or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The G5 and what it means for future Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The G5 and what it means for future Macs - Page 8

post #281 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by jccbin:
<strong>New Powerbooks April 30. Source claims 867 Mhz with DDR RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>If it's the Apollo, Motorola's documentation claims a 133Mhz bus speed limit.

Unless:
1) they somehow are able to use DDR RAM anyway, or
2) Motorola's documentation is just hiding higher max bus speeds for Apple's sake, or
3) it's not the Apollo, but some as-yet-unknown chip, like a 7460.

I think those are all pretty unlikely.
post #282 of 357
The source I reference does indeed infer that the processor is a newer G4, capable of native DDR support.
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #283 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
Uh, no. If I predict that tomorrow it will either be sunny, or cloudy, or cloudy and rainy, or sunny and rainy, and then on the next day it happens to be sunny, that doesn't necessarily mean that my prediction was reliable. The only difference between this example and Dorsal's predictions is that he is extremely well versed in bleeding edge computer tech, so his predictions represent all of the possible outcomes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I respectfully disagree. I have read for a very long time Dorsal and Dorsal M's posts, and have found a semblence of accuracy beyond what you describe. From my sources (doesn't it seem like we all have sources by now?), Dorsal M's MO seems to be predicting "Sun Version 2" tomorrow, when in fact, it's the same sun we've had for millions of years -- the same sun version 1. Sure, it may have sunspots tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it's a new and different sun.

When the new sun comes along (and the G5 will be bright), we won't be mistaking it for the same old with a few hacks on it.

edit -- typed a ")" when I meant a """.

[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: Chrys Robyn ]</p>
post #284 of 357
post #285 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by jccbin:
<strong>The source I reference does indeed infer that the processor is a newer G4, capable of native DDR support.</strong><hr></blockquote>

it better be a newer version right? so that it runs cooler that past 800 mHz G4s.

(this was posted by someone who don't know alot about prossesors so sorry if its stupid)

-Owl
post #286 of 357
Well I'll be damned; maybe jcc has a semi-reliable source. I hadn't heard anyting about new TiBooks being released before WWDC, but looking back at his comment a few days ago, he (his "source") called it pretty well compared to most of the half-cocked predictions I read in AI.

Wasn't there some kind of channel-emptying chaos going on with Apple's laptops in the last couple weeks though? I recall reading something about it, so I suppose a guess wouldn't have been that hard.

Hrmm. Maybe if his source could tell us a little bit about Jaguar (things we don't already know) -- things that Steve will present next Monday -- that could go a long way towards shoring up the ole "source credibility factor."
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #287 of 357
As promised a few days ago - directly from the G5 / Book E documentation, the new 64 bit instructions:

There is a subset of Book E instructions that are considered restricted only to 64-
bit Book E processing. A 32-bit Book E implementation need not implement any of
the following instructions. Likewise, neither should 32-bit Book E applications
utilize any of these instructions. All other Book E instructions shall either be supported
directly by the implementation, or sufficient infrastructure will be provided
to enable software emulation of the instructions.

64-bit integer arithmetic, compare, shift and rotate instructions

adde64[o], addme64[o], addze64[o],
subfe64[o], subfme64[o], subfze64[o],
mulhd, mulhdu, mulld[o], divd, divdu, extsw,
cmp (L=1), cmpi (L=1), cmpl (L=1), cmpli (L=1),
rldcl, rldcr, rldic, rldicl, rldicr, rldimi, sld, srad, sradi, srd,
cntlzd, td, tdi

64-bit extended addressing branch instructions

bcctre[l], bce[l][a], bclre[l], be[l][a]

64-bit extended addressing cache management instructions

dcbae, dcbfe, dcbie, dcbste, dcbte, dcbtste, dcbze, icbie, icbte

64-bit extended addressing load instructions

lbze, lbzue, lbzxe, lbzxue, ldarxe, lde, ldue, ldxe, ldxue, lfde, lfdue, lfdxe,
lfdxue, lfse, lfsue, lfsxe, lfsxue, lhae, lhaue, lhaxe, lhaxue, lhbrxe, lhze,
lhzue, lhzxe, lhzxue, lwarxe, lwbrxe, lwze, lwzue, lwzxe, lwzxue

