Slashdot Mirror
Motorola to Boost 0.13-micron PowerPCs
Anonymous Cow writes "From The Register: 'Speculation that Motorola may soon cease to be a supplier of processors to Apple may be premature. The chip maker yesterday said it had successfully implemented low-k dielectric materials in its 0.18 micron silicon-on-insulator (SOI) processors, bringing an estimated 20 per cent speed bump to the PowerPC line. Motorola expects to roll out the process on its 0.13 micron chips this month...'"
twenty percent won't do, dear mr. motorola. the new chips might a nice quick upgrade for a few apple machines, but on the long run we need state-of-the-art cpus.
I do not think it is correct to say that the speculation was that "Motorola may soon cease to be a supplier of processors to Apple." Most Mac users (and nearly everyone else) know that the Moto G4 and maybe some upgraded G3 will be part of Apple's consumer products for some time yet. The PPC970 will be used on high-end systems only at introduction.
InDesign is already beginning to take over Quark's previous business.
I can't help thinking that this is a bad thing for Apple and its customers. Here's why.
We know that, for internal development reasons, Apple has a version of Mac OSX that runs on Intel/AMD hardware. (It's been widely discussed in the past, both on Slashdot and elsewhere.)
We know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes.
We know that an Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would probably cost less than a PowerPC platform Mac currently does, and run faster too. (Please, I'm a big Apple fan too, but I'm not blinded by Apples-sponsored benchmarks that use applications that have been optimised for their current hardware but ignore more popular software that hasn't been optimised in their favour.)
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS. (Obviously, whether allowing non-Apple customers to convert their machines in this way is something that Apple may or may not want to put into practice, for competitive reasons. Remember, one of the first things that Steve Jobs did on his return to Apple was kill off the authorised Apple clones businesses.)
We know that this Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would get much better support from hardware and software manufacturers. An Apple Mac running the newest hardware would never be significantly disadvantaged performance-wise, and Apple would attract a lot of users who previously considered Macs bad value for money.
We know that this would make Apple a force to be reckoned with once more, make Microsoft very anxious and millions of customers delighted.
Unfortunately...
We know that Apple (for whatever reasons) won't go down this route.
Oh well. We can all dream.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Some corrections:
"MacOS X is everything Linux wants to be."
Translation: "Mac OS X is everything some Linux distributions attempt to be: easy to install/maintain, with the power of a good *nix"
"Aqua makes me so much more productive!"
Translation: "The consistency in the way applications and the system look/react allowes you to focus on your work, rather than having to deal with finding out how everything works"
Apple will never go down the intel/AMD route, and hence never let their OSX run on commodity hardware. Steve Jobs has made it clear he doesn't want Apple to compete on price. Even if Apple did use intel/AMD chips, it would be on their own custom motherboard, and so windows users wont be able to 'update' to MacOSX.
People forget Apple is a hardware company, and I feel if they are going to change chips (Which they should considering Motorola's lack of interest in maintaining good competition and providing better chips) They'd be better off going with IBM's PPC970 64-bit. All rumours already point to this.
I for one would not want MacOSX to run on commodity hardware, the beauty of OSX is that everything works as Apple has full control over the hardware.
And we all know thanks to piracy they'll never make money selling their OS to ex-windows users on commodity hardware.
Roll on the 970 and Panther.
That's my dream.
You forgot Medal of Honor, UT2k3, Return to Wolfenstein, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires II, Civilization III, Masters of Orion III...the list goes on and on.
Try using a Mac sometime, then you'd know.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
We know that, for internal development reasons, Apple has a version of Mac OSX that runs on Intel/AMD hardware. (It's been widely discussed in the past, both on Slashdot and elsewhere.)
;-)
We do? Sorry, there's a huge difference between an interesting prototype and production quality software. In any case, a popular rumor is still a rumor.
We know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes.
Why? They switched to PPC from 68000 after about 10 years. They could switch regardless of the length of time. You're implying that more software would be available after a longer length of time - implying a growing market.
