Slashdot Mirror


Apple To Discuss HyperTransport For Future Macs

macrealist writes "CNET is reporting that Apple will discuss the use of HyperTransport in Macs at the Developer's conference. The interesting thing is that the article claims that Apple is not likely to use hypertransport to link the CPU to the memory, but instead to link chipsets together because IBM would have to 'to adapt it to the Power architecture.' But according to arstechnica, the 970 does have a frontside bus that operates at similar speeds to Hypertransport."

86 comments

  1. Hypertransport as I understand it... by sockit2me9000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    does not necessarily need to be used throughout the system. I can see where they'd use it to connect the two processors in a dual chip computer but let the front-side bus be something different. Though it is interesting that they picked the name "Smeagol" for the OS revision that allows thee 970 to be compatible, because the whole idea behind HT is to allow all the chips to speak the same language so nothing has to be translated from chip to chip. "One bus to bind them" perhaps?

    1. Re:Hypertransport as I understand it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      nah, smeagol was picked cos of the general attitude of mac users to our hardware...

      "We loves it we do! my precioussss"

      (twelve powermacs and counting)

    2. Re:Hypertransport as I understand it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is looking more and more like the IBM-970 does use/support Hypertransport.

      "Six GDA IP cores are available through IBM Blue Logic IP Collaboration Program including HyperTransport Cave, Tunnel, Host and Bridge, 10 Gigabit Ethernet MAC, and SPI4.2 link controller. Information on these IP cores is available on IBM and GDA web sites."

      The above is from this news release from the Hypertransport Consortium http://www.hypertransport.org/pr_050503b.htm

      Shadow

  2. Mac Clusters? by EddWo · · Score: 1

    Can hypertransport be used for inter-machine communication? What distance can it operate over?

    Imagine a beow... of MACs?

    --
    "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    1. Re:Mac Clusters? by jtrascap · · Score: 1

      I believe that it's only for removing the bridge (northbridge to southbridge bus) from the architecture - and at "6.4 gigabytes to 12.8 GigaBYTES/second" rate too. Wheee! But alas internal...

    2. Re:Mac Clusters? by danigiri · · Score: 5, Informative
      Much as we all would love to see it, getting HyperTransport outta-box would involve a lot of tradeoffs that would lower its speed, ending up possibly lower than FW800 (that is designed from the ground up to be external).

      <pedantically> I think that Apple has already developed a tried and true solution for external, non-ethernet-based, high-speed data transfer. It is called FireWire800.

      Of course, an IP substack can be built on top of the FW, to have additional networking options. (Check out)</pedantically>

      0.02â

    3. Re:Mac Clusters? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My question is why isn't why isn't FireWire used inside the box?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Mac Clusters? by cait56 · · Score: 1

      Hypertransport could probably be used for inter-processor communication, if you had processors that didn't share their memory but were in the same case.

      The key is that it is very fast, switchable, but can't cover great distances or deal with lots of addresses.

      It would be important for things like very fast NICs that the old PCI bus just can't keep up with.

      So if you want a Beowolf cluster communicating with 10 GigE NICs then hypertransport will help. But to really work well at those rates the applications have to forget the sockets interface totally and embrace direct data placement (RDMA).

      I wouldn't expect real benefits from something like hypertransport to be visible to desktop machine users anytime soon. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea, just that its an enabler that needs lots of follow up steps.

    5. Re:Mac Clusters? by godzilla808 · · Score: 1
      Imagine a beow... of Macs?

      Done a long time ago (although not with hypertransport :) daugerresearch

      --
      ...///...
    6. Re:Mac Clusters? by batobin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good question. A few years back there were rumors that Apple was going to switch to Firewire for internal connectivity. Reporters had spotted machines at Apple with internal Firewire cables sticking out of drive bays. But this was never shipped. Why? Well, I have one idea.

      Consider, for a moment, what Firewire is. It's a bus to transfer data from a chain of devices. This is why it supports speeds up to 800Mbps. Individual drives cannot utilize all of this speed by themselves. Therefore, unless you have multiple drives on the same bus (daisy chained), the speed is never fully utilized. That said, why would Apple WANT to use anything but IDE internally? IDE controllers are cheaper, and the IDE interface is plenty fast (100 Mbps) for any drive you can throw at it. In reality, Firewire drives are simply IDE drives with a new interface slapped on. It's cheaper for Apple to ship computers without that extra interface.

      Plus, Apple would get a lot of flak for shipping computers with their proprietary standard. And to be honest, I would be one of those people dishing out the flak.

    7. Re:Mac Clusters? by hype7 · · Score: 1

      there's one other reason. how many drives (of any description - CD-ROM, hard, DVD, etc) do you see shipping with a native firewire interface?

      answer - none. All of them use IDE-Firewire bridges. So why add extra firewire inside the machine, and extra firewire on all the drives, when all that's really happening is they're using IDE anyway?

      -- james

    8. Re:Mac Clusters? by podperson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reporters had spotted machines at Apple with internal Firewire cables sticking out of drive bays.

      I'm not sure about the "sticking out of drive bays" bit, but Macs (and PCs) with FireWire support can generally mount internal firewire drives as well as external, which is what that's for. Since (as you go on to point out) many firewire drives are just IDE drives anyway, there's relatively little point to this.

      In reality, Firewire drives are simply IDE drives with a new interface slapped on.

      Well the cheap ones are. You can also stick a RAID of IDE drives on a FireWire interface, for example, and take advantage of greater throughput. I also have a FireWire storage device that strongly resembles a digital camcorder...

      Plus, Apple would get a lot of flak for shipping computers with their proprietary standard. And to be honest, I would be one of those people dishing out the flak.

      FireWire -- aka IEEE 1394 -- is hardly all that proprietary (and it's not just owned by Apple; there's a consortium). FireWire has low associated IP costs (a few years ago some companies were complaining that a FireWire controllers cost about $1.00 to add to a device).

      The main problem is that IDE is very entrenched and so device manufacturers see FireWire support as an unnecessary added cost. FireWire won't be able to compete with IDE in the low cost hard disk interface market without much greater uptake and it won't get the uptake without cheap IDE hard disks. Oh well.

    9. Re:Mac Clusters? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple did ship all "Sawtooth" (1st generation) G4s with an internal Firewire port.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    10. Re:Mac Clusters? by batobin · · Score: 1

      Ooops. I didn't think you were right, but it looks like google agrees with you. Thanks for catching that.

