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...'"
1. Look for some alternatives in sourcing
2. Call for rumors
3. ?????
4. Profit?
Apple have come up with some innovative products, but their market share remains tiny. Sadly, though, many buyers have been mislead by the marketing and eye-candy, and desperately try to justify their overpriced purchases to themselves on forums around the Net. Let's see what they really mean...
"MacOS X is everything Linux wants to be."
"Despite the fact that Linux is just code and can't WANT to be anything, I truly believe that it'd love to be a single-vendor, single-platform, sluggish half-proprietary OS with dwindling market share. Linux would love to throw away its impressively growing corporate takeup for that."
"Apple hardware is for real computer lovers."
"It's no hassle to use a plethora of keyboard combos to make up for the patronising one-button mouse. Despite the fact that my hands have FIVE fingers, and multiple-buttons make Web browsing so much more pleasant, I prefer my computer to be treat me like a special-needs child."
"Aqua makes me so much more productive!"
"My non-techie friends drool over the transparency and scaling effects, even though UI research has shown that they add practically nothing to getting real work done. It feels like KDE 2 on a Pentium 200, and I can't change to a light and fast WM, but those drop-shadows must make me work so quickly!"
"OSX shows that Apple is committed to open source."
"OpenDarwin.org and its community of about 27 is surely not just a token gesture by Apple. Pretty much nobody uses pure Darwin, and all the crucial components of the system are closed and require me to spend money just to get major OS updates, but they're really helping the community somehow."
"You get what you pay for with Apple hardware."
"My iBook was made by in Taiwan by AlphaTop and has design and build quality flaws (needing foam sheets jammed in to stop the common problem of the keyboard scratching the screen). But it's silvery and cost far more than an x86 laptop of better spec, so it must be much higher quality!"
"...blah blah MHz myth blah..."
"Although there's truth in PPC being more elegant than x86, it's crushing that the top-of-the-range 1.5 GHz chip is slaughtered by the equivalent 3 GHz Pentium 4. However, Steve Jobs showed some vague Photoshop filter benchmarks at the last MacWorld, so being a leprotard, I'm convinced."
a little boost for my FP!
Bah........apple
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.
but not great. Too bad this will probably correspond to a 40% price increase.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
With this performance increase, I can't wait to see how fast and smooth all my games run on my Mac.. You know... games run. Like, uhm.
Oni. And uh... Worms Blast. And Bejeweled.
Damn it, nevermind.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
slow you down?
From the article on The Register:
candidate processors include the MPC7457, which has yet to ship but is set to take Motorola's G4 family beyond 1GHz.
I don't know where they've been looking but under my desk just here is a dual 1.25GHz G4 tower... there are 1.42s out there, too...
Honestly, I don't know what I'd do with a dual 2GHz G4 at the moment... apart from the two folding@home clients I'm running, I'm using perhaps 10 - 20% of the CPU on this machine, and that's running OS X and a heap of graphics apps...
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.
I don't think the Motorola is completely out of the picture. When the 970s come, Apple can use these new G4s in the iBook product line to bump up their "consumer" grade laptops.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
G4 (motorola) = nippy cheap(ish) consumer line (inc portables)
970 (ibm) = tasty expensive pro line
Simple.
Good googly!
This is what Quark has been waiting for. Now that we can zoom along at these blazingly fast new speeds, Quark will finally release the OS X version and the Mac platform will be saved.
Hurray!
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Which 20% would Motorola be referring to? If you remember correctly, you will note that the current 1.42GHz machines user overclocked 1.25GHz parts. Underneath that large heatsink in each 1.42GHz powermac is a chip containing the numbers 125.
I doubt it will be a big jump, merely allowing a jump from 1.25GHz to 1.5GHz.
Of course, I fully expect Apple to do their overclocking again, and attempt to pull 1.7GHz out of these systems.
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
Low-k? Welcome to the ballgame. IBM rolled out low-k, SOI, and Cu three years ago ... on 0.13 micron. See here and here. So did Intel.
20% ??? LOL Too late, too little, Moto.
Somebody kill the Apple. I hate to see a once innovative company suffer like this year after year.
I would buy it, I would actually drop Windows and become a OS-X user overnight (and thats coming from a 100% Windows fan). I just cant afford / dont want to pay over the odds for pretty and slow(ish) computers. Its just the OS I want, I'll buy my own monitor etc.
I'd rather buy those sweet 800-series Opterons and build a 4-way number crunching monster for my calculations. I really need that memory bandwidth!