We know that an Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would probably cost less than a PowerPC platform Mac currently does, and run faster too.
We do? How do we know this? Just because one chip runs at 1.2 Ghz and the other runs at 2 Ghz? Because the P4 runs at 3+ Ghz? Because of bus speeds?
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS.
Really????? Wow, that's a leap. And how much would people pay? I know I'd pay just about $0.
Might as well just have a software licensing key scheme - as Mac Plus ROMs don't go to far these days
We know that this Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would get much better support from hardware and software manufacturers.
Really? Just because OS2 ran on Intel didn't help it.
An Apple Mac running the newest hardware would never be significantly disadvantaged performance-wise, and Apple would attract a lot of users who previously considered Macs bad value for money.
Using a particular chipset does not guarentee great performance or value.
We know that this would make Apple a force to be reckoned with once more, make Microsoft very anxious and millions of customers delighted.
I think Apple has already achieved that. Throwing a couple "ROMs" into an Intel box just doesn't fit the big picture.
The thing is, Apple really does fill a niche. If you don't use a Mac, it's because you don't fit within the niche of users that want the system Apple offers. Trust me, you don't plunk down that kind of cash for a slick chassis. It's about the philosophy Apple espouses and implements in their hardware and software design.
It's all about image combined with the comfortable environment that Macs are famous for. If Microsoft or Linux managed to successfully offer the same thing, you'd probably sneer at that, too. It's just your personal preference.
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
When was the last time that a speedbump to the lineup significantly raised the prices of any of Apples computers? It basically always just replaces the last top-of-the-line with a faster cpu, but basically the same configuration and price.
Try coming back when you have a clue, instead of just FUD.
Motorola will definately continue to be a chip supplier for Apple for a long time. IF Apple uses IBM's chips, it will only be in PowerMac G4s, and possibly the iMac and eMac eventually, but not for quite a while. IBM has stated that they will not have a low-power version of the 970 ready for at least a year, and I think we'll see G3 iBooks around for quite some time, at least as long as Apple wants to keep them in the $1000 entry-level price range and keep them cool enough to not burn people like the G4 powerbooks do.
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS. (Obviously, whether allowing non-Apple customers to convert their machines in this way is something that Apple may or may not want to put into practice, for competitive reasons. Remember, one of the first things that Steve Jobs did on his return to Apple was kill off the authorised Apple clones businesses.)
Or, as has been pointed out many times before, Apple doesn't want the toruble of supporting god-knows-what hardware is going to be in the masses' PCs. One of, if not the major, reasons Apple is able to make the OS play so nice most of the time is their control of the underlying hardware - sure, you can get most any peripheral you want (as long as it comes with a Mac driver), but the basic computer is always consistent.
I suppose Apple could just tweak the G4 mobos and replace the processors with P4s, or replace the internals completely, but I doubt that's where the costs of the machine lie, plus the homebrew crowd would scream bloody murder. It makes me shiver to think what OS X would be like if it had to support every piece of x86 hardware under the sun...
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
The promise of much faster G4-class processors than anticipated calls into question suggestions not only that Apple will ditch Motorola across the range, but that it sees the 970 as a PowerBook solution, at least in the short term.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
We know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes.
What would they go to? IA-32 is a poor choice when processors are starting to move to 64 bit with X86-64 and Itanium. Going Athlon-64 would be ahead of time, it's not even out yet (and if Intel managed to get their 64 bit solution pushed through, X86-64 would fade into a niche) and if they went IA32, by the time they're done it'd be time to change again.
We know that an Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would probably cost less than a PowerPC platform Mac currently does, and run faster too.
Code designed for X86: Yes.
Code designed for PPC, compiled for X86: Maybe
Code compiled for PPC, emulated on X86: Hell no
Nevermind that Apple has, and always will have a high mark-up to cover the costs of developing their software.
