS. There's no compelling reason to use a Sun anymore other than to win the pissing contest with the sysadmins of the competitor (what competitors are left, at least).
First things first, they cost twice as much as a comperable PC.
;-)
Yes, but you only have to buy them half as often.
And, incidentally, no they don't. You can find cheaper PCs, but most often a prebuilt system with the same features as the Mac-- like a widescreen LCD, or a Superdrive, or Gigabit Ethernet, whatever-- will be within 15% of the Mac's price.
Second, if the logic board or one of the other pieces of proprietary hardware breaks....
Speaking as a long-time Mac owner... doesn't happen. I have seen a couple of systems fail while under warranty, but those of course get repaired for free. If you're really worried about it, buy a five-year AppleCare plan. By the time your warranty runs out, you'll be ready to buy a new computer.
Please explain the logic behind that statement to me.
In order to fully understand the math, you have to assign a dollar value to your time. I find that about $250 an hour is a good number for me during the week; since I value my weekends more, I arbitrarily assign a value of $500 an hour to Saturdays and Sundays. Since Macs require essentially no farting around to make them work or keep them working, while PCs-- no matter what OS they run-- require considerable set-up and maintenance time, the Mac comes out as a big winner.
I write in my journal