And as has been said many many times before, apple wil not make the switch until the absolutly have to - if they did that then every single application out there would have to be recompiled to run on x86, they wouldn't be able to write an emulator for the PPC chip on x86 because the chip instruction sets make it almost impossible to write a fast one.
Not only that, but at the moment the PPC family is looking rather rosey... I mean we have G4s comming up to 2GHz (woopdey doo) but more importantly we have the PPC970 comming out which even the SPEC tests say is a stonking chip, and then of course IBM are also developing the PPC980 (the power 5 based version of the PPC970).
Bob
But then they'll have to compete with Linux. And just plain software wise, I doubt they can compete with Microsoft...
Also, Apple sells not becase of its OS, they sell because of their stylish look. If you could take an average PC and make it run OSX, the apple charm (that supposed 'stuffyness' that 'artists' have) would be lost.
It has been reported also that YellowDog runs faster than OSX on the same Apple hardware. On the x86 platform windows runs faster than Linux (given the same hardware). It therefore stands to reason that OSX on x86 would run slower than Linux or windows. :(
Hey, Linux is cool and all, but it would be nice if it were as polished as OSX before Apple is totally squashed between Microsoft and Linux. You have a few points, but there is still a difference for plenty of real-world uses outside of running emacs or nmap.
o oooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!@!
In regards to the Motorola announcement (something you managed to skip over despite your overwhelming experience with the OS that your post has demonstrated): NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
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.
I've recently switched my mode of operation: instead of having a half dozen PC's for running each of the specialized configurations of various OS's that I need, I've instead got a single (beefy) desktop and about a dozen VMware machines setup. It works really well.
Right now, Linux is the host OS, but wouldn't I love it if it were OSX?
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.
And as has been said many many times before, apple wil not make the switch until the absolutly have to - if they did that then every single application out there would have to be recompiled to run on x86, they wouldn't be able to write an emulator for the PPC chip on x86 because the chip instruction sets make it almost impossible to write a fast one.
What about a PPC chip on a PCI card? For people who absolutely NEED backward compatibility, this would be a solution.
I personally don't see the need for Apple to *switch* to the Intel/AMD processors, but rather *supplement* their existing line. The Intel/AMD line would be geared at luring Windows customers away -- a machine with a price competitve with major manufacturers like Dell and Hewlett Compaqard. A PPC card could be purchased for compatibility with existing closed-source PPC Mac apps. (Obviously, open source apps would just need a recompile as little or no porting would be necessary for most apps that already have been ported to the PPC-based OS X.)
Not to mention that an Intel/AMD based Mac could probably either dual boot OS X and Windows XP, or -- if Apple worked with the VMWare people (hint, hint, Apple) -- run Windows apps right on the OS X desktop.
Such a machine would get the unwashed masses to embrace Apple and (hopefully) Open Source software.
One can only dream....
My journal has hot
Apple will most likely use this as an oppurtunity to drop the G3. Finally Apple will have Altivec across the board. You have to take into account that the manufacturing process also reduces heat and well ... size ... making this sound more and more like a processor for an iBook.
I also beleive Apple will use this as an oppurtunity to make everything above 1Ghz this year. We will most also likely see quad G4 Xserves because of this (moto producing better G4s)
The 970 is a great chip. It's benchmarks at the Microprocessor Forum VERY HANDILY beat EVERY processor put up against it - even the AMD 64 bit!
Apple shouldn't move to x86 as suggested in the redundant Apple naysayers. (hey you "apple is dead people": how about looking in my journal?) I rather like the RISC processor anf the PPC - there is MUCH less code overhead and easier "addon" capability (cache, media functionality, i/o) - Motorola has been the hold up in it's development and needed someone like IBM to step in and lend a hand, they have done so.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Please. Like fuckin *nix geeks and PC gamer kiddies sound any different. Only the buzzwords change. Lets examine the PC version: " My new Canterwood chipset and 3.0C P4 gets me 8 more FPS in CS! " I'll be the envy of my clan now!!!" " DAMN, I love updating Windows every other day with a new security patch! It shows that Microsoft REALLY CARES about my computers security!" " I love spending my valuable time endlessly troubleshooting my new winders box I just put together....it's only been 3 months now and I still cant get the RAID to work right...." " Linux is GREAT! Every time I install a new piece of hardware it takes me 4 days becuase I have to hack the kernel and recompile , but HEY, that's the price of progress, right? " Stupid lamer. Only a moron would allow themselves to worry about what kind of fuckin computer or operating system OTHER PEOPLE should use. Use whatever YOU like and leave everyone else alone. If they like to make what you consider to be bad choices, thats THEIR bag.