    11. Re:Mac Clusters? by Xyde · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people went to the effort of developing SATA, when that's basically what FireWire is. FireWire is free to use and implement, relatively inexpensive per controller, supplies power, offers long cable runs (compared to ATA), daisychainable, and hot pluggable. Can someone please explain to me what benifiets SATA have over firewire? I don't understand it...

  3. Apple feels like ... by torpor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... what I always wanted SGI to become. A cool hardware company with seriously good intentions towards the Unix world.

    My next computer will be another powerbook, that's for sure... please continue to rock, Apple.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Apple feels like ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple seriously needs to buy SGI.

      Seriously.

      Hear me out.

      The Origin family of computers is basically the coolest thing out there. It's getting a little long in the tooth--the node-to-node interconnect is only 3.6 GB/s which isn't awe-inspiring any more--but it's got serious coolness.

      IRIX is a great operating system, but it's also long in the tooth, and it's tied to MIPS processors.

      The Origin design transcends the CPU, however; behold the Itanium Origin, which SGI calls the Altix. (Yes, it's hideously ugly. I'm getting to that.)

      Basically Apple could buy SGI for a song right now. In the transaction, they'd get all of SGI's IP and sales contracts. They could continue operating SGI as an independent company to serve existing customers and customer bases--NASA, NOA, that sort of thing--but shut down everything that's not profitable. Like the nationwide sales channel, for example. What a cluster-fuck that is. Get existing big MIPS customers migrated over to Darwin on PowerPC or Darwin (Linux compatible) on Itanium (I see no good reason to keep going with Linux development) over the next five years or so.

      The Origin 350 gets PowerPC processors and Mac OS X Server and becomes the next-generation XServe. Four processors (or maybe even eight; PowerPC's are small and cool) in two rack units, scalable with external 3.6 GB/s high-speed interconnect up to 32 (or maybe 64) processors. No clustering required; that's a single system image for those who need or want it. Ideal price point for an entry-level four-processor system: ~$5,000. Maybe get really cool and do a two-processor system for ~$3,000. Get in bed with Oracle and Sybase (moreso, I mean) and get their stuff running better on PowerPC than it does on any other platform. (Are databases candiates for vector optimizations?) If it makes sense, get big applications like Oracle and Sybase and Web Objects and BLAST and so on running on Itanium 2 versions of the Origin 350-based Xserve. If it makes sense. Keep the PowerPC available throughout the product line, however, for compatibility with existing software.

      The Power Mac-based Xserve would remain as the lower-cost and non-scalable option.

      If the demand ever exists for it, which it might someday, Apple can put PowerPC's in the Origin 3900 family (the SN-2 family) and sell supercomputers that scale from 4 to 1,024 processors and up. If the demand exists.

      As for SGI's visualization systems, IR4 and IP, if it makes business sense, keep 'em around. If it doesn't, kill 'em.

      Fuel? Kill it unless it can pay for itself. Same with Octane2. Same with Chimera, the upcoming Origin 300-inspired workstation product.

      But the good news is that Apple would be able to take the truly cutting-edge work SGI has been basically pissing away, like GSN with ST for multi-gigabyte-per-second communication over TCP/IP and XFS/CXFS for high-performance direct-attach and fabric-attach storage and FailSafe for high availability and (1) continue developing them in a sort of skunkworks R&D environment, and (2) move them down to the servers and desktops as it becomes practical to do so.

      SGI has seriously got it goin on, but they've lost all momentum in the marketplace and need a hero. Apple has momentum in the marketplace and would benefit from a leg up on some cool advanced technologies. Also, Apple has assloads of cache and valuation to trade with.

      Please please please please please...

    2. Re:Apple feels like ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Apple could buy SGI for a song right now.

      And then put it on iTMS for $0.99?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Apple feels like ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Apple would love to buy SGI, but the price is too high. Bob Bishop wants $10 share for it. SGI also has a poison pill in the form of $200 Million dollar loan that is do in 2 years, and rumaor has it that MSFT is counting on picking up the pieces after the y default.

      Apple has instead been hiring the top SGI Enginersm and Marketing people from SGI, in fact the product manager for Apples XServe was the top guy at SGI before comming to Apple, and I expect to see some Government sales go to Apple now.

      Bishop dont want to sell A/W because it is profitable for SGI, and not much is there these days. Steve Jobes would love to control Maya because it is key not only for Apples Grail, but Pixars Renderman Software.

      Shadow0.

    4. Re:Apple feels like ... by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

      Basically Apple could buy SGI for a song right now.

      So that means that Apple could buy SGI more than 200 000 times

      Okay. Worst pun ever. Mod me down!

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
    5. Re:Apple feels like ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in fact the product manager for Apples XServe was the top guy at SGI before comming to Apple

      Got a name?

  4. What about upgrades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen and read shedloads of things about
    thoses "G5" thingies, the Bus they will be using ,how fast they will be and so on and so on.

    So far I haven't seen anything about upgrades for older Macs.

    If the bus systems are different, it means owners of olders Macs will be stuck at Bi-pro 1.4 giga.

    It's not bad or even very good for the coming year or the next if you only do basic stuff. But after that what?

    Is there a chance Motorola becomes a major suppliers of upgrade processors or will it be IBM boosting the G3 until it drops?

    What do you guys think?

    1. Re:What about upgrades? by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      To do it right, you'd have to get a new bus as the chips are being strangled by bandwidth bottlenecks on current bus designs. The bus is laid into the motherboard. You'd have to get a new motherboard, probably a new power supply, a new CPU, and it would likely be so expensive (the port arrangements on the new ones are likely to be different so upgrade boards would be different parts than new production and thus smaller runs) that it doesn't make much sense to upgrade unless you have a personal attachment to your case.

      I upgraded my SE to an SE/30 way back when. I saved maybe $200 on buying a new one.

    2. Re:What about upgrades? by Funksaw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's true - Macs are harder to upgrade the CPU than PCs. Everything else is fair game, but the CPU is expensive to upgrade. On the plus side, Macs retain their resale value for much longer. If you buy a top of the line Mac in year X, by the time you ebay it in year X+2, it'll probably pay for half of your new top-of-the-line mac. I'm trying to sell my laptop right now to buy a mac... because my Laptop is windows based, I can't get crap for it - even though it's only 8 months old. -- Funky.

