or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year - Page 8

post #281 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by olli:
<strong>

Hmm Programmer:
you talked about this already earlier.
What is an unconventional way to access the memory?
I guess Dorsal is talking about the 1GB/sec limit (now in Xserve). that it will disappear?

I expect we'll see something different then the Xserve mobo.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Conventional" probably refers to the traditional shared front-side bus (i.e. MPX). Anything else would be unconventional (HyperTransport, RapidIO, a dedicated FSB like the PC, an on-chip memory controller, etc).

I would expect something different than Xserve based on Dorsal's comment. If you believe him, that is. I'll have a lot more faith if he is correct in some real way about the machines at or near MWNY.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #282 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>*snip*

But if the hopes are held back again, will the "again" bring this amount of attention in January, or will some be looking elsewhere by that time?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll be upgrading my PM450 with a Powerlogix 1ghz chip and then going my merry way. Never to look at another mac.

(wait for it...)

Ahh, I just can't help myself. It's a guilty pleasure. It's like slowing down to see a car wreck. You're not proud of it, but you do it any way.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: tsukurite ]</p>
post #283 of 620
<strong>Originally posted by Programmer:
"Conventional" probably refers to the traditional shared front-side bus (i.e. MPX). Anything else would be unconventional (HyperTransport, RapidIO, a dedicated FSB like the PC, an on-chip memory controller, etc).

I would expect something different than Xserve based on Dorsal's comment. If you believe him, that is. I'll have a lot more faith if he is correct in some real way about the machines at or near MWNY.</strong>

I believe Dorsal was hinting at an on-die memory controller like as planned for the Moto's 8540. I'm not as much of a fan of this design anymore, considering Apple's market that is.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
post #284 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I also disagree that they need to drop Motorola. What they need to do is ensure a future supply of powerful processors for the PowerMac line, and a solid supply of consumer and portable processors. If this means dropping Motorola, then so be it. I suspect the situation is much more complex, however. Ideally both Motorola and IBM would deliver chips that Apple can choose from so that Apple doesn't get stuck back in another single-source situation. From all that has been tossed around lately I could easily see that next year at this time Apple might be swimming in processor options: IBM SIMD equipped low-power G3s for the iBook, Motorola G4s for the consumer line (possibly using RapidIO & on-chip memory controller), and IBM POWER-derived chips for the PowerMac line.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with your disagreement.

The AIM alliance seems to have been damaged mightily by Apple choosing MOT's Altivec and G4 processor - IBM suddenly felt like a third wheel and unappreciated, so they took their toys and went home. It was not so much an alliance as a three-way competition, each trying to get for itself at the expense of the others. Thus, I think Apple's problems with having MOT as its sole supplier of G4s is really its own short-sighted fault. It sounds like the breach with IBM is being healed, but at enormous cost to Apple as it struggles with MOT.

IMHO, the AIM alliance could be revitalised by simply focusing on R&D (the Somerset center), funded by all three and agnostic of company - all ideas are pooled and the on-site management goes with what will work best, without pressure from the parent companies to adopt a "pet" technology. All three companies would then have free license to all technology generated by it. (Yes, I wear rose-colored glasses and live in an ivory tower, but a guy can dream, can't he?) Fabbing would be done on a contractual basis with whatever company (MOT, IBM, AMD, or even Intel) had the capacity to do it. The chips would thus not be a "Motorola" or "IBM" or any other brand - just "from the AIM alliance". This may have been the original intent of it, but it's certainly not the way it's turned out.

I would love to see the AIM research center turn into a "skunkworks" like the Bell labs - cranking out outrageously cool inventions with no immediate practical use, but which revolutionise the world once they're made into real products. It may happen yet.


My $0.02, YMMV.


TJM
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #285 of 620
maybe I'm stupid but is it really difficult to have a dedicated bus for each processor (with the current G4) ? That means in this way each processor can use a full 1 GB/S of bandwidth and still with a FSB of 133 Mhz...
It will be an improvement, no?
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
Reply
post #286 of 620
Let's play "what if".

