Finally an interesting G5 story - Page 11

MacLuv

I am debating two things here.

Honestly, my approach to the latest sophomoric debate (one which arguably I started ) the debate about the viability of your argument is in direct response to your approach to the main debate, which is clearly a repetition of "is too!", "is not!", "is too!", "is not!". I'm simply explaining why I (and many others) think you're full of hot air. If you weren't such an ass I wouldn't have been so aggressive about it. You basically dare us to explain why we think you're full of hot air. And I'm foolish and arrogant enough to take the bait.

My approach to the debate about the viability of using the IBM PPC 970 in the next line of Apple servers and workstations, however, is clearly argued and articulated. Sure, it's mainly opinion, as much as yours is. But I and others have provided ample concurring reasoning why we believe the 970 to be a good thing because of performance, compatibility and marketing issues. You have said nothing basically except that you don't trust IBM, and you have not really explained why, first saying "IBM doesn't have the resources necessary" then changing that on the fly to "I don't think IBM will commit the resources necessary". Meanwhile, you realize that to reject IBM, Apple has to have an alternative, and you are ignoring the clear reasoning as to why using any chip used in Windows PCs would be a bad thing because of competition and compatibility issues.

This is the real argument, and from now on I'll cease to comment on your style, for which I apologize, and concentrate on the holes in your theories (which I and others have done quite clearly, much to your denial).

Stay cool.

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>MacLuv

You have said nothing basically except that you don't trust IBM, and you have not really explained why, first saying "IBM doesn't have the resources necessary" then changing that on the fly to "I don't think IBM will commit the resources necessary". </strong><hr></blockquote>

1. Here you are suggesting that I change my mind where/when appropriate.

This is not true.

If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.

I'm not writing a book, and I don't have editors to look over my posts before they are posted. UBB doesn't even have a "preview" function. If you notice my sig now, I have reserved the right to make mistakes, as well as the right for my comments to be open for interpretation.

Sometimes things I say may need to be elaborated on. I've done my best to do so when asked.

What you're doing, however, is trying to create a ****ing Kenneth Starr Committee with intention to prosecute everything I say as if I've said it under oath.

To this point, I've done my best to maintain myself with you and just opted for the sarcastic route out. Yet, you still continue to harass me and call me *ass*--and persist on getting in the last word to discredit my opinions.

I appreciate your willingness to stick to the topic at this point, but it's a litle too late I'm afraid. You have been more than unfair. Consider yourself ignored for the rest of this thread. My back is turned to you.

[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

I think <a href="http://www.needalife.com/" target="_blank">this</a> details your position succinctly.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not to get involved but you wonder why people are 'harassing' you?