    3. Re:What about upgrades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      To do it right, you'd have to get a new bus as the chips are being strangled by bandwidth bottlenecks on current bus designs.

      I don't know where these rumors get started.

      The combination of fat caches, low latency, and predictive fetching basically negates the memory bus bottleneck in the current-generation (MaxBus-based) Power Macs. Even in SIMD instances, the processor generally doesn't have to wait on data that much. (This is especially true in SIMD instances, because these are almost always sequential-read applications, which makes those fat caches and predictive fetching work up a sweat.) Consider Apple's AltiVec-optimized BLAST, for instance. It's 10X faster than BLAST on a Pentium 4. It's not memory-bound. It's compute-bound.

      What's that famous Seymour Cray quote? "A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound tasks into I/O-bound tasks."

      So if anybody produces PowerPC 970 upgrades with MaxBus interfaces, they're almost certain to be good buys. Unless they cost thousands of dollars, of course. A dual-1.8 GHz (pulled that number out of my ass, guys) Power Mac G5 (pulled that out of my ass, too) will be faster than a dual-1.8 GHz upgrade in a MaxBus G4, but it'll still be considerably faster than the G4 was originally.

    4. Re:What about upgrades? by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Generally Apple has worked hard to make buying a new mac an attractive option over upgrading one over the years.

  5. Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by tyagiUK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As many people (keep) saying, Apple kit isn't necessarily the fastest out there in terms of raw speed. However, from a day-to-day point of view, is raw speed what you want on a minute-by-minute basis? Probably not. If you do, then you've probably got a dual or quad processor x86 box churning away with your favourite SMP kernel-based OS. For everyday use (productivity apps, Internet, media manipulation) Apple kit does a really good job. Firewire is fast and convenient. More importantly, Apple kit (and software) is very stable in my experience. Apple looks like it is selective in its choice of cool new tech (tm) to incorporate into its products. This is a Good Thing.

    --
    Contribute to the online videogame encyclopedia: GamerWiki
    1. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, from a day-to-day point of view, is raw speed what you want on a minute-by-minute basis?

      No, the most important performance factor for me is GUI responsiveness -- and that's where Apple really isn't cutting it these days. Neither are the user-friendly Linux desktop apps.

    2. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What kind of Mac do you have? And what kinds of tasks are you doing?

      I have a dual-processor 1 GHz Power Mac with a Radeon 9000 card. I run lots of stuff, from basic Internet tasks with Safari and Mail.app to Project Builder/Interface Builder to InDesign and Photoshop to Virtual PC to Microsoft Office (when I have to). I find the UI to be quite responsive. I never have to wait on it, except when I'm running VPC, but that's to be expected.

      If you're running Cocoa/Java applications, expect the GUI to be sluggish. I have found that this is the case. I took a not-too-complex Cocoa/Java app (iLeech, if you must know; yes, I'm a stinkin' thief) and rewrote it in Cocoa/Objective C, and the results were astonishing. I won't guess how much more interactive it was, but it was a LOT more interactive. The Java implementation of NSTableView just doesn't handle 10,000+ rows very well compared to the Objective C implementation.

      Post a few more specifics. Let's see if we can't help you figure out whether something's not right on your machine.

    3. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Otter · · Score: 1
      Oh, a dual 1 GHz? I haven't used one but I expect that's a different story.

      I'm talking about extreme sluggishness of Office on a 550 MHz TiBook. Java apps are, as you say, awful but that has to be expected.

    4. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by WatertonMan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The GUI in the Finder is pretty slow - especially when doing drag and drop of multiple files. The context menu in the Finder is horrenduously slow. (Presumably because it doesn't cache file types for determining context menus) Clicking on folders on the dock is very slow to display its contents. Those are just in terms of display.

      Using the GUI in the open/close is slow simply because of design and not pausing or slowdowns. It takes to long to get to where you want to get. Default Folder helps a bit but really doesn't resolve a lot of problems.

      On older machines that can't access Aqua Extreme there are also some slowdowns that are annoying.

      Having said that though the speed problems of the Finder between 10.0 and 10.2 are dramatically different. Until 10.2 it was nearly unusuable for me as I have many directories with more than 30 files. I think most people expect the big advantage with 10.3 to be a new Finder.

    5. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm talking about extreme sluggishness of Office on a 550 MHz TiBook.

      Yes, Office is not a great piece of code. Here are some tips.

      First, make sure you're running the latest version. There were some significant improvements in one of the patches Microsoft released. I forget which one. Get the latest rollup patch.

      Next, turn off all the automatic-in-the-background features. In Word, turn off background pagination and... some other background stuff that I forget but that's listed in the prefs. In Excel, there's also some background stuff that needs to go. Basically turn off EVERYTHING, then turn things back on as you need them. Office comes with so much shit (autocorrect? what a waste of CPU cycles) that it takes some work to trim it down, but it's worth it.

      Next, dump PowerPoint and use Keynote instead. It's both better and faster.

      Next, dump Word and use TextEdit for everything you can. You may have to use Word sometimes, but whenever you can, use TextEdit instead. (TextEdit is open source, by the way. The source is in /Developer after you install the developer tools.)

      Finally, make sure you're not running out of memory. As soon as your machine starts swapping, performance goes to shit. And memory is very cheap these days.

    6. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Finder is not the best program ever invented. There are some alternatives that you should look into. Google for them.

      As for context menus... don't use them. Seriously. Just don't use them. There's nothing you need to do in the Finder that you can't do faster and more easily with the regular menu bar or a keyboard shortcut. Keyboard shortcuts are *a lot* faster, obviously. The menu bar is considerably faster, too. So just don't use those features.

      As for the open/save dialogs being slow, I don't see what you mean. If you're not comfortable using the file browser, get comfortable with it. It's very fast. Also, use the pop-up menu with recent items and favorites in it.

      Use your Mac like it's a Mac. Not like it's Windows with all the right-clicky stuff.

    7. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by WatertonMan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Saying don't use the context menu really just illustrates the problem of the Finder. Further there are context menus that could be useful. It's very easy to create a context menu that passes a file to a shell script, for instance. There are context menus for uncompressing or unstuffing. There are context menus for opening a file with a particular applicaiton. In theory the context menu is very powerful. In practice though...