64-bit extended addressing store instructions

stbe, stbue, stbxe, stbxue, stdcxe., stde, stdue, stdxe, stdxue, stfde,
stfdue, stfdxe, stfdxue, stfiwxe, stfse, stfsue, stfsxe, stfsxue, sthbrxe,
sthe, sthue, sthxe, sthxue, stwbrxe, stwcxe., stwe, stwue, stwxe, stwxue
post #288 of 357
Some 64 bit PowerPC Book E test code (randomly taken out of test routines):

+ #as: -a64 -mppc64 -mbooke64
+ #objdump: -Dr -Mbooke64
+ #name: xcoff64 BookE tests
+
+ .*: file format aixcoff64-rs6000
+
+ Disassembly of section .text:
+
+ 0000000000000000 &lt;.text&gt;:
+ 0t7c 22 3f 64 \ttlbre\tr1,r2,7
+ 4t7c be 1f a4 \ttlbwe\tr5,r30,3
+ 8t24 25 00 30 \tbce\t1,4\\*cr1\\+gt,38 &lt;.text\\+0x38&gt;
+ ct24 46 00 3d \tbcel\t2,4\\*cr1\\+eq,48 &lt;.text\\+0x48&gt;
+ 10t24 67 00 5a \tbcea\t3,4\\*cr1\\+so,58 &lt;.text\\+0x58&gt;
+ \t\t\t10: R_BA\t.text
+ 14t24 88 00 7b \tbcela\t4,4\\*cr2,78 &lt;.text\\+0x78&gt;
+ \t\t\t14: R_BA\t.text
+ 18t4c a9 00 22 \tbclre\t5,4\\*cr2\\+gt
+ 1ct4c aa 00 23 \tbclrel\t5,4\\*cr2\\+eq
+ 20t4d 0b 04 22 \tbcctre\t8,4\\*cr2\\+so
+ 24t4d 0c 04 23 \tbcctrel\t8,4\\*cr3
+ 28t58 00 00 74 \tbe\t9c &lt;.text\\+0x9c&gt;
+ 2ct58 00 00 89 \tbel\tb4 &lt;.text\\+0xb4&gt;
+ 30t58 00 00 f2 \tbea\tf0 &lt;.text\\+0xf0&gt;

+ # Motorola PowerPC BookE tests
+ #as: -a64 -mppc64 -mbooke64
+ \t.machine\t"ppc64"
+ \t.csect .text[PR]
+ \t.csect main[DS]
+ main:
+ \t.csect .text[PR]
+ .main:
+ \ttlbre 1, 2, 7
+ \ttlbwe 5, 30, 3
+ \tbce\t1, 5, branch_target_1
+ \tbcel\t2, 6, branch_target_2
+ \tbcea\t3, 7, branch_target_3
+ \tbcela\t4, 8, branch_target_4
post #289 of 357
[quote] Well I'll be damned; maybe jcc has a semi-reliable source. I hadn't heard anyting about new TiBooks being released before WWDC, but looking back at his comment a few days ago, he (his "source") called it pretty well compared to most of the half-cocked predictions I read in AI.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm.
<a href="http://www.powerpage.org/story.lasso?newsID=9272" target="_blank">O'Grady</a> seems to have beaten him to it and been more detailed and been more accurate.
post #290 of 357
JBL is right,

The specs were out well before my post, and , in fact, I thought the DDR part was the interesting bit. That turned out to be untrue.

My source is/was a friend who posted info on another board, which I noticed.

I'm actually disappointed. That new MoBo and it's faster bus had better show up soon.

Sorry for not getting the specs perfect. Guess both I and my source were hoping for too much.
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #291 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by jccbin:
<strong>JBL is right,

The specs were out well before my post, and , in fact, I thought the DDR part was the interesting bit. That turned out to be untrue.

My source is/was a friend who posted info on another board, which I noticed.

I'm actually disappointed. That new MoBo and it's faster bus had better show up soon.

Sorry for not getting the specs perfect. Guess both I and my source were hoping for too much.</strong><hr></blockquote>

isn't the 1mb cache ddr sram like other Mot chips?
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #292 of 357
Not being a smart ass, but what do those G5 / Book e code snippets above prove, if anything? I still haven't heard of anyone spotting an *actual* 8540 for sale in the embedded channels, much less a 7500/8500. I still think it's vaporware until someone has *seen* the chip or some variant of it, being used in the real world.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #293 of 357
haderach
You have provide "Some 64 bit PowerPC Book E test code (randomly taken out of test routines):"

Disclaimer: I really don't know what I'm writing about so feel free to correct me.

