Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's Dev. Tools Hint @ Dual-core G5 & Quad Mac

Posted by Hemos on from the peering-into-the-future dept.

Eug writes "Apple just released a new version of its CHUD tools, which provides clues about dual-core G5s and quad core Macs (dual dual-core). The clues include a reference to the 970MP, which is dual-core G5 with increased L2 cache. Also, there is now support for 4 CPUs, whereas previous versions of these Mac OS X tools only supported 2. This likely means we'll see dual-core Macs by WWDC, and possibly quad Macs based off these dual-core chips by then too."

10 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Why rumors? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting


    So, while it is interesting to speculate on what Apple may be doing and where they may be going with various products, I have never really understood the rabid nature of the fan sites and rumor sites. What is the point with rumors? Can anybody explain that to me?

    I am going to be practical here: It has always amazed me that people say "I am going to wait to buy XXXX until they come out with the new one". Buy what you need for the job you need it for and realize that whenever you buy something computer related, it is likely already obsolete and will be replaced with the next shiny thing in a couple of months. There are very few times where waiting will recoup your investment. Get what you need for the job and start being productive now. If something comes out that will make you more productive, then sell off the previous system and get the new one if 1) it will pay off the investment or I suppose, 2) if you simply like shiny things.

    Don't get me wrong. Apple builds some sexy hardware and software, but I prefer to use their stuff for my work and research because it simply allows more productivity and is more pleasurable to work with, but somebody, please explain to me why the rumor sites are so popular? I understand why business analysts might be interested, and competitors, buy why the obsession of fans with these rumors?

    Oh, and is not it time for the Slashdot Apple desktop icon to be updated to reflect the current desktop line? i.e. G5.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Why rumors? by peculiarmethod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      very insightful. It occurs to me that humans hate to feel out of control.. or rather.. they like to feel in control. Government bodies/panels are created to avoid 'mob rule' at the state and federal level. When it comes to the corporate world, competition disallows a decomcracy/republic type of interaction with the customer.. and mob rule would just drive companies into the ground with poo decisions, so I estimate that rumor mills serve to satisfy the part of our brains that beg for control of any sort - 'knowing' where things will go. Besides.. we've seen companies create products due to popular demand, so it does offer SOME control.

      okay.. it's delving a bit into Economic Psychology mixed with speculation, but I bet someone out there has done a rather lengthy paper on the topic.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:Why rumors? by jizmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting
      This the logical flaw of circular reasoning. You say, whenever you buy something computer related, it is likely already obsolete and will be replaced with the next shiny thing in a couple of months. In fact this very problem is avoided by knowing when new products are coming out.

      Your other comment, Buy what you need for the job you need it for is something of a strawman. You are putting words into people's mouths when you say there is a "need." Most people don't work at NASA, where X is needed now at whatever the cost. By anticipating price moves and product changes, people can weigh the cost of delay against the benefits of reduced prices or new machines.

      This all seems rather obvious to me.

      --
      With great power comes great fan noise.
  2. Dichotomy by Space+cowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I can't help thinking that this is bad timing on Think-Secret's part. To raise your profile by doing (again!) the thing you're being sued for, at the very time you're being sued means that (if he loses), the penalties are going to be that much worse (reckless, showed no remorse, uncontrollable, etc. etc.). Lawyers will have a field day.

    On the other hand, there's the case that if he's not doing anything wrong, why not continue doing exactly that. And let's face it, if this turns out to be true, it's definitely something that Apple would want to hide. Definitely news that Apple-lovers will want to read.

    Gaah. Brain hurts.

    Assuming he's right, then at least this time (apart from 'De Plume's "sources" who know a lot more about the cpu than CHUD tools would tell you), Apple only have themselves to blame regarding the release of 4-way dev tools...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  3. bravo apple by PureCreditor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dual-Core Dual-CPU G5 will be the ultimate design powerhouse....esp if Apple/IBM can up the cores to like 2.8 or even 3GHz each, then you can have a theoretical 12GHz workstation. Even accounting for SMP overhead, a dual-core dual-cpu G5 can chunk a massively parallel job (e.g. HD movie rending) at the equivalent of 10GHz.

  4. WAIT... by thirteenVA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    [quote] "Also, there is now support for 4 CPUs, whereas previous versions of these Mac OS X tools only supported 2"[/quote]

    Before you work yourself into a tizzy of excitement that requires you to wipe off your keyboard, remember that quad processor mac rumors have been around for a long time.

    If we ever do see A quad processor mac it will likely be in a server configuration such as the xServe, not in a PowerMac.

  5. Dual Core vs. Dual Processor by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can anyone tell me if a Dual-Dual-core processor box is better than a quad-single-core box? I know none are out yet so we can't do benchmarks, but I would think that there might be bottlenecks or something that would make a quad-single-core perform better.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  6. Quads probably won't be desktops... by Who+drank+my+chocola · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...They'll be enterprise-class 4-way XServes. Hopefully with dual power-supply available.

    Really, these two features are the last things keeping Xserves out of my datacenter... (Our corporate IT policy is that all servers have dual-PS.) You can't imagine how much it sucks to have the Macs for the design team saving data to Windows servers, because Microsoft's AFP implementation blows, and so does Apple's SMB implementation. I know you can't see, but I'm doing the happy dance now.

    --
    Tough day? How about a free Mac mini?
    1. Re:Quads probably won't be desktops... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Number of servers I've owned or operated in the past ten years: Rough estimate, 500.

      Number of power supplies I've had to replace: 0.

      Excluding perfectly good servers because they don't have a particular feature that's needed so seldom the odds have to be discussed using scientific notation: stupid.

  7. might be on to something after all ... by for_usenet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay - so when the slashdot story hit, the update was available, and now (as of 2005.03.11, 1830 CST) the update is no longer available...

    Maybe those multi-CPU tabs were NOT supposed to be seen after all ...