      The alternatives to the Finder really aren't much better. I've used all of them at one time or an other and try the latest versions every few months. Most of them are just variations on the Finder anyway. I wish there was a real alternative. However we'll have to see what Apple has up their sleeve. Rumor is that they hired a lot of the Nautilus team from Gnome to work on it.

      I think they'd have been far better to have hired the folks who write OmniGraffle to rewrite the Finder. But that's me.

      We'll see what happens with 10.3. If the Finder isn't significantly better there will be a lot of pissed off people as it is by far the weakest part of OSX.

    8. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Uart · · Score: 1

      My 600 megahertz iMac loads contect menus instantaneously in the Finder. The GUI is extremely responsive, IMHO

      The only thing that pisses me off about my Macs is the damned one button mouse. On my iMac its not a problem, I just plug in a new one and move along, but on my 12" Powerbook, its a pain.

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
    9. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying don't use the context menu really just illustrates the problem of the Finder.

      What?

      Further there are context menus that could be useful.

      Sure. So? If you're not happy with the way context menus work on a Mac, don't use 'em. If you are, then quit complaining. Don't (1) complain about how bad they are, and then (2) laud them for being so powerful. That's just stupid.

      In theory the context menu is very powerful.

      Actually, in theory, as in the theory and practice of human user interface design, the context menu is the worst idea ever. It's completely invisible and gives no clue to its capabilites or even existence until invokes. You can control-click on a Finder icon, but not on an icon in a open/save dialog. Why? You can control-click on a work in an editable text field, but not a non-editable text field. Why? You can click on the empty space on the desktop, and you can click on the empty space in a window, but they do completely different things. Why?

      Context menus are random and unintuitive. They're bad UI design.

      The alternatives to the Finder really aren't much better.

      Then write one that makes you happy. Shouldn't take more than a day. Everything you need is right there in AppKit and Foundation Kit.

      Rumor is that they hired a lot of the Nautilus team from Gnome to work on it.

      That rumor is false, and you're an idiot for repeating it. Jesus, people, use your brains!

      If the Finder isn't significantly better there will be a lot of pissed off people

      Yawn. Everybody likes to point at their own particular pet bitch and say, "If this isn't fixed, there's gonna be trouble!" What they fail to realize is that everybody else uses it and has no complaints to speak of. It's just them.

    10. Re:Technically Cool Hardware, or Fast and Cheap? by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
      So tell me how you [i]really[/i] think. (grin)

      The advantage to context menus is that you don't have to mouse all the way to the top of the screen to access a menu to do something. Thus there is less movement. Further there is a visual clue since it is an object you are clicking on. Right clicking or Ctrl-clicking provides a list of actions you can do with that object. Since there is a menu, this clearly is visual.

      While you may not like context menus clearly many people do, just as they like scroll wheels. Don't make the rest of us suffer because of your preferences.

      It's not stupid to complain about how badly implemented a feature of the Finder is. Sometimes it is better to leave something off than do a half-assed job of it. If you implement a feature then you are responsible for how that implementation is done. And the fact is that, as with so many things in the Finder, a little forethought in programming could offer a huge speed increase. As I mentioned a little caching could dramatically improve the speed of the context menu.

      As for your complaint about context menus in the Finder but not open/close dialogs, I agree that is a problem. I'm confused at how you see this a problem with context menus and not the poor programing of the team who does open/close dialgos. As for why clicking on the desktop and an empty space in a window is different. Obviously (and visually) they are different objects.

      As for the rumor about the Nautilus team, what is your source that it isn't true? It's been widely reported. Further I am very sure that Pavel Cisler who worked on both Nautilus and the BeOS tracker is working on the Finder.

      See this OS News article.

      As for "everybody else uses it and has no complaints to speak of." Have you visited any OSX forums?!?!? The Finder is griped about more than all else in OSX combined.

  6. Switch? by executebusiness.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been thinking of switching over to Apple, and now that many designers are coming up with cool products with OSX support, I am paying much more attention to Mac. I can remember back in the day when I first saw an Apple 2e, and I thought that it was so much better than my TI 99/4A, because of the games mostly. Oh and it had it's own monitor, and at the time I needed a TV for my TI. :)

    I like the idea that Mac develops the hardware and software together under one roof. I think following the process from all angles like that would make for a better product. It's a better philosophy than the Windows/PC mish-mash way of thinking, primarily because no person sees all ends of the production for PC, and you can bet that there are quality issues with computability under PC that just aren't there with Apple (or at least that is what one would expect). So looking at Hyper Transport, at this stage, I'm a tad leery of it because it didn't come from Apple. I'm worried that it might have some kind of negative impact on the technology.

    The necessary question is; is this going to be the next evolutionary step for Apple, or is it just an added hardware feature that is relatively minor?

    1. Re:Switch? by pauljlucas · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I have been thinking of switching over to Apple, and now that many designers are coming up with cool products with OSX support, I am paying much more attention to Mac.
      Does that imply that you are using your current computers for out-of-the-ordinary things that Macs currently can not do either at all or at least as well? If the answer is "no," then you could have already switched.
      So looking at Hyper Transport, at this stage, I'm a tad leery of it because it didn't come from Apple.
      Uhm, the CPUs don't come from Apple (they're not in the CPU business); the hard drives don't come from Apple (they're not in the hard drive business); the memory doesn't come from Apple (they're not in the memory business); the LCD screens don't come from Apple (they're not in the LCD business); etc.

      Apple contracts with dozens of commodity hardware manufactures to build components. Rebranding other-manufacturer items with the Apple logo doesn't make them "come from Apple."

      ... is this going to be the next evolutionary step for Apple, or is it just an added hardware feature that is relatively minor?
      Is this issue really the show-stopper preventing you from using Macs? Seems kind of odd.
      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    2. Re:Switch? by sagrotan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Somehow I have been on the brink of switching (gee Apples' ad campaign was too successfull I guess) for more than a decade.
      The first computer I ever owned was a C64 (yes, I'm that old).
      When the first MacIntosh was out, I wanted one. Being a teenager and being broke, I ended up with an Atari ST instead.

      Being a student, I was equally broke and happy to replace the ST with old PC boxes I did inherit from their previous users (usually my dad), going 386, 486, P133, P200. Each machine I got was at least 2 years behind current models (the P200 lasted me until the P III broke the GHz barrier).

      For the sake of raw 3D games power without the price (remember the old Atari quote here?), my next machine was a PC again. I had forgotten Macs over the years.