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.
motorola processor
otorola processor - m
torola processor - mo
trola processor - moo
tola processor - moor
tola procssor - moore
tola procsor - moores
tola pocsor - moores r
tola pocor - moores rs
tol pocor - moores rsa
tol ocor - moores rsa p
tol oco - moores rsa pr
tol co - moores rsa pro
ol co - moores rsa prot
l co - moores rsa proto
l o - moores rsa protoc
l - moores rsa protoco
moores rsa protocol
Weird indeed... especially when condiering this one (search for RSA in the document)
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
Look at me. I just bashed the Mac platform with some semi-imaginative troll bait. Mongo feel so much more smarter now...
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
I'm limping along on a failing beige G3 because I need filemaker. But there's no new Mac in store for me because they're too expensive for what you get.
Megahertz myths prove, not that that much speed is (un)necessary, but that Apple has lost the technological leadership it once had in hardware. I think G3s are fabulous chips but Motorola can't execute the future. Time to move on, if there's any time left.
Apple's responsibility lies with its shareholders, not its users, no matter what Einstein and Miles think. Once the users realize that they might begin pressuring Jobs enough to get him off his high horse, and the only thing that migh do that is Zero sales for a few months.
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
Yeah, so what? OS9 runs a LOT faster than OSX on the same Apple hardware - OSX just does more, plain and simple. It's no surprise to find that the lightest code runs the quickest (not to mention the longest optimised). OSX has sped up significantly since the public beta release, and it's later features (like Quartz Extreme) provide a really solid path towards huge speed improvements on future hardware.
Funnily enough, all the development time that Apple has been forced to expend on Altivec optimisations to counter the clock speed stagnation of the G4 should reall pay dividends when (if) the 970 comes to be used in its stead.
That was classic intercourse!
For all this talk about how the P4 is faster than the PPC (granted it sure is), there is no vast difference in speed between a 1.25GHz G4 and a speedy P4. They're both in the same league, and IBM is coming along to the rescue.
On the other hand, RISC OS users are stuck with the FPU-less 600MHz StrongARM being the fastest CPU for their platform. Intel could release a 3GHz StrongARM with FPU and loads of onbard cache next week if they wanted to, but they won't because the StrongARM is so fast that it'd be both an embarrassment (they didn't design it) and would slaughter every other 32bit processor in speed, thereby harming their x86 gravytrain. They had StrongARMs running at 1GHz with 1 watt of power consumption years ago now, and they still haven't released it.
Apple is getting more and more behind speed-wise compared to PC's. This results in Apple hardware being more expensive and performing less than PC hardware. It is now at a point where it really starts to hurt. For example, not so long ago Adobe had a page up named 'pcpreferred.html' stating that the PC is preferred to run Adobe products.
Intel also has much more differentiation: power-hungry pentiums up to 3.06 GHz, powerful Pentium 4-M for "transportable" notebooks, Celeron and more recently Pentium-M (Centrino) for notebooks with long battery life. Not to forget the Intel-compatible offerings from Transmeta, VIA and AMD, driving the price further down.
Apple has almost no other choice than start using Intel-compatible cpu's in the future in order to stay competitive.
My karma ran over your dogma
Just because Motorola has developed a faster PowerPC, it does not automatically mean that Apple will be using it. PowerPCs are used in other systems, particuarly embedded applications where a majority of PPCs end up.
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
I think we will see them in all Powewrmcs and Powerbooks sooner then we think...
As for the iBook, mmmmm, I would guess at an IBM 'Mojave' derrivative. A pumped G3+ with a decent FSB, Altivec et al...
Motorola have said repeatedly that they are concentrating on embedded processors only, so it really could be goodbye Moto this time... about time too.
The way I see it, a PPC card would only have a limited amount of use. It would be damned expensive, for one. Not only is there cost of the CPU, but you're going to need a full-fledged chipset and a good hunk of memory, if you don't intend to limit your memory throughput with the PCI bus.
Or you could build it as an AGP card. That'll murder your graphics capability.
Finally, you have to cool the thing. That much hardware is going to require active cooling, especially considering it's not the only CPU in the machine.
What's this Submit thingy do?
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"
First off, if Windows users want to have Macs, Apple doesn't have to sell a Mac ROM PCI card; there is already a solution that works remarkably well. Buy a Mac and install VirtualPC.