I don't know what this means, but aren't the IBM Power 4,5,6 64 bit? And don't anyone get their shorts in a bind, I'm not intimating that a Power 4,5,6 will be used in any desktop computers for Apple. But could Apple be setting up for Mac OS X to be ported to IBM's Power Series?

It is also interesting that the Power 4 has:

Open standards support
Java Transaction API (JTA)(isn't Apple pushing Java?)

Apache Web Caching Accelerator
Didn't I read somewhere that OS X server comes with?

PDF output distribution integrated
Standard API acciss to PDF & e-mail funciton
Isn't Mac OS X using PDF standards?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #294 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>Not being a smart ass, but what do those G5 / Book e code snippets above prove, if anything? I still haven't heard of anyone spotting an *actual* 8540 for sale in the embedded channels, much less a 7500/8500. I still think it's vaporware until someone has *seen* the chip or some variant of it, being used in the real world.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are compilers for 64 bit code already, they mostly support the PowerPC 620 / 625 / 630 / 64 series as well as the POWER series (and others). Those processors are / were 64 bit PowerPC processors - but they do not all fulfill the Book E criteria.

Some compilers and assemblers have been updated to generate Book E compliant code. The code examples I posted have been generated using such software.

Of course this does not prove that a G5 exists, and I never said that I have seen a PowerPC 7500 so far. As far as I know the only G5 currently available (I'm talking about Motorola G5) is the PowerPC 8540 - not the real hardware, but the software simulation of it. I haven't seen samples yet.

The only thing I said was that I now have Book E / G5 documentation, and that's all I can talk about. Of course the fact that there is a documentation does not prove that there is a real hardware too.
post #295 of 357
[quote]I don't know what this means, but aren't the IBM Power 4,5,6 64 bit?<hr></blockquote>

Correct, they are (like their precessors). The Power4 has been available for some time now, the successors are scheduled for 2004 and 2006.

[quote]And don't anyone get their shorts in a bind, I'm not intimating that a Power 4,5,6 will be used in any desktop computers for Apple.<hr></blockquote>

Apple could use the Power4, but you have to keep in mind that this processor is very expensive, produces a lot of heat and does not support AltiVec.

[quote]But could Apple be setting up for Mac OS X to be ported to IBM's Power Series?<hr></blockquote>

Of course they could, but who would buy the machine? Typical MacOS software wouldn't take much profit of the Power4 design.

On the other hand the Power5 and Power6 processors will be designed to be much cheaper and to produce much less heat, at the same time they will offer even better performance than the Power4. This could be an alternative for Apple, although - as far as I know - IBM does not plan to implement AltiVec in the POWER series.
post #296 of 357
"Sorry, but even the old 500 MHz 7400's AltiVec units are easily capable of saturating PC2100. Plus Apple now sells dual CPU machines- if one CPU is capable of saturating a PC133 rated bus, then two are obviously crippled on it.

DDR is long overdue, as is adoption of the faster ATA flavors (either ATA100 or ATA133), hardware support for 5.1 sound (DTS)- a natural complement for DVDs, built-in sound in or a reasonably priced PCI-based sound solution, FireWire 2 (800 mbps instead of 400), USB 2, dual CPUs throughout the "pro" line, and a built-in hardware IDE RAID controller.

There's a lot that needs to be done, and a valid question is why it's taking so long. Most of the clone x86 chipset makers (Via, SiS, ALi, even nVidia) already have much of the above built in, and their research budgets are often considerably less than Apple's.

We pay a premium- if we're buying the "BMW" of the computer world, why doesn't the high-end offer more features and outperform competitors, the way high-end BMW's do?

My $.02 as always,

-Natebrau "

From Macedition reply to article board.

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Nuff said.
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #297 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"Sorry, but even the old 500 MHz 7400's AltiVec units are easily capable of saturating PC2100. Plus Apple now sells dual CPU machines- if one CPU is capable of saturating a PC133 rated bus, then two are obviously crippled on it.

DDR is long overdue, as is adoption of the faster ATA flavors (either ATA100 or ATA133), hardware support for 5.1 sound (DTS)- a natural complement for DVDs, built-in sound in or a reasonably priced PCI-based sound solution, FireWire 2 (800 mbps instead of 400), USB 2, dual CPUs throughout the "pro" line, and a built-in hardware IDE RAID controller.