      Later I started using Macs at work (next to PCs), just shortly before OS X came out. Then I started again wanting a Mac, and loving OS X running on the Mac at work I am using, I'm quite sure that my next machine will be a Mac.

      The only thing that I would miss are games. You get games for the Mac, but sure not the boatload you have for a PC. Although a Gamecube and an Xbox are in place to fill that gap now.

      Is the "IBM would have to change their 970 chip" quote from the article evidence that 970 based Macs are knocking on our doors yet?

      15 years later, I can almomst see the Mac sitting on my desk soon.

    3. Re:Switch? by executebusiness.com · · Score: 1
      Is this issue really the show-stopper preventing you from using Macs? Seems kind of odd.
      The only thing stopping me currently is a lack of funds, and an uneasy feeling that Apple might not be right for me. I've tried it at college a few times and the graphics generated by Photo Shop for Mac are better than PC for some reason (I have no idea why since it's the same product, different platform).

      After cash is concerned, this is going to sound so shallow, but, Mac has typically been a chick thing. Girls are from Venus, where Mac must be from, and Guys are from Mars, where IBM forged PCs with hammers and the might of Valhalla! Seriously, to get me to switch to Mac, there will have to be carnage involved, or a scary-looking skin/theme mod for OSX.

      I think after those two things settle, I would gladly switch. There was a parody video against the Switch ads that made me think twice. The guy in it hates the Mac and complains about things that scare me, too.

      Maybe when I can free up a couple grand (note: Canadian Funds), I'll pick one up and never look back.

      One thing I have heard is that everyone who is a Mac lover is loyal to the bone. That has to count for something, IMHO.

    4. Re:Switch? by dhovis · · Score: 4, Informative
      So looking at Hyper Transport, at this stage, I'm a tad leery of it because it didn't come from Apple.

      Apple is a member of the HyperTransport Consortium. They have a hand in the development of the technology.

      --

      --
      The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    5. Re:Switch? by bedouin · · Score: 1

      The only thing that I would miss are games. You get games for the Mac, but sure not the boatload you have for a PC. Although a Gamecube and an Xbox are in place to fill that gap now

      Seriously, the game situation for Macs isn't nearly as bad as it seems. In fact, I was a little surprised the other night going through my CD envelopes and seeing that nearly more than half of my Mac software was games.

      The nice thing about gaming on Macs is that if you do find a game, it's usually a tried and true title. Well, usually, anyway.

    6. Re:Switch? by dbrutus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually HyperTransport did come at least partially from Apple as it's a founding member of the consortium that made it.

      Apple has a long history of choosing technology that it thought was better. Who had SCSI on their full PC line in the mid-80s (which was not invented by Apple) besides Apple? Eventually IDE got good enough that SCSI didn't fit the definition of "better, if more expensive" for their user base and just got to be more expensive so they switched.

      A fast system bus is *the* major issue with Apple hardware. The G4 isn't that bad even today (when it's 2x clocked by Intel processors) when it's not starved for internal bandwidth but Apple's current MB designs *do* starve it.

      With a faster chip (clock speed) running at 64bits (very good for complex processing) that doesn't have nearly the speed penalty of Intel's 64 bit solution running 32 bit code Apple's going to be doing a lot better than a minor hardware upgrade.

      Whether they announce at WWDC or hold off is another question.

    7. Re:Switch? by dbrutus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The next time you play around with a Mac OS X machine look inside an application bundle. See those nib files? They provide the user interface and you can modify them using apple's developer package tools.

      Yes, the entire computer is skinnable, user apps included. Now this doesn't include classic apps (which you won't be using much of), unix apps (which don't use NIBS) and monolithic code not in a bundle (like RealBasic). For the rest of the 90% of Mac apps, you can really mod to your heart's delight. Most people don't do this because they *like* the way Apple makes everything work with everything else. But if that's what floats your boat...

    8. Re:Switch? by executebusiness.com · · Score: 0, Troll

      This is so cool! I didn't know we could do this. Mac is looking good to me more and more, the more I read about it. :)

      What about the mouse? Can we get a multi-button mouse for Mac? That single clicker bugs me. :/

    9. Re:Switch? by executebusiness.com · · Score: 1

      Do you think I would notice this MB slowdown? I'm an avid gamer, but I still run a P3 500 with a cheap Geforce card (mx 440). I don't have the super high-end system I used to have (hehe), so I'm curious if the hardware would be that noticeable to me, considering many of you are running 2ghz CPUs, etc. :)

      I guess speed could be in the mind's eye of the beholden?

    10. Re:Switch? by Thebogey · · Score: 2, Informative
      What about the mouse? Can we get a multi-button mouse for Mac? That single clicker bugs me. :/

      Yes, you can. Basically any USB mouse should work. I use an Intellimouse myself - it needs MS drivers to recognize the 4th and 5th button, but the three standard buttons and the scrollwheel work even without those.

      --
      I am Dyslexic of Borg. Your ass will be laminated.
    11. Re:Switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the graphics generated by Photo Shop for Mac are better than PC for some reason

      I worked in the graphic arts for ten years. Here's the honest-to-god truth: people who use Macs for art applications like Photoshop and Illustrator are generally more talented than people who use PC's.

      Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush. But when you pick a random piece of work generated on a Mac, you're going to find that it looks better than a random piece of work generated on a PC.

      Cause and effect? No idea. I'm just saying that in my not-entirely-insignificant experience, there's a definite correlation.

      Seriously, to get me to switch to Mac, there will have to be carnage involved, or a scary-looking skin/theme mod for OSX.

      Uh. If you want to make your Mac look ugly, there are ways. But it's not a good idea. First, because it's UGLY. And second, because Apple, collectively, knows more about designing human user interfaces that are more aesthetically pleasing and more functional than anybody else in the world. If you change your Mac's look, you are ALMOST guaranteed to be making it WORSE, both looks-wise and works-wise.

      The guy in it hates the Mac and complains about things that scare me, too.

      Like?

    12. Re:Switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try the factory-supplied mouse first. Seriously, try it. You never need a second mouse button unless you're running something like Maya that depends on it. Mac OS X has contextual menus for lots of things, but not for anything that can't also be done with a keyboard shortcut or a menu item, and the keyboard shortcuts are always faster.