:D
Anyway, Apple doesn't want to lose their hardware distinctiveness. To do so would mean that Apple would have to cut their margins to razor-thin along with the rest of the x86 world. Apple is enjoying the esoteric platform comparisons right now, because there is no true 1:1 comparison between PPC and x86; PPC is faster in some areas, and x86 is faster in others, and the whole mhz comparison is pretty murky as a result. If Apple went with x86, the VERY NEXT DAY every computer magazine on the planet would have high-end systems from HP, Dell, Gateway, Apple, et. al., and price/performance would be the most important issue. Apple would need to cut their margins to compete. Also keep in mind that Apple doesn't refresh their systems nearly as frequently as other manufacturers, so Apple would always seem to be lagging in performance in the x86 world, too.
Besides, I expect to see great things from Apple in the next 5 years now that IBM is on board with desktop PPC development again. IBM may even be feeling that it is more personal with Microsoft funding SCO's lawsuit against them, and may start pushing PPC development hot and heavy as a result. The motivation for IBM would be to start cranking out desktop PPC-based Linux systems, and Apple would have access to those processors. Sounds good anyway, doesn't it?
I can't help thinking that you're a moron. 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.) No benchmarks have ever been released of these builds, and no quality testing has been done. But I'm sure they have a perfect working 10.2.6 ready to go and are failing to release it to personally spite you!
We don't know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes. In fact, the likelihood of that has been about 0% since the introduction of the 601 (which is...[02 03 03e 04 G3 G4 G4e] 7 processors ago. C'mon, get with it).
We know that anyone who thinks one platform is inherently cheaper than another is a complete moron. We know that Apple is a hardware company and uses that to subsidize their (usually first class) software. We know that OS X is build on modern concepts like parallelism that allow it to take advantage of good SIMD (unavailable on x86) and multiple processors. Check the price of a dual XP 2100+ system yourself if this isn't sinking in. We know that it takes a huge amount of time and money to port code -- we know it takes an order of magnitude more to reoptimize it for a platform which is as different as they come.
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 most of these people use Windows because it is the "standard" and don't really care about what their computers do. We know most people can't install any sort of hardware by themselves and would be too scared to try. We know that Apple is a hardware company and would be suicidal to allow this.
We know that this Intel/AMD platform Apple Mac would get no better support from hardware and software manufacturers. After all, who wants to support a platform which follows up one complete change (9->X) with another (PPC->x86) forcing you to learn a new language/API and then a new set of platform optimizations? We know that OSX on x86 would not be any easier to develop for in any way.
An Apple Mac running the newest hardware would never be significantly disadvantaged performance-wise, and the same people who said "Macs are a bad value" would say "Macs are too expensive." Go spec out a system with dual processors. Make sure to make it quite a bit faster than the low end mac to compensate for poor SIMD. Add in RAM, HD, case, superdrive, etc. Add profit margin. See if you can beat Apple's current price on the system.
We know that Microsoft would be delighted that Apple was switching to x86 just as they were gaining HW-level control of anything that could run on x86. We know customers would be horiffied to find that Apple's laptops would have to double in thickness because their new processors suck up 100+ watts (Exaggeration: only the P4 does this now, but...).
Unfortunately...
We still have to listen to morons like you whine for the sole reason that they wish they had OSX and are jealous of people who can run it. Hint: go buy an old system. My G4 400 runs OSX fine in terms of processor use. Just make sure you get plenty of RAM and a good graphics card. Maybe some day all ignorant morons like yourself will either get bored and stop posting this crap or realize their mistakes. That seems unlikely, but...
Oh well. We can all dream.
Competition is a good thing. You shouldn't be cheering for x, y, and z platform to consolidate on a chip. Without the PowerPC beating x86 back in the day, Intel's clock wouldn't be where it is today. I want Apple to stay on PowerPC because it is a very elegant design and because it means there is more competition. Asking them to switch to whatever is currently the fastest clock is very short-sighted.
mbbac
the problem being that their hardware is so out of date that nobody will soon care to buy it anymore in the mid-term future. If they do release thier OS for the x86 processor, it certainly won't be the standard PC version, it will be a bastardized highly proprietary implementation of x86, either that or the OS will sell for US$1000 and require CPU ID turned on and much draconian anti-piracy copy protection crap.
"Marklar marklar that, for marklar marklar marklar, Marklar has a marklar of marklar marklar that marklars on Marklar/Marklar marklar. (Marklar's been widely marklared in the marklar, both on Marklar and marklar.)
marklar know that the longer Marklar uses the marklarmarklar marklar, the marklar likely the marklar of it marklaring to an Marklar/Marklar marklar marklars".
Marklar, are you on marklar or marklar?