Let's say that Apple has a new mobo and it's been ready for a while now. It's something radically different, and has much higher thruput/bandwidth, maybe task-specific DSPs, FW2, etc. Only problem is...it's been designed for the new CPUs (G5/POWER/whatever). Then along comes IBM/Moto/?, who says....oops, the new CPU won't be ready in quantity 'til December.
Apple knows that's a problem, so they modify the mobo somewhat to use the current G4, and release this "stopgap" at MWNY. Say, a G4 at 1.2/1.4, but with a much better/faster mobo...how much difference would this make?
Then MWSF hits, with a "proven" mobo to drop into the xServe, and a new CPU (maybe competition for upcoming AMD/Intel offerings...the timing sounds right) for another big speed jump for the server/pro lines.
Does this seem reasonable?
Could this bring them in line (or better) with the Wintel world?

Just idle speculation....
*sigh*
Reply
*sigh*
Reply
post #287 of 620
Taboo, despite my 'beef' with the current and hugely neglected 'power'Mac specs...I do believe something similar to your scenario could occur. Much as it did as Apple went from G3 to G4. 'Yikes' an' all.

ie I have faith that Apple will address the growing performance gap.

The purchases of 'Shake' and other high end apps like 'Chalice' and co indicate that Apple intend to compete in the hardware space soon. This is a clue to better things to come. But...when?

If Apple want their 'workstation' to compete with dual x86 computers running Maya then the chances of seeing some type of 'G5'processor is becoming more realistic as x86 processors march on. Apple can't afford to be on dual 1.2 gig G4s as x86 go 64 bit and 3 gig.

Apple needs their pro' sales...and their healthy mark ups. Sure, Apple isn't immune from the current industry slow down...and are more exposed than most. But if they want their already hurting pro sales not to get squeezed further then they are simply going to have to offer something far more compelling for Apple users and WINTEL 'Switchers' to go Mac. A mere 'bump' aint going to cut it this time.

It won't be the end of the world if we don't get what we want. But I'll be highly surprised if Apple don't finally begin to address the performance issue at Mac New York.

If they want consumers money for £3,000 'power'Macs...they're going to have to innovate their way into pockets.

They got Jagwire (nearly), they got the looks, the sexy drop down case, they got the superdrive...now give us the mobo and G5.

Aint just me either. In Macworld.co.uk poll, majority of mac fans also want the G5...we'll see, eh?

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
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 #288 of 620
Fact is chaps even if we got a G5 4ghz next month it isn't going to make any difference to Apples market share. People just look at windows do a cost/benifit analysis and buy the fastest they can afford at the time.
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
Wll I have my G5 so I am off to get a life; apart from this post...
Reply
post #289 of 620
Hmmm, slight oversimplification? It's already been proven many times than when Apple releases a product with better "bang for the buck," it's more popular. Sure, a 4ghz G5 wouldn't give them 95% market share, but they'd sure sell a lot of them and their market share would creep upward.
post #290 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
<strong>Hmmm, slight oversimplification? It's already been proven many times than when Apple releases a product with better "bang for the buck," it's more popular. Sure, a 4ghz G5 wouldn't give them 95% market share, but they'd sure sell a lot of them and their market share would creep upward.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would buy one


ps.. where's dorsal? It's sad but I feel like a crack addict who needs a fix (although I'm sure that's worse than what I'm going though) :eek:

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Blizaine ]</p>
wow my very own signature
Reply
wow my very own signature
Reply
post #291 of 620
What confuses me is the talk about the towers at MWNY being the 'stop gap' release. Excuse me, um but I was under the impression that the stop gap was the 1ghz towers. That's why a ho hum release as Apple knew they sucked and had something better just not ready. To me, that means MWNY will have something new and awesome otherwise we're looking at 2 stop gap releases this year for towers? And this after the pro sales suck already? Sorry, but I don't see Apple doing that. Not sure what I see them doing however, lol
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #292 of 620
We have had enough "stop gap" already
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
Mac Pro 2.66, 5GB RAM, 250+120 HD, 23" Cinema Display
MacBook 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM
Reply
post #293 of 620
Well you know if there is a stop-gap, hack, whatever.... how the hell NOW is Apple going to do their famous Photoshop bake-offs.... Makes me think that we'll have something fast enough to win a PhotoShop bake-off. Otherwise, he'll just go, "Oh and we have dual 1.xghz towers now!" But its interesting to think about. They ALWAYS have bake offs with the PowerMacs at Expos, so they almost have to release something fast enough to win a bake off with a Pentium IV.