There's a lot that needs to be done, and a valid question is why it's taking so long. Most of the clone x86 chipset makers (Via, SiS, ALi, even nVidia) already have much of the above built in, and their research budgets are often considerably less than Apple's.

We pay a premium- if we're buying the "BMW" of the computer world, why doesn't the high-end offer more features and outperform competitors, the way high-end BMW's do?

My $.02 as always,

-Natebrau "

From Macedition reply to article board.

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Nuff said.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do high-end BMW's have usb 2.0, nope they don't need it nor do they need ATA 133.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #298 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by haderach:
<strong>

Typical MacOS software wouldn't take much profit of the Power4 design.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was more referring to Mac OS X Server. Since Mac OS X Server is Unix based wouldn't most Unix software run and if not, couldn't they be recompiled to?

I guess my question is, the 64 bit code you refer to might not be targeted at a 64 bit G5 for desktops, but rather a move on Apple's part to move into the server market. Feasable, desirable, I don't know. Hence, my stumbling questions.

Apple does sell Mac OS X Server, how serious are they about this market? If they are serious, wouldn't the ability to run it on IBM machines be an advantage for Apple?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #299 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>Well I'll be damned; maybe jcc has a semi-reliable source. I hadn't heard anyting about new TiBooks being released before WWDC, but looking back at his comment a few days ago, he (his "source") called it pretty well compared to most of the half-cocked predictions I read in AI.</strong><hr></blockquote>No, he was totally wrong. The other sites had predicted 800Mhz top-end, same mobo. The only unique features his source predicted, DDR and 867Mhz, turned out to be wrong.
post #300 of 357
[quote]
We pay a premium- if we're buying the "BMW" of the computer world, why doesn't the high-end offer more features and outperform competitors, the way high-end BMW's do?
<hr></blockquote>

Because Apple doesn't make the "BMWs" of the computer world. They make the computer equivalent of a Pontiac Trans Am with a 4 cylinder engine, drum brakes, and a 3 speed automatic. Glam on the outside, antiquated components on the inside.

And Apple doesn't have any choice. They must maintain exorbitant margins because their volume is relatively low and they have to fund all of their own R&D. The only way out for Apple is to increase their market share, so they can sell a larger volume and thus lower their profit margins.
post #301 of 357
[quote] DDR is long overdue, as is adoption of the faster ATA flavors (either ATA100 or ATA133), hardware support for 5.1 sound (DTS)- a natural complement for DVDs, built-in sound in or a reasonably priced PCI-based sound solution, FireWire 2 (800 mbps instead of 400), USB 2, dual CPUs throughout the "pro" line, and a built-in hardware IDE RAID controller. <hr></blockquote>

You know, these are good points- and the responsibility for not implementing a lot of them lie at Apple's feet. Uni-N has been around for several years now- companies like VIA don't seem to have problems bringing along new chipsets every year. I understand that Uni-N in particular has consistently been improved upon, but still, where is its replacement?

One would think that especially in the pro line, it's in Apple's best interest to keep throwing in additional reasons to spend the money on the almost $3k dual GHz machine- even if profit margin is squeezed, in absolute terms, they make the most money on that model. Why not throw in an integrated hardware IDE RAID, just like the x86 world? IMNSHO, I think that full 5.1 sound support in hardware would be a killer reason to upgrade from my beige G3- why can't I use my PowerMac as the center of my home theater?

Perhaps we need to send in letters to convince S. Jobs and Co. that this is where Apple needs to be pushing the Pro line along...

-HOS
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
post #302 of 357
post #303 of 357
Yes, but it is Apple's choice who's CPUs to put in their motherboards.

I mean, Apple needs to look after their products. If Motorola looks like having no chance to produce CPUs on par with the rest of the industry, then Apple needs to talk to other makers (eg IBM, UMC, TSMC) to license produce Moto CPUs, develop and produce CPUs for Apple (IBM, AMD or Intel) or develop CPUs themselves and get others to manufacture them.

Motorola makes below-par CPUs for high-end desktop computers. But Apple chooses to put them in high-end desktop computers.

We all live in fairly free-maket economies. So if you don't like what Apple is doing, buy something else. Thats what makes the (free-market) world go round.

Barto

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #304 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>No, he was totally wrong. The other sites had predicted 800Mhz top-end, same mobo. The only unique features his source predicted, DDR and 867Mhz, turned out to be wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

AH. Well, therein lies the problem: I don't read rumor sites other than this one. And what's more I don't read this one for the rumors but for the other stuff mostly. I fully retract my statement about said source.