Guess how much Apple would charge for an X86 based Mac? The same as they do for their current Macs. Apple enjoys the highest margins of any major computer maker. One reason they do this is because they have a major research/development department. What was the last major innovation that came out of Dell or Gateway or Compaq?
I drank what? -- Socrates
This is actually bad news. The MPC7457 still doesn't make full use of the bandwidth available in the DDR400 RAM the Macs are currently using. The MPC7470 does, but we're still not getting that chip - for whatever reason - I assume its a manufacturing & design issue. It's been a very long delay.
Motorola looks pretty amateurish with this feeble boost. This is a manufacturing tweak that intel and IBM have made months ago in their primary foundries. The MPC7457 likely isn't going to get used in any serious Macintoshes - perhaps it will go into the iBook and iMacs eventually.
So perhaps Motorola has given up on the MPC7470, and conceded that market to IBM's 970 and 980 chips. Let's hope so; I would like to buy a new workstation pretty soon. ;-)
Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
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.
As any Linux user who uses Konqueror must admit, Apple's contribution is more than OpenDarwin - the Safari project has been feeding back into Konqueror/KHTML for some time now...
Actually, I don't care at all and think Macs are quite good for computer newcomers in many respects. I just wrote that on a quiet Sunday afternoon, and the number of responses it gets is hugely impressive!
-- Original text author
Find an old mac tower someplace for cheap. Put in one of the G3 or G4 upgrade cards,also make sure the ram is maxed out, and look for aftermarket generic ram that is compatible and cheaper. Install OSX. There ya go, it will work. If you want exact recommendations as to best possible deals and which make/model of older used machine to look for, perhaps try a post at mac central. Your current PC monitor will work with it, with a very inexpensive adapter ` 10$ or so. I've always used just generic monitors. I am just guessing, but I imagine you can pull this off for as low as 300$, plus the OS disk. Last I looked they had upgrade cards for about 200$, maybe not the top of the line upgrade cards, but something that will be fast enough. As has been pointed out, it's more a RAM deal than the cpu deal, same as generic PCs running any other OS.
I just looked on ebay, cheapest tower was some AV model that is upgradeable to a G3 and is 45$ buy it now. Lots of under 200$ G3s that can be upgraded to G4's. I imagine if you looked at the mac specific used for sale places on the web you can find even better deals. Probably some more advanced mac guys here can steer you to some of them,I'm sort of out of the loop for a long time now. I do remember though that their old PPC server towers, the 9500 or 9600 series, I forget now, one of those, were really nice, plenty of expansion bays and lots of ram slots and card slots. Big guys. That would probably be my first choice on finding a used one, pay a bit more for a manly machine that you can play around with.
We know that the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes.
You know, the longer Apple has been around, the more likely it has become. Years ago there was only broad speculation. Now there is a feasibility build. Give it another 10 years and they will have a *BSD/OSX combination running happily, and with enough proprietary hardware to make it worth Apple's while.
Why they would do such a financially suicidal thing is beyond me (though I would be very happy if they did), but the idea that they must do so soon or risk missing out is a bit unfounded.
The ______ Agenda
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 ...
What was that? A lead in? Yeah, ok, now let me see if I can shed some light on these rumors (well ok.... I'm going to shamelessly quote the article in an attempt at karma whoring):
Interestingly, Motorola said it had been delivering low-k dielectric 0.18 micron SOI processors for a full quarter. The 7455 is just such a chip - Motorola's claim may explain why Apple has had such success overclocking the 1GHz 0.18 micron MPC7455 to 1.42GHz in its Power Mac models.
So for those of you mentioning that a 1.42GHz G4 already exists, this is being referred to as an overclocked 1GHz G4.
The implication in his comment is that since Motorola can use the technology in its 0.13 micron chips, it will be able to really run with it when it makes the transition to 90nm.
The other claim being made is that substantially faster G4s than previously expected will be in the pipeline. The G4 was originally expected to top out at 1.3GHz, although may be pushed beyond that now (2GHz+ was rumored).
Assuming a direct correlation (big assumption), with Apple overclocking a 1GHz machine to 1.42GHz, 2.84GHz could be considered possible. The other nice point in the article was that Motorola is supposedly targeting the processor for low power consumption (read: 20W).
This could bring the G4, at least for a time, up to par with the 970. TheRegister made a prediction based on the G4's low power consumption that Apple may choose a mix (like they used to). Placing the 970 in their pro desktop computers, and the G4 in their portables.
I'd prefer to see the 970 across the board, but I guess we'll all know soon enough.
Cheers.
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.