What I think all of us would love to see is a new top of the line PMac beating the crap out of a dual top of the line Athlon at a quick 3D render. Now that would be a bake off to remember!

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: ouroboros ]</p>
post #294 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>What I think all of us would love to see is a new top of the line PMac beating the crap out of a dual top of the line Athlon at a quick 3D render. Now that would be a bake off to remember!

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Introducing the new PowerMac G5 with Bionic arm! Watch it sneak up on the unsuspecting Athlon whilst it is distracted rendering a 3D scene gratiutous violence ensues, ending with the Athlon box scattered in iPod sized pieces on the floor and just wait till you see the new iMac with bionic leg! It kicks the Duron's a$$! :eek:
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
"Moo" said the chicken
"Cluck" said the cow
Dr. Frankenstein rubbed his hands together with glee
Reply
post #295 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>Well you know if there is a stop-gap, hack, whatever.... how the hell NOW is Apple going to do their famous Photoshop bake-offs.... Makes me think that we'll have something fast enough to win a PhotoShop bake-off. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Just an interesting tidbit -- I was mucking around with Photoshop 7 on my LCD iMac, when I noticed that any time I ran a filter, scaled an image, or did anything else terribly CPU intensive, the audio and/or video would stutter rather badly in iTunes or the DVD player.

This says to me that Adobe is using a little hack to boost the priority of their CPU intensive threads so that they will get more cycles. I just found it a little interesting; it appears Adobe is doing something a bit special that few other OS X apps do.

I haven't confirmed this empirically, but I'm fairly sure it is accurate given the symptoms I'm seeing. Normal threads should not have a higher priority the audio threads that are used to play mp3s, CDs, etc.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #296 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>
This says to me that Adobe is using a little hack to boost the priority of their CPU intensive threads so that they will get more cycles. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can raise/lower the priority of a process using:
int setpriority(int which, int who, int prio);

It may also be that on your specific setup, Photoshop generates substantial memory swaping and as the priority of a page fault is higher than reading from a disk file, the audio skips. The only way to test that would be to play the audio from memory.
post #297 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>Just an interesting tidbit -- I was mucking around with Photoshop 7 on my LCD iMac, when I noticed that any time I ran a filter, scaled an image, or did anything else terribly CPU intensive, the audio and/or video would stutter rather badly in iTunes or the DVD player.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wonder if they do that in Windows too? That's just lame... I hope they at least make it a user preference.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #298 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>The AIM alliance seems to have been damaged mightily by Apple choosing MOT's Altivec and G4 processor - IBM suddenly felt like a third wheel and unappreciated, so they took their toys and went home. It was not so much an alliance as a three-way competition, each trying to get for itself at the expense of the others. Thus, I think Apple's problems with having MOT as its sole supplier of G4s is really its own short-sighted fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I remember hearing at the time that IBM's engineering group felt that a SIMD vector unit was counter to the philosophy of RISC and therefore shouldn't be added to the PowerPC. Once the G4 was delivered and they had a chance to play with it the were "impressed" and started to change their tune. Since then more and more news of IBM SIMD units has been cropping up. So I lay the blame for this rift largely at IBM's feet for not having the vision to see that alternative computing models can deliver serious performance improvements. Now, of course, IBM has come around 180 degrees and is working on things like the "Cell" project, their own SIMD, and they have done the Gekko for Nintendo.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #299 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by *l++:
<strong>

You can raise/lower the priority of a process using:
int setpriority(int which, int who, int prio);</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, there are about a half dozen different APIs for doing this with Mach, and they don't all work as expected. I've done something similar to what Adobe seems to be doing... I'm fairly certain that if they are doing what I suspect, it isn't just setpriority().

[quote]Originally posted by *l++:
<strong>It may also be that on your specific setup, Photoshop generates substantial memory swaping and as the priority of a page fault is higher than reading from a disk file, the audio skips. The only way to test that would be to play the audio from memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That certainly could be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't. I'll do some real investigation tomorrow.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #300 of 620
Hey Moki, make up some more juicy rumours for us to chew on -- there's no sign of Dorsal and this thread is starting to run dry.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #301 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>I wonder if they do that in Windows too? That's just lame... I hope they at least make it a user preference.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They most likely coult do it in Windows as well, at least NT/2000/XP, but I am not sure whether Win95 has something like that. As far as I know the Windows APIs support priority settings, but usually the user can set the priority from the task manager, anywhere from "low" to "critical". Which I always do for rendering or handling big photoshop files anyway..
oy!
Reply
oy!
Reply
post #302 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>
They most likely coult do it in Windows as well, at least NT/2000/XP, but I am not sure whether Win95 has something like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think they would need to do it in Windows. My guess is that Adobe's frameworks provide adequate threading under NT/2k/XP but not under X due to Carbon.