      Try the factory-supplied mouse for a month, or even two. You'll be a little frustrated at first because you'll be used to having to do that right-click thing, but learn to use your Mac. Then decide, after you're comforatble with the one-button UI, whether you want to add a third-party mouse.

      That's what I did, on the advice of a good friend. I switched and drove myself crazy trying to right-click. For about a week. Then I learned to use the Mac, and after two weeks more I decided that multi-button mice just weren't for me.

    13. Re:Switch? by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the article Apple is even one of the founding members.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    14. Re:Switch? by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      The only thing that I would miss are games. You get games for the Mac, but sure not the boatload you have for a PC. Although a Gamecube and an Xbox are in place to fill that gap now.
      You dont' know how true that is. All the good PC games are being ported to Xbox, since it is so easy from a developers standpoint, due to the HDD and Nvidia GPU. Plus UT 2003 is out or coming out for Mac, and I heard Doom 3 will come out on Mac.

    15. Re:Switch? by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      It depends on what kind of mac you would get. They have some interface work they still need to tweak on UI responsiveness. Each version gets a bit better and they're on a 6 month release schedule (much better than Windows) for point releases. Some people swear it's a problem that's fixed already, others say they still need to work on it.

    16. Re:Switch? by bacchusrx · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...scary-looking skin/theme mod for OSX...

      This page has a nice selection of themes for Mac OS X. The Rhapsodized and QNX themes are the best of them, IMHO.

      bacchusrx.

      --
      Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
    17. Re:Switch? by babbage · · Score: 1
      So looking at Hyper Transport, at this stage, I'm a tad leery of it because it didn't come from Apple. I'm worried that it might have some kind of negative impact on the technology.
      Hyper Transport seems to have been collaboratively developed by Apple and others, just as happened five years or so ago with Open Firmware. Just as Apple, AMD, and Transmeta all seem to be going in on Hyper Transport as an interconnect between hardware compoinents, Apple, Sun, and possibly others have been using OF as the "non-proprietary boot firmware that is usable on different processors and buses" for their computers for years now. There will be no negative impact, or at least not at all for the reasons that you seem to be concerned about.
      The necessary question is; is this going to be the next evolutionary step for Apple, or is it just an added hardware feature that is relatively minor?

      From everything I've read about the "speed issue" on Apple hardware over the past few years, the biggest thing holding current generation Macs back isn't the PowerPC chips, but the frozen in evolutionary time speeds of the boards those CPUs plug into. Apparently you can only expect a 20-30% speed bump by adding a second G4 processor to one of these systems, but it's not because the chips are slow -- they're really not all that bad -- but because they're bandwidth starved.

      Hyper Transport is specifically aimed to address this bottleneck. No, it cannot be a "relatively minor" thing, because if it lives up to its promise and relieves the biggest bottleneck in the current generation machines, a good chunk of the gap between PPC and x86 machines will be closed. That's a big deal.

  7. CHRP anyone? by ihatewinXP · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Heres to hoping that the Hypertransport consortium becomes to Apple what the CHRP spec always promised to do. Common specs + multiple vendors (apple, amd and who else?) = cheaper prices for everyone. From what I gathered the first area we will see the hypertransport spec will be in connecting the PCI bridge and various components like that - not processor to memory connections. But that said, it seems to me Apple is really jumping on the right bandwagon here, anything that moves the platform away from this starved processor pc133 ram shit is in my opinion A Very Good Thing.

    And yes i will be selling both my macs to get a ppc970 the day they come out.

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    1. Re:CHRP anyone? by Mikey-San · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, the PC133 thing is old, but until the new procs come, DDR is useless since the current Motoasshatola G4s don't have the cohones to utilize the faster RAM speeds of DDR.

      I restate: "Asshats."

      --
      Mikey-San
      Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
    2. Re:CHRP anyone? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I prefer the term "fucknuckle" to refer to those impotent, knuckle-dragging proto-CPU designers at Motorola.

      A 2Ghz, DDR-compatible CPU appeared on one of their roadmaps about a week ago. Since it just appeared, that means it will be at least 2 years. 2005 for 2 Ghz! If Apple is still using Motorola CPUs by then, I'll personally drive up to Cupertino and put the last piles of earth on top of their grave.

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  8. Hypertransporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the Hypertransporter(tm) your computational dreams can come true.

  9. Arglll by Lars+T. · · Score: 4, Informative
    The interesting thing is that the article claims that Apple is not likely to use hypertransport to link the CPU to the memory, but instead to link chipsets together because IBM would have to 'to adapt it to the Power architecture.' But according to arstechnica, the 970 does have a frontside bus that operates at similar speeds to Hypertransport."

    First of all: A "frontside bus that operates at similar speeds to Hypertransport" most likely isn't Hypertransport - just like a car with performance similar to a Porsche isn't a Porsche. So you can't just hook up a 970 (or POWER/PowerPC) to a Hypertransport link.

    Furthermore, linking a CPU to main memory via Hypertransport (a point-to-point link) means you can't share the memory with other CPUs (unless you have dual-ported RAM - uhh, yeah, good luck with that plan).

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    1. Re:Arglll by sergeantmudd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The CPU to main memory link for the PowerPC 970 is a point-to-point protocal and can support up to 16 CPUs. And you can just hook a 970 to a Hypertransport link, all you need is a hypertransport bridge. Hypertransport can hook into PCI, PCI Express, Firewire, ATA. That being said, I doubt the CPU to main memory link is a hypertransport link. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it used as the chipset glue.

    2. Re:Arglll by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      ... all you need is a hypertransport bridge.

      Errm, yes. That is part of the chipset, which is linked together by Hypertransport - just like the article says.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:Arglll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      That is part of the chipset,

      No. At least it is not part of any announced chipsets. What you need is a Hypertransport to ElasticIO bridge. The latter is IBM's CPU-to-CPU bus that has very similiar bandwidth but is not HT. It is likely that this "bridge" will just be the "Northgate" chip for the 970 which also interfaces to memory. You probably don't want to insert the latency of having to switch from ElasticIO , to HT, to DDR on your path to main memory. The parts which hook to the stardard PC I/O (AGP 8x, PCI-X , etc.) can flow through HT. However, I suspect Apple may not pull "off the shelf" for that road either very deeply.

      Leveraging a commodity chipset is where the big win for Apple using HT kicks in. When Apple is leveraging Southgate and Northgates that other folks are also using. Volume to drive down costs. OpenFirmware (Intel just now starting to invent that), firewire , and the 970 is where they can "think different".

    4. Re:Arglll by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Urghnf. Of course that isn't part of any anounced chipset. How many chipsets have been anounced for the 970? Or for use in Macs? That bridge would be part of the chipset Apple would introduce. As for using stardard PC I/O: what about Firewire 800 and Gigabit Ethernet? How many Southgates include either, let alone both?

      Oh no, wait, all this talk about Hypertransport is proof that Apple will not use the 970 but the Opteron after all.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  10. Least surprising news ever. by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 1

    Apple has been a member of the HyperTransport consortium for over a year now. I believe the proper response to this "news" is "duh."

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  11. This is great!! by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah! I can't wait until I can transport my Mac through hyperspace! Now all we need are the flying bicycles!!

  12. Re:Here's to the future! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Quayle. Before correcting other people's spelling errors maybe you should fix your own, dumb ass.

  13. Re: Law & Order - typo or? (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From that web link:
    "Law & Order: Dead on the Money is an exiting 3D game. . ."

    Exiting? Is this a foreshadow? Maybe they realized it sucks and are hinting at its demise.

  14. Why wouldn't Apple do it all themselves? by benwaggoner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a non-rhetorical question.

    Why would Apple buy SGI instead of doing it all themselves? Like you say, in the long term, the OS and the current hardware and the sales organization would be punted. With the 970, Apple looks to be be developing the guts of a strong workstation/server technology on their own. Buying the customers and transitioning over might be possible, but would the (checks NASDAQ.com) $241M be worth it? Wait, $241M? That's all for all of SGI? Well then!

    A few things I could see Apple wanting out of SGI:

    Maya. Buying that and making it Mac only would be in keeping with all of Apple's purchases lately. Make a free rendering client for Xserve. It'd be neat

    The sales organization. Given what SGI is facing in the market place, that they're still around and showing some revenue suggestions SOMEONE is rising to the challenge there.

    Existing customer base. Buy the accounts. Make an IRIX compatibility layer for MacOS X.

    Engineers. Presumably they've still got some good folks there. Apple could certainly use all the talent they can get in UNIX code, hardware design, etcetera.

    I don't see much long term value in SGI's existing products if Apple bought them though, and Apple is certainly willing to give up market share on other platforms in order to make a package Mac-only.

    Still, given that the whole company is only $241M, it seems like there might be something worth cherry-picking there.

    1. Re:Why wouldn't Apple do it all themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would Apple buy SGI instead of doing it all themselves?

      Because the stuff I talked about is a shitload of incredibly complicated hardware design IP. Apple would need years and a whole new staff of scientists and engineers to build it themselves from scratch.

      With the 970, Apple looks to be be developing the guts of a strong workstation/server technology on their own.

      Chips do not a server make. How you gonna connect 1,024 of those 970's together? Hypertransport? Pff.

      Maya.

      Maybe, but AW is a wholly owned subsidiary. They might get spun off.

      The sales organization.

      A thousand times no. SGI's sales organization sucks. Their sales PEOPLE are okay, sometimes, but the organization sucks.

      Existing customer base.

      Yes. Although IRIX compatability for Darwin ain't gonna happen. Better to migrate those customers to PowerPC or Itanium.

      Engineers.

      Most of the truly great SGI folks fled a long time ago, with some notable exceptions. But yes, there are some good folks in Mt. View.

      I don't see much long term value in SGI's existing products

      The Origin architecture is the key to a mid-range scalable server. You've got your 2-p 1-U units, and you've got your 128-p racks. Not much in between but SGI's Origin 350. Sun? Yeah, if you wanna pay through the nose and end up with a system that can't scale. The great thing about the Origin 350 is that you buy one (4 processors) and start using it. You decide you need more oomph, so you buy another one (4 processors) and hook 'em together, and you've got 8 processors. No new software, no migration, just plug it in and go. (Reboot required.)

      Apple NEEDS this scalable technology to give them a compelling story in the midrange server market. Combine it with the power of UNIX (TOG's bitching notwithstanding) and the wonderment of Mac OS X Server and you've got yourself a product line.

      Apple is certainly willing to give up market share on other platforms in order to make a package Mac-only.

      Apple is INCREASING market share (or trying to, and succeeding in large part) by taking top-of-the-line UNIX products like Shake and making them Mac OS X-only. It's a good strategy.

    2. Re:Why wouldn't Apple do it all themselves? by WatertonMan · · Score: 1
      Has Apple's market share increased? I thought that at best it was flat - primarily due to the problem of the Motorola chip design. If they can get sufficient 970s out they may reverse that. But they certainly haven't done it yet.

    3. Re:Why wouldn't Apple do it all themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Apple's market share has increased. The reliable estimates put it at about 11% of the home market now, and about 7-8% overall. Some estimates go as high as 13-15% of the home market, but I don't know if I believe those.

      Incidentally: Apple's market share isn't hurt one bit by the PowerPC. It's hurt by the fact that Macs are more expensive than PC's (though they provide greater value per dollar), and they're not as common as PC's. Generally speaking, nobody but Slashdotters care about processor speed.

  15. Quartz Extreme? by benwaggoner · · Score: 1

    Are you running a MacOS X box with Quartz Extreme? I'm writing this right now on a PowerBook G4 800, and the UI is nearly always as responsive as I could ask. Certainly, some applications like the Finer are slow, but heck, even when the whole Finder is locked, I can still drag a Finder window around perfectly smoothly, thanks to QE.

  16. What I read... by djupedal · · Score: 2, Informative

    The new chips, rather than being laid out in a traditional manner, where there is a strict heirarchy in terms of data flow and hand off, etc., are said to be more like an large modern urban city, where there are pockets of industrial activity and zones for local administration mixed in with housing and recreation.

    The new city has main roads that are rings (one or two), rather than grids where the government is focused in one area....industial parks in another.,...and families and fun parks all bunched up in yet another sequestered section. These ring roads serve to generally define city structure.

    The dispersed control of new, very large cities is only possible by taking advantage of modern communication and thoughtful agreement to locallized authority.

    When city government sits on a throne, and nothing happens without strict review and approval, a city can become bound up in red tape and suffer accordingly.

    By applying this logic to chip layouts, the goal of rapid and coordinated decision making can become a more rapid and efficient process.

    Let go of the frontside bus logic for a moment or two, and you'll perhaps see how this can be a leap forward, as opposed to an operational liability

  17. Superior colour management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "the graphics generated by Photo Shop for Mac are better than PC for some reason (I have no idea why since it's the same product, different platform)."
    Topic says it all; the Mac OS has far better colour management than Windows.
  18. ok, i am considering an Apple; advice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    But coming from the PC world, I want to know what system I should choose, especially in terms of being aware of where I can and can't upgrade later.

    For example, if I don't buy a SuperDrive-equipped box now, can I add one later? Are there any other things like this I need to be careful for that are "missing" from lower models? What are the architectural differences between the iMac/PowerMac and iBook/PowerBook? Is the rule about Quartz Extreme acceleration as simple as, "G3's don't support it, G4's do"? What min CPU would me to acheive "reasonable" speed for business-type apps under Virtual PC (only one or two apps I'll need there)?

    Thanks.

    1. Re:ok, i am considering an Apple; advice? by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 3, Informative

      For example, if I don't buy a SuperDrive-equipped box now, can I add one later?
      Yes: internal or external. Careful about support though: go to Apple's search page and look for DVD-RW. These are supported officially, others are not.

      Are there any other things like this I need to be careful for that are "missing" from lower models?

      The bottom of the PowerMac line is missing, well, nothing. All PowerMacs have an AGP 4X slot, plus 3 (or four?) PCI slots, so you basically can add what you want.

      Connectivity: an airport extreme slot, bluetooth-ready, FireWire 800, USB 2 (the OS doesn't support it yet, but apparently there are some hacks that work), Gigabit ethernet. You can add Fiber Channel (2 Gb/sec) too.

      Expandability: you can add 3 more hard disks (RAID support - I think), a second optical drive, go up to 2 GB RAM (maybe 4 GB with 1 GB sticks?). Some vendors sell G4 upgrades (some currently manage to get their Cube at 1,42 GhZ), but at a price.
      You can change the video card; all Powermacs come with either Radeon 9000 (dual display, one ADC, one VGA/DVI, adaptor included), 9700, or GeForce 4 Titanium.

      What is good about Powermacs (in my opinion) is not that you can upgrade like you would on any PC, but that even without upgrading, well, it still works after 15 years (I have relatives that type text on a Mac Classic / Apple printer). When I replace my G4 (in 3/4 years), it still will do a very sweet SSH / web / email server (maybe Darwin or Linux)

      What are the architectural differences between the iMac/PowerMac and iBook/PowerBook?

      iMac still has no DDR (!), its SDRAM. You can upgrade to 1 GB. It comes with a SOLDERED video card (GeForce 4 MX). Don't ever think of upgrading anything on an iMac (except RAM and hard disk). You can have airport or airport extreme (depending on the models). But my 3-year old iMac (g3 400 MhZ) runs Mac OS X fine, does Word, internet and email jobs for my dad.

      iBook is still G3, maxes out at 640 MB of RAM. I consider it to be a cheap laptop, made for students (well, it manages to do serious DV video editing, so I presume it's powerful enough).
      I never really used a powerbook, but they look like sweet machines. DDR, Radeon Mobility 9000, VGA and SVideo out.

      As for speed: I have a dual 1 GhZ, it's fast enough. I don't know about your business-type apps (if this means word-processor, well, any mac is enough; if it means Oracle database, well, I just don't know :). It runs virtual PC quite well (emulates a 667 MhZ P III), only concern is RAM (i have only 256 which is really not enough when switching back and forth OS X and Windows XP). 1 GB RAM should do. RAM is dirt cheap these days.

      Quartz Extreme: it's not about the processor (only iBook still has G3 anyways.), but about the graphic cards: you need more than 16 MB VRAM to enable Quartz Extreme (so all the current line, including iBooks, support it).

      Anyway: WWDC is REALLY close now, you should wait for the event and decide wether you can wait for the 64 bit processors and huge FSB, or pick up the discounted G4's Apple is sure to sell right before introducing the 970's to the market.

      Here, hope it helped. Applestore / Knowledge base webpages should help, or you could check www.xlr8yourmac.com

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
    2. Re:ok, i am considering an Apple; advice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thanks, this was very informative.

      Re VPC -- stuff like OrCAD, but not for anything *huge*; it's nifty on my 500MHz Wintel laptop so I guess it'd be fine. I guess also I should instantly forget about iMac's since they're neither portable nor tweakable.

      I've been having a good ol' browse. A couple of things I haven't found out: (1) You mention people sell CPU upgrades... does the single-CPU PowerMac have a 2nd empty slot? (2) Do some iBooks *not* have VGA out? A few pages I've found suggest they do, but the way I read your response, some might not.

      I am honing in on a small iBook: I don't need a super graphics card, but I do want to make sure I can easily desktopify it with big monitor and external keyboard for when I'm sitting.. here. OTOH, if things get cheaper in the next few months with the new line out, I might PowerBook...

    3. Re:ok, i am considering an Apple; advice? by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1

      All iBooks have VGA / S-Video, so hooking up a monitor is simple. But it only *mirrors* what's on your screen (stupid software limitation by Apple, there are workarounds, like shown here); whereas the Powerbooks do real multi-head display (your palettes on one screen, the windows on the other one, for example)

      If you're going to use VPC on a regular basis, I'd say to go for a G4-based system, as VPC is G4/multiproceesor/Altivec-optimized (though I've never really tried VPC on a G3, maybe it runs just fine... Max out the RAM, install Windows 98 / 2000 rather than XP, which is a CPU/RAM hog).

      A couple of things I haven't found out: (1) You mention people sell CPU upgrades... does the single-CPU PowerMac have a 2nd empty slot?
      Hmmm, probably not, but I'm not 100% sure. As I understand it (but i could be wrong), the processors are on daughter cards, so you can install a daughter card with two processors to replace a daughter card with only one processor. Check with an Apple store or a CPU upgrade manufacturer (Giga designs, Sonnet...)

      I'm not sure Powerbooks will get cheaper anytime soon: the prices have just dropped, and WWDC will probably only bring an updated Powermac line.
      I suppose the Best Thing To Do is have a "hands on" test, at your favorite computer shop or at an Apple store.

      I hope that helped!

      --
      Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  19. Decisions... by sco08y · · Score: 1

    Oh god, I soooo want a new desktop... ...but I soooo want a car...

    ARRRRRRGHHH!!!!!