And don't forget every other application uses Command-N to create a new document, which effectively opens a new document window, so Command-N is more consistent now that it opens a new window in the Finder as well.
They also changed the behavior of the Shift / Command keys when making selections in the Finder, so that Shift-Click extends the selection and Command-Click toggles items in the selection. Much better in terms of consistency with the rest of the system. It also makes it more consistent with Windows, which uses shift/ctrl click this way -- not that Windows is a good example of consistency.
-- thinkyhead software and media
While POV-Ray doesn't benefit from dual procs (normally, I think there's a patch), faster procs would be a HUGE IMPROVEMENT when it takes some of my scenes 8 hours or more to render at screen resolution.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Because you have to be an idiot and use a Mac (the interface is easier, there's only one mouse button, blah, blah, blah). And their area a TON of idiots out there! The natural laws of supply and demand make the Apple a great choice! :)
I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
OK enough talk of PPC970, get it out the door. Damn, I've been hearing about this CPU for YEARS, enough talk, finish the CPU and go into production.
Motorola's 20% speed increase is like keeping a brain-dead patient on life support. The G4 needs to be relegated to notebooks. G3 needs to go away completely. The longer IBM/Apple wait on PPC 970, the more market they will lose to DELL/HP/Intel/AMD permanently.
-ted
I'm tired of this complaint. First, return renames any file. Second, CMD-N now opens a new window consistently across applications. I won't second guess Apple, but this was probably a factor in the change. After all, they could have gone with CMD-B for 'Browser', but that would have made the Finder operate differently from other apps. Remember, with OS X they hope to increase their user base with new Mac users, and legacy was weighed against consistency in all areas. Sometimes legacy complaints won (e.g. the menu bar clock), sometimes they didn't.
.zip w/ Winzip installed), it comes up differently. While I know power users don't think twice about it (on any system), it's this kind of mostly unavoidable behavior that drives Apple to have a menu bar across the top where options don't move, but enable/disable as appropriate.
Yes, it's annoying to have a learned keystroke changed - I won't argue that as I keep get getting caught, though likely not as often as you. And the different view behavior is annoying. BUT JUST HIT RETURN.
I don't know how to rename in any Linux GUI, but all Windows seem to require a right click or a key simulating a right click. And there are two choices - right click and find Rename in the Moving Menu*, or click once, wait a beat, click again.
*What I mean by Moving Menu: If you're near a screen edge, it comes up differently. If you're on different files (e.g.
Ironically for our discussion, rename isn't a menu option, but return is one of those things that's obvious when you know it.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
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.
OS/2 died because IBM seemingly didn't know how to market it, and at least to me, seemed like they just weren't interested in developing it beyond what it was in Warp 4. Your use of OS/2 as an example is horrible. BeOS would have been a better one, in my view. That company DID have the desier to make it into a great OS (and I think it was a great OS), however, it just never took off (for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed elsewhere).
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.
What?! If Apple *really* were a 'force to be reckoned with', MS would be bashing all over Apple like it does Linux and AMD/Intel would be talking about falling sales amongst other problems. I think you need a new reality check. Yours obviously bounced.
bork bork bork!
That said, the PPC seems to have a pretty bright future and I'm all for sticking with it.
blakespot
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com
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
x zz ... .. . . z
xx yy
xxx zz
xxxx x yy
xxxxx x x x x x
xxxx x yy
xxx zz
xx yy
x zz
l x
la y
lame z
lamenes x
lameness y
lamenesse z
lamenesses sss ss s s . . z
lamenesse z
lameness y
lamenes x
lame z
la y
l x
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.
I've been reading this thread for a while now and am getting tired of seeing the above. Apple switching to a chip (like the Intell/AMD offerings) does *not* mean that you instantly need to switch to PC hardware. There is nothing stopping them from designing their own motherboard that just happens to use another chip and will not function with common "WinTel" software.
Shesh!
bork bork bork!
According to google, it doesn't exist. Gotta link?
I think you got the wrong end of the stick with my original post. I'm not suggesting that Apple could transition to Intel/AMD tomorrow, or at the drop of a hat. What I'm saying is that it could do it, and that doing it has some real pluses.
1. I never suggested that Apple has blistering fast Intel/AMD code at this moment in time. Heck, they'd be mad to have spent too much time optimising that code up until now - why spend more money squeezing extra performance out of code that you're not planning to use? But, if the time comes, Apple is more than capable of optimising it's code to run as fast as it can on another processor.
2. If Motorola were to stop development of PowerPC CPUs, Apple would have to start looking elsewhere for a chip supplier. Motorola churning out another PowerPC processor means that search is going to be put off for a while.