To counter the threading issue in X, bumping up priority would help. Regardless, I've found Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign under X to not thread in a manner that I find acceptable. They're fine apps, but they routinely bind up unnecessarily.

Adobe's apps aren't unique in this respect, by any means. I find that Office and Filemaker are the same way. Carbon apps seems to be at a distinct disadvantage when competing for system resources. Overall, the system is more responsive, but the individual app performance tends to suffer.

For PS and Ill, I'm sure that swap isn't the problem as my files rarely exceed 50MB - 10MB is more common for me. My InDesign files can run considerably larger than my PS files, but ID seems to handle things considerably better. Of course, ID is better able to partition off the rendering than PS or Ill, so that makes a certain amount of sense to me.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #303 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I remember hearing at the time that IBM's engineering group felt that a SIMD vector unit was counter to the philosophy of RISC and therefore shouldn't be added to the PowerPC. Once the G4 was delivered and they had a chance to play with it the were "impressed" and started to change their tune. Since then more and more news of IBM SIMD units has been cropping up. So I lay the blame for this rift largely at IBM's feet for not having the vision to see that alternative computing models can deliver serious performance improvements. Now, of course, IBM has come around 180 degrees and is working on things like the "Cell" project, their own SIMD, and they have done the Gekko for Nintendo.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yeah, I remember that now. Thanks for the refresh. There was far less cooperation than the term "alliance" suggested. Each partner had an agenda to advance its own ideas and products at the expense of the others. It may be that Apple had no choice but to go with MOT after IBM dug in its heels, or it could be that IBM got ornery only after Apple started cozying up with MOT. I hope Steven Levy writes a book about it someday, otherwise we may never know. At this point, I guess, it really doesn't matter. IBM is needed as a full partner again, and MOT still has a lot of expertise to add, as well. Everyone needs to kiss and make up and get on with the job of getting some first-class chips out the door. It looks like that is exactly what has been going on over the last year or so, so I remain an optimist.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei
Reply
post #304 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

That certainly could be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't. I'll do some real investigation tomorrow.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm.... so this might be a reason why Apple chooses Photoshop then for the bake-off stuff eh? Well who knows. Interesting that it looks like we are getting Firewire 2 with the new tower revisions -- this bodes well for the "true motherboard" that you've heard about moki if I remember correctly.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: ouroboros ]</p>
post #305 of 620
"For the past month or so, Apple Demo Days have been going on in France, promoting the XServe. Apparently, the Apple managers there have been a bit talkative, and have leaked eerily similar info... Here's what has been told:
The G5 is being evaluated right now, and the G4 will further be modified. The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. It does exist though, and works fine right now, however the manufacturing process is far from ready, much too costly and low yield percentage. (confirmed by many different sources) The G5 will be manufactured in France (Grenoble), the factory is not finished yet.

The G4's evolution will not be dramatic, however the motherboards will significantly change with HyperTransport (some say the XServe already implements HT) and better cache structures.

The next mobos will not support 9, so it's pretty much the end of the line for it...

The kernel following that of Jag will be clusterable at a system level...

all this is here

<a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827" target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827</a>

The site has been quite reliable for a while now, since they rarely indulge in rumormongering... So take it FWIW.

The good news being that since the G5 is still far away (further than MWSF), Apple has no reason whatsoever to introduce stop-gap solutions at NY, except if the mobos aren't ready.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]"

Posted by Syn. This thread is dry. Dorsal's disappeared (again...c'mon guy...put up or shut up...)

I don't expect Moki to say anymore than he has. It's clear the big 'iron' isn't going to appear this year and a 'jumped' up G4 in massive bandwidth early to mid-next year.

If the 'Syn' info' is true...I'm bloody depressed.

End of 2003?

Yeesh. (Shakes head.)