We know that if they could upgrade their Windows PCs to Apple Macs - say, by installing an Apple upgrade card that contained any necessary Apple ROMs, etc and then installing the new OS - millions of users would be tempted to abandon Windows and convert to the Mac OS.
Apple's business plan is to be a cathedral where PCs are the bazaar. They wish to deliver a _solution_, where they control the hardware and the software, that will "just work". They do not want to get into the driver and compatibility problems of PCs, because then they would lose their greatest advantage. And there's a price tag involved, of course. Which is also why getting dinner served (the solution) is more expensive than buying the ingredients and cooking it up yourself (hardware+drivers+OS+applications+utilities).
To me, who likes to mix and match and create my own "dish", that is probably not of that great a value. But it is of value to some, and those are Apple's customers. And it sounds like a viable business plan to me. The rest will say it's too expensive, of course.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Repeat after me: "Apple is a hardware manufacturer".
Apple does not make money selling OS licenses, that's for Microsoft to do. They make their money selling hardware. That's why they will never switch to a Intel/AMD system. If they do that they lose their hardware market and get beat out by el-cheapo manufacturers.
The other key factor is that one reason OS X is so great and stable is that Apple has very tight control on the hardware they have to support. Look at the common reported kernel panics: almost all are caused by non-Apple hardware (e.g. USB hubs). If they switch to PC hardware, they'll lose even more control over the hardware that they're forced to support. That'll make OS X less stable and, in the end, no better than Windows.
The thing to keep in mind is that Microsoft and Apple are two companies that directly compete but don't provide the same type of product. MS makes software, Apple makes hardware. Apple just also makes software to help sell their hardware. That's why you will never be able to buy a Dell or Gateway with OS X installed.
Find me in ~/.sig
Are you kidding? These responses aren't even close to the nastiness a anti-linux post can generate.
Er, if FileMaker is all that's keeping you on that beige G3, then why don't you simply get yourself a copy of FileMaker for Windows and cut loose? FileMaker is cross-platform and has been for years.
You'd probably like a modern Windows computer better than that beige G3. Of course, you'd probably like a modern Macintosh better than that beige G3, but you've already ruled that out.
Sitting on or near my desk are a 800MHz Athlon (running a Linux 2.4.x kernel), an 800MHz G4 Titanium (MacOSX 10.2.x), and a 1.8GHz P4 laptop (Linux 2.4.x). The Titanium was bought for me by my employer, since many of the people here use them, and I do application and hardware support, as well as Astrophysical research.
I have benchmarked my applications on these three platforms (and the best benchmarks are, of course, your own applications, aren't they?). The G4 is slower, by about 20%, than the 800MHz Athlon. Arguably, if my applications were made 'Altivec-aware' they'd run significantly faster on the G4, but if I were to use SSE2 extensions on the Athlon or P4, they'd run faster on those platforms, too.
Although I kinda like MacOSX (and abhorred MacOS9), and think Apple wins top marks for esthetics, their hardware is way too slow for a 20% improvement in processor speed to give them the boost they need.
The best move for Apple will probably be to go with the new IBM chips.
My 0.02CDN.
#include "cunning_plan.h"
Finally, there may be something you or I haven't thought of yet. Apple is doing a good job of finding new things for us to do with our faster processors (iDVD, for example, uses a lot of resources) while other software/OS companies have not done such a good job of finding a "killer app" for having computers faster than they were in 1999. Not that iDVD is the killer app -- I think it's still out there waiting to be found.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Guess how much Apple would charge for an X86 based Mac? The same as they do for their current Macs. Apple enjoys the highest margins of any major computer maker. One reason they do this is because they have a major research/development department. What was the last major innovation that came out of Dell or Gateway or Compaq?
I drank what? -- Socrates
Motorola has been driving themselves very very deep into the embedded market. They're making the Motorola PowerPC into a chip for cars, phones, handhelds, refridgerators, etcetera, ad nausium
IBM is moving in the other direction, which is frankly the direction that apple NEEDS to go if they want to compete and keep this architecture.
They're planning on keeping this architecture.
Buttsex.
The repeating puzzle of these debates is why people feel compelled to have them. Apple will continue to successfully sell to a niche market that appreciates specific values of the Apple product line. I won't bother to enumerate them, it's been done before.
The nature of these disputes is fundamentally fundamentalist: Person A is angry because person B fails to see the revealed truth. The relativity of that truth always fails to impress itself upon the fundamentalist.
My own viewpoint is that instead of ragging at Apple for sticking with PowerPC, we should be ragging at Windows for sticking with Intel. The effect on policy would be identical, but at least we'd be advocating the better ideal. That's my truth.
And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...
No you wouldn't, as the chances of all your hardware working would be miniscule.
You would have to repurchase all your software as well, unless you're going to dual boot every five minutes. How much value is in the software you have? I'm assuming you didn't just warez it all of course. MS Office alone is several hundred dollars.
There would be few games. Dual boot for them too? Use a console? Dunno.
Not to mention that it would cost way, way more than what Windows does - Apple can't lose the money from hardware sales, so the only option for a separate release would be high prices and to hope people would buy it.
This is a dead issue. Specially when dealing with Apple's supplier list. People have gone insane trying to guess what Steve Jobs is going to do.
That is the kind of stochastic tittilation usually provided by people trying to predict the direction the an elephant will travel from a point of view only slightly in front of its tail.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Interesting. You're guaging the value of an apple computer while using a 5 year old mac? If you can't afford a 800 dollar emac that destroys a beige G3 in every way, than maybe macintosh isn't the platform for you. And, as other posters have said, FileMaker is also available for windows.
Mind you, whatever fucknut at Apple decided that 'new folder' should become CMD-SHIFT-N needs a good, hard kick up the arse, Bishop Brennan style.
Father Ted in the house! Alright!
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
The PPC970 was designed for less than 1% of Intel's yearly R & D costs on their Itanium units.
SPEC scores are not the Bible. You can bet that Apple's generous use of Altivec will give a PPC970 machine a big advantage over Intel or AMD in process huge datasets, rendering video, etc.
And yes, Intel and AMD have their own SIMD implementations...but does anyone actually use them? Hyperthreading has been proven to be HYPE..
The bandwidth and latency offered by these Mac and IBM machines, coupled with Apple's Altivec-optimized professional applications like Shake, Final Cut Pro, and Logic, will make any PPC970 based machine a very attractive purchase in a lot of creative professional markets.
We know that this Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would get much better support from hardware and software manufacturers. An Apple Mac running the newest hardware would never be significantly disadvantaged performance-wise, and Apple would attract a lot of users who previously considered Macs bad value for money.
I'm still trying to contain my laughter.
Supporting Macintosh hardware has little to do with hardware and much to do with drivers. Just because a Macintosh has an Intel chip in it doesn't mean a thing.
BeOS, OS/2 and Solaris all run on Intel hardware too... it doesn't mean that the drivers are a quick and easy transition from the Windows world... if that were the case, Solaris wouldn't be so damned choosy about hardware on x86.
So... no, we don't all know that...
bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS panda 5.10 Generic sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-2
"Our goal is to stay with a frequency doubling every 18 months or so, and get into the 2GHz range for PowerPC, but at very low power consumption of, say, 20W," said Dirk Wristers, director of device/integration for Motorola's MOS-13 wafer fab, according to an EE Times report. "The frequency could be higher if we were at higher power." This statement indicates why they have been slower than Intel/AMD. They basically designing to meet notebook specification. Notebook processor always lags behind desktop counterparts because of power consumption. In fact, the centrinos only top out at 1.6 Ghz which is basically in the ballpark of Motorola current G4 at 1.25. Considering they primarily sell to embedded application hardware such as switches where low power consumption is a needed, they will never be able to keep pace with Intel/AMD in terms of desktop processors. This may be why Jobs is pushing the sale of notebooks.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one