Perhaps Motorola will carry on developing PowerPC CPUs until the end of time, perhaps not. But if it were to throw in the PowerPC towel, Apple would be forced to make a change.
Of course Apple could transition without being forced to. It's just that Motorola killing PowerPC development would demand a switch. Ergo, " the longer Apple uses the PowerPC platform, the less likely the possibility of it switching to an Intel/AMD platform becomes".
3. I'm not saying that greater chip speed is the be all and end all of performance. What I said is that the Intel/AMD transition would probably lead to cheaper and faster machines. "Probably" as in "highly likely to".
Why cheaper? Cheaper for many reasons, not least because Apple would have a choice of chip partners, and both AMD and Intel would bend over backwards to sign the company up to a favourable deal, similar to the one between Intel and Dell. Cheaper CPUs means lower manufacturing costs, which means cheaper Macs if Apple wants to pass along some of the savings.
Why faster? Well, PowerPC development seems to have peaked and reached a plateau. The same can't be said of 64-bit Intel/AMD offerings, which are still being developed.
4. I said that Apple could offer non-Mac users a chance to "upgrade" their PCs to run the Mac OS if Apple wanted to allow it to happen. Personally, I don't think that they do, but if Apple can charge its current user base a few hundred dollars for an OS upgrade, then why can't it charge non-Apple customers a few hundred dollars for the same software?
It's not like Windows users aren't already paying Microsoft for a new OS every couple of years already is it? Rather than upgrade to Windows XP's successor, why wouldn't some of those users fork out the same amount to switch to a friendlier OS?
As for the "ROMs" that you make a joke out of, I'm well aware that Mac Plus ROM trading is a thing of the past but Apple would clearly take some measures to try and combat mass piracy of Mac OS for Intel/AMD, and that might well be by selling the software with some sort of hardware authentication. In the past, Apple ROMs have been that authentication, hence my usage of the word. Perhaps I should have said dongle. Would that have made you more comfortable?
Also, a hardware card could be used to provide the sort of ports that you wouldn't automatically find on a generic PC - AirPort Extreme, etc.
5. OS/2 had a near-zero user-base compared to Windows on the desktop. Worse, because it could run Windows applications, there was very little incentive for software companies to produce OS/2 versions of their software. Without any native software OS/2 floundered, and the whole thing was a catch 22 situation. And you're wrong to suggest that OS/2 didn't have driver support from third parties - there was some, but it obviously wasn't as widespread as that for Windows.
Mac OS already has an installed user base, and a dedicated transition to Intel/AMD would be guaranteed to increase rather than decrease the level of third party support.
6. You're right, using a particular chipset doesn't guarentee great performance or
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Anyone who mentions penises and uses "!!!" in a post is automatically a troll.
You mention latency in programs starting...how sad. Most people are concerned with latency while the program is running - try encoding a video on a 1.5 GHz machine, then on a 3GHz machine. Astonishingly, there is a difference!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The big customer is everyone who's buying PowerQuicc's and putting them in embedded spaces. PowerQuicc's with RapidIO connections, PowerQuicc's four-on-a-board, lots and lots of PowerPC chips going in lots and lots of embedded spaces.
I was recently at the Global Signal Processing Expo and it was amazing how many people were doing tasks involving heavy signal processing -- where you would expect DSPs and FPGAs -- on PowerPC chips. The interesting thing was that raw number-crunching power wasn't always the most important thing -- many times it is bandwith (what kind of interconnect you have to your processor makes a huge difference when you are trying to process gigabytes of information a second). Sometimes it is programmability that is the reason (use of familiar tools is a big plus). Sometimes you just want to use the same chip to do your signal processing as your network I/O.
Companies like Sky Computers are selling more PowerPCs than companies like Apple Computers.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Keep 'em coming.
"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
x86 should die.
the architecture is messy as shit.
we would all be better off without x86.
(im not a guy who prefers raw speed over elegance)
In particular that bit about making MS nervous.
------- MacOS X, WebObjects, Apple (G5) hardware triply tied
Yah right. Bill Walker at Motorola ditched all of their desktop PPC-powered machines in favor of Dells. If they won't even eat their own dogfood, you can be sure they're not working hard to make it taste good.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Until Moto fixes their bus problems, increasing raw processor speed is meaningless. This is the real advantage of the 970s, they can communicate at full speed with DDR RAM. I'm sure Apple will be happy to put faster G4s in their iMacs and maybe PowerBooks but the pro line is getting 970s and then we'll see how much difference a fast bus makes.