Lemon Bon Bon


[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
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 #306 of 620
That sucks.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #307 of 620
[quote]The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. <hr></blockquote>

Argh. This is one rumor I hope is wrong. If Apple can't deliver a G5, I certainly hope that they can squeeze a lot more speed out of the G4. Anything less than 1.3 GHZ machines at MWNY and I will be very disappointed.
When you browse with Internet Explorer, you're surfing with Gates.
Reply
When you browse with Internet Explorer, you're surfing with Gates.
Reply
post #308 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"For the past month or so, Apple Demo Days have been going on in France, promoting the XServe. Apparently, the Apple managers there have been a bit talkative, and have leaked eerily similar info... Here's what has been told:
The G5 is being evaluated right now, and the G4 will further be modified. The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. It does exist though, and works fine right now, however the manufacturing process is far from ready, much too costly and low yield percentage. (confirmed by many different sources) The G5 will be manufactured in France (Grenoble), the factory is not finished yet.

The G4's evolution will not be dramatic, however the motherboards will significantly change with HyperTransport (some say the XServe already implements HT) and better cache structures.

The next mobos will not support 9, so it's pretty much the end of the line for it...

The kernel following that of Jag will be clusterable at a system level...

all this is here

<a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827" target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827</a>

The site has been quite reliable for a while now, since they rarely indulge in rumormongering... So take it FWIW.

The good news being that since the G5 is still far away (further than MWSF), Apple has no reason whatsoever to introduce stop-gap solutions at NY, except if the mobos aren't ready."

I don't expect Moki to say anymore than he has. It's clear the big 'iron' isn't going to appear this year and a 'jumped' up G4 in massive bandwidth early to mid-next year.

If the 'Syn' info' is true...I'm bloody depressed.

End of 2003?

Yeesh. (Shakes head.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't really comment on a lot of that, or at least I am not going to, but before people start whining that the G5 isn't ready yet maybe you should wait for the next evolutions of the G4. The G4 isn't actually that bad a chip it just hasn't been scaled as quickly as one would like.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #309 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"For the past month or so, Apple Demo Days have been going on in France, promoting the XServe. Apparently, the Apple managers there have been a bit talkative, and have leaked eerily similar info... Here's what has been told:
The G5 is being evaluated right now, and the G4 will further be modified. The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. It does exist though, and works fine right now, however the manufacturing process is far from ready, much too costly and low yield percentage. (confirmed by many different sources) The G5 will be manufactured in France (Grenoble), the factory is not finished yet.

The G4's evolution will not be dramatic, however the motherboards will significantly change with HyperTransport (some say the XServe already implements HT) and better cache structures.

The next mobos will not support 9, so it's pretty much the end of the line for it...

The kernel following that of Jag will be clusterable at a system level...

all this is here

<a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827" target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827</a>

The site has been quite reliable for a while now, since they rarely indulge in rumormongering... So take it FWIW.

The good news being that since the G5 is still far away (further than MWSF), Apple has no reason whatsoever to introduce stop-gap solutions at NY, except if the mobos aren't ready.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]"

Posted by Syn. This thread is dry. Dorsal's disappeared (again...c'mon guy...put up or shut up...)

I don't expect Moki to say anymore than he has. It's clear the big 'iron' isn't going to appear this year and a 'jumped' up G4 in massive bandwidth early to mid-next year.

If the 'Syn' info' is true...I'm bloody depressed.

End of 2003?

Yeesh. (Shakes head.)

Lemon Bon Bon


[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt that this info is true, because in Grenoble ( more exactly in Crolles) , it's not a factory which is scheduled but an joint venture research center in order to improve the fab process (from 0,9 to under).
If the G5 is ready i doubt that it will need 18 months in order to have good yields, 6 months even for mot is sufficiant.
post #310 of 620
Nor do I think it's likely that a new mobo for MWNY wouldn't support OS 9... Apple itself said "OS 9 is dead for us, bt not for our customers".

Very unlikely.

G_News
Matyoroy!
Reply
Matyoroy!
Reply
post #311 of 620
It's going to happen someday.

Power Macs are used by companies, schools and individuals with money to buy up-to-date software, or licences where they get the latest software.

If Apple continues Mac OS 9, that means software for Mac OS 9 will exist.