Did I mention the G5 is vaporware yet?


Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #305 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>Yes, but it is Apple's choice who's CPUs to put in their motherboards.

I mean, Apple needs to look after their products. If Motorola looks like having no chance to produce CPUs on par with the rest of the industry, then Apple needs to talk to other makers (eg IBM, UMC, TSMC) to license produce Moto CPUs, develop and produce CPUs for Apple (IBM, AMD or Intel) or develop CPUs themselves and get others to manufacture them.

Motorola makes below-par CPUs for high-end desktop computers. But Apple chooses to put them in high-end desktop computers.

We all live in fairly free-maket economies. So if you don't like what Apple is doing, buy something else. Thats what makes the (free-market) world go round.

Barto

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

The opposite of a vector is a vector going in the oposite direction, a scalar is just how big something is
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #306 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>Yes, but it is Apple's choice who's CPUs to put in their motherboards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The alternatives are.... ?

[quote]<strong>I mean, Apple needs to look after their products. If Motorola looks like having no chance to produce CPUs on par with the rest of the industry, then Apple needs to talk to other makers (eg IBM, UMC, TSMC) to license produce Moto CPUs, develop and produce CPUs for Apple (IBM, AMD or Intel) or develop CPUs themselves and get others to manufacture them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple can't just talk to anyone and tell them to license Mot's designs. Mot happens to have a say in who gets to license their designs, and on what terms. It's not in Mot's interest to have TSMC or IBM fab their high-end chips. They'll contract out (like they did with the flawed 7400) but only as a last resort. The problems they're facing are inept management and dirty fabs. The inept management is apparently getting cleaned out to ward off a mob of angry shareholders. The dirty fabs are a (dubious) belt-tightening measure - Mot SPS will clean them up as soon as their heads are off the proverbial chopping block, because they know that it's not a good idea (they'd better...).

This only applies to their latest & greatest fabs, though (the ones that the PPCs we're interested in will be fabbed on). For parts that can be fabbed on older tech, Mot is using TSMC, because it's cheaper to pay them than it is to keep a few aging fabs on line. Actually, I'm not even sure if TSMC has anything like Mot's HiPerMOS7 fab, in which case Mot has an edge in fabrication technology, which means better CPUs.

[quote]<strong>We all live in fairly free-maket economies. So if you don't like what Apple is doing, buy something else. Thats what makes the (free-market) world go round.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That sort of free market applies to commodities. I can switch from Sony to Panasonic pretty seamlessly for most home electronics, or from Converse to New Balance for sneakers, or GE to Philips for light bulbs, or Dell and Compaq for PCs. Once you get out of the commodities markets, that argument starts falling apart. If I don't see any Macs I like, I hold on to the one I have. Because now all of a sudden there's a real cost to switching. Things are substantively different, and there are learning curves and cross-grades to new applications, incompatibilities and losses in functionality. If Apple isn't happy with Mot's G4s, who else offers them? IBM, but only if Mot contracts them to in order to meet demand (and then IBM reams them for the privilege). So Apple's only option is to switch platforms, and that's painful for a large number of reasons - painful enough that Apple wouldn't be willing to do it unless it was essentially permanent.

This summer Apple gains the right to buy out Mot's share in AIM, essentially, and with that it gains a number of important PPC-related licenses. Things might get interesting then. For the time being, Apple is stuck with what Mot offers.

(I have to add that while the G4 might not be the ultimate solution for the towers in particular, it's doing a great job everywhere else. Notebook computers have the same requirements that traditional embedded environments do.)

[ 05-01-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #307 of 357
"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We pay a premium- if we're buying the "BMW" of the computer world, why doesn't the high-end offer more features and outperform competitors, the way high-end BMW's do?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because Apple doesn't make the "BMWs" of the computer world. They make the computer equivalent of a Pontiac Trans Am with a 4 cylinder engine, drum brakes, and a 3 speed automatic. Glam on the outside, antiquated components on the inside.

And Apple doesn't have any choice. They must maintain exorbitant margins because their volume is relatively low and they have to fund all of their own R&D. The only way out for Apple is to increase their market share, so they can sell a larger volume and thus lower their profit margins."

Yeah.

All shell and no candy...?