I think it's great they are still showing some interest and offering Apple more choices. After all more choices is a good thing. Right?
I know they are really, really bad. Mot. ppc is dead. Mac zealotry keeps it alive.
HERE IS THE SMOKING GUN QUESTION FOR THE DAY:
WHY DOESN'T APPLE OR MOTOROLA SUBMIT TO SPEC.ORG FOR THE INDUSTRY STANDARD CPU AND MCPU INT AND FLOATING POINT BENCHMARK?
Motorola PPC is simply inferior.
Check out this recent review of a Mac vs. PPC scenario. Titled: Mac vs. PC III: Mac Slaughtered Again
Dell's Single CPU 3.06 GHz P4 Trounces Fastest DUAL Mac on the Market
Every time I have tried to independently verify ease of use claims or speed advantages that apple claims I find them to be false, ridiculous and they should probably be cited for false advertising on numerous occasions.
Now. I would like to say that I want a Power 4+ 6xx series or a Sun Blade 2000. If you don't know what these machines are or why you would want them, do not reply to this message - you don't understand anything.
Quote: Posted: 03/06/2003 at 09:35 GMT This article is nearly three months old! -Insert obligatory comment about /. moderators posting anything as news here.-
No-one seems to have noticed that Motorolla's focus seems to be shifting towards low-power chips. It looks like these will use about a third of the power of a P4 and roughly half that of the current G4s, and as such will be a pretty good option for laptops and possibly smaller devices.
if you only knew what altivec was and realized that every modern CPU supports similar instructions you would realize how dumb you sound. the G3 is so archaic, the G4 is also very very unimpressive.
the 970 is vapor. all the mac fanfic sites are really Mac/Slash. You peoplemust think you fuck your computers. anyways, by the time the 970 materilizes it will be old news. you think jobs is going to give you something that isnt shit? apple jumped that shark so hard that today, its merely a PC, with a really shitty CPU, a really bad selection of video cards, extremely limited in terms of applications that people actually use, and a bloated OS full of eye candy and ineffcient code to suck up all the CPU and Video cycles you dont have in a full out effort to force you to upgrade.
What i find amusing is that the Dual G4 systems get blow away by single CPU systems in various tests. take a bite out of that apple, pal, and the center has shit in it.
the 970 wont save you from your prison of horribly performing machines. and i have very recently used modern apple systems and if you cant admit they are a joke, well then, be Job's guest, and buy them up there pretty boy.
your statements about RISC are plain false. code overhead? what the hell are you talking about? if you think you know anything about processors that a person who writes compilers doesnt, you are deranged. and binaries for RISC cpus happen to be larger than the respective "CISC" binaries
also note, that the RISC argument is so dead its not even funny. Everyone knows RISC core reigns supreme, and very "CISC" chip out there right now uses and instruction decoder and decodes CISC instructions into RISC like opcodes.
man, you are a fruitcake poser.
wrong. specint and specfp are caclulated using only ONE CPU. So if the box has n number of CPUs, only one is used for the benchmark.
you need to learn to read.
the 128MB is an incidental - the cache for the multicore chips is shared, so that the 128 is really a pool for many CPUs.
Apple zealots: face it: the 970 is a cheezy, half assed version of a great processor. Typical for Apple users, you are used to cheesy half assed renditions of the other "Power PC" chips.
Opteron, AMD64 and sadly the P4 are going to cream its ass at SPEC, and just about everything else. get used to it. In fact, you already are. Check out the SPEC numbers for a G4 sometime, and then laugh at yourself for buying one.
oh, and even if the 970 was better per core (probably not true), whats your excuse for having no scalability in a design for a CPU? Opteron goes 4-way, Xeon goes 4-way ? 970 throws out that scablility because Apple s stupid.
you cant name a single system from apple that beats an x86 in rendering. you cant. and if you do you are lying. Altivec isnt innovative. The concepts it uses are available in every modern processor. SIMD/SSE is available to other CPUs
I laugh at the would-be spec marks for the vapor 970. laugh. it will be outclassed the day it is born. and you will still have to choose from a line of inferior computers.
i have a mac at my disposal, and when i hear video editing i snicker, chucle. Everything takes longer one a Mac, everything. From video, to encode, to playback. Everything. If you think otheriwse you smoke crack. Please dont try and say professiona markets either. What a joke. Professional = Power4+, SPARC, Alpha, etc... Web design monkies who are too spoiled to be ambidextrous with PC and Macs are NOT FUCKING PROFESSIONAL.