Apple is going strong, and killing Mac OS 9 now means Quark will have more incentive for getting off their ass.

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 #312 of 620
Maybe that just means the end of a bootable OS 9. Wasn't there a rumor that a future release of 9 would not work as a standalone OS, but rather a stripped-down emulation environment that would be much more efficient (less CPU use) but still allow you to run legacy software?
post #313 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by BrunoBruin:
<strong>Maybe that just means the end of a bootable OS 9. Wasn't there a rumor that a future release of 9 would not work as a standalone OS, but rather a stripped-down emulation environment that would be much more efficient (less CPU use) but still allow you to run legacy software?</strong><hr></blockquote>

...and they called it Classic. Actually, I heard the same thing a while ago, that new mobo wouldn't support OS9 boot, but would still support Classic.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #314 of 620
That would be a a smart idea.

Keep the boot off, yet Classic still working.


BY THE WAY, any one ever thought of quad processors? Imagine Four 1.2 Ghz Processors on a single computer.(I know there are no 1.2 Ghz, yet, it is just common knowledge)

What would have to be changed to make way for this? It seems like a good idea to hold people off until a G5 came? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #315 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:
<strong>That would be a a smart idea.

Keep the boot off, yet Classic still working.


BY THE WAY, any one ever thought of quad processors? Imagine Four 1.2 Ghz Processors on a single computer.(I know there are no 1.2 Ghz, yet, it is just common knowledge)

What would have to be changed to make way for this? It seems like a good idea to hold people off until a G5 came? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>


People keep asking this -- better memory bandwidth would be required. The current MPX bus isn't fast enough to support 4 fast G4s efficiently.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #316 of 620
the g4 has 1 GB/s bandwidth with a 133 Mhz bus does that mean a 166 Mhz bus will scale to 1.3 GB/s or is there some overhead.

The 1.7 Ghz Xeon has a 3.2 GB/s theoretical Bus limit but only can obtain about 1.7 GB/s for Integer and FP streams. Is there similar info available for the G4 MPX bus??
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 #317 of 620
Said Telomar:

"I can't really comment on a lot of that, or at least I am not going to,"

Oh really? ? Do tell. Apparently the site concerned even had the name of the 'Apple Man' that said it. Which adds some substance to this rumour. Though his name is mysteriously no longer there..? (The Apple Mafia discreetly wading in?)

"...but before people start whining that the G5 isn't ready yet maybe you should wait for the next evolutions of the G4. The G4 isn't actually that bad a chip it just hasn't been scaled as quickly as one would like."

John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.

It was a 733 at the time, I think. Since then the disparity has got much worse. It'll take more than a DDR dual 1.2 G4 to convince me Apple's taking it's overpriced 'power'Mac range seriously. If it's on hypertransport perhaps? If there's a dramatic mhz swing? IF there's an add fpu to keep the lonely fpu happy?

Hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.

"A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you saying: 'that was f@#%ing awesome!' "

I like that. I think that's funny.

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 #318 of 620
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.</strong><hr></blockquote>


This had more to do with memory bandwidth issues, especially where interaction with AGP devices was concerned. The Intel & AMD chips have something called write combining which helps with communicating with graphics chips on the AGP bus. The 7450 had that added, but I believe some issues still existed in the chipset. It may have been addressed in January's machines, but I'm not sure.

MPX's performance on a 133 MHz bus is about 850 MB/sec maximum sustained with Apple's latest chipset. It should scale linearly to 166 MHz, I think.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #319 of 620
Well at least the G4 is comparable to AMD chips at 1.2Ghz but not even close to the Xeon (not surprising).

<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=12" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=12</a>
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 #320 of 620
It seems everyone has a pet hardware gizmo that is a must have, but what can really be expected?

If Apple is buying up all the video production software companies and they are "Going After Hollywood" what sort of hardware would be needed to beat the pants off of Intel based hardware? Are XServes usable as render farm components? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I propose a cheap AMD/Intel is better for that (render farms), so what sort of desktop would be needed from Apple?

It makes no sense to get agressive in video production without having agressive showing in video production speed. So, what is the minimum hardware that can beat anything else on the scene in that market? (Hardware guys please speculate!)

I'm not expecting such a machine in July, but it would make sense to have something ready after Jaguar's release.

Please comment!

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</p>
iCode
Reply
iCode
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year