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #308 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>The opposite of a vector is a vector going in the oposite direction, a scalar is just how big something is</strong><hr></blockquote>

He said "the opposite of vector", not "the opposite of a vector". The opposite of the term, not an instance.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #309 of 357
The guy also spells it "scaler", not scalar.
Me thinks its just a pun about the G4/altivec. Scaler = scales well.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #310 of 357
Airsluf-

While your comments about DDR support are definitely true, my points about integrated IDE RAID and 5.1 sound are extremely valid ones.

After all, neither one is dependent on Motorola to implement, just Apple.

I'm also hoping that FireWire 2 will get integrated in sooner rather than later, especially with the Zayante purchase.

The scenario that I'm really hoping is true is that Apple's engineers have been busy working on a major paradigm shift, a la the NUMA architecture talked about earlier, and so decided to skimp on resources furthering the Uni-N chipset and invest the majority of their time and energy into this new architecture.

If this scenario isn't true, then I really wonder quite what Apple's been doing as Uni-N has been showing its age for a while now...

-HOS
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Reply
post #311 of 357
post #312 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by LowB-ing:
<strong>The guy also spells it "scaler", not scalar.
Me thinks its just a pun about the G4/altivec. Scaler = scales well.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes! There is a mac/physics pun in my sig! And I misspelled scalar!

And thanks programmer for pointing out that I said "of vector" not "of a vector".

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #313 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>
5.1 sound is in there desperately trying to get out. I think Apple just hasn't been able to properly pull the plug on the rest of it's implementation. They have been trumpeting the OS X Audio Frameworks fully support 5.1 so I think it's just a matter of time (I actually think they were hoping they could nudge Creative into working with them to get the implementation out, but Creatives management couldn't cut their way out of a tissue paper bag so... we wait for Apple to finally get to it).
</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/audio/mac_ac3_openal_audio.html" target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/audio/mac_ac3_openal_audio.html</a>

Is a link to an e-mail reply to xlr8yourmac by creative's Brian Souder.

The important part of the e-mail:

"I think they have plans of doing USB or 1394 based speakers for this someday (this is a guess) because they discourage vendors from making PCI devices."



Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #314 of 357
Alas, my source was indeed wrong, and thereby so was I.

Simply put, Apple must NEVER release a true Pro machine without DDR System RAM again.

Thye know this. We know this. But can they make it happen (new processor availability, stable mobo, R&D)?

We had hoped they would debut this with the new Tibooks.

arg....

[ 05-02-2002: Message edited by: jccbin ]</p>
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #315 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>
"I think they have plans of doing USB or 1394 based speakers for this someday (this is a guess) because they discourage vendors from making PCI devices."</strong><hr></blockquote>

For a company that mostly makes machines without PCI slots, this actually makes a lot of sense. They should just hurry the heck up and get the product to market, encourage somebody else to get it there. With FireWire speakers you could do a lot better than 5.1 support too. "Digital hub", remember.

Hopefully some smart 3rd party will make a FireWire -&gt; conventional 5.1 converter so that we can all plug our existing FireWire equipped Macs into existing 5.1 systems. This could be done quite cheaply, I imagine (FireWire in, RCA or optical out).
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #316 of 357
post #317 of 357
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>No, he was totally wrong. The other sites had predicted 800Mhz top-end, same mobo. The only unique features his source predicted, DDR and 867Mhz, turned out to be wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe his "source" was refering to the 1Mb L3 cache which is DDR SDRAM. I might be mistaken, but if it were interpeted that way he wouldn't be totally wrong.
post #318 of 357
Sorry, but my source was hoping for DDR system memory, not the cache.

Thanks for the effort, though.

Just plain wrong, I was.

J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
J.C. Corbin, Apple Certified Technical Coordinator
Member, Apple Consultants Network
www.ro3.com
Reply
post #319 of 357
Ah well, I gave it a shot.
post #320 of 357
Today I got my hands on some MPC8540 documentation (this is the embedded version of the G5 architecture). Until now we were not sure if the 8540 will be a 32 or 64 bit CPU, so maybe this will disappoint you a bit: the MPC8540 is a 32 bit CPU. Yes, it fulfuills the Book E requirements, but no, it does not have 64 bit registers.

Of course this tells us nothing about the G5 that Apple might use someday in a PowerMac. Unfortunately I still haven't got hands an details about upcoming desktop CPUs, but I'm getting closer...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The G5 and what it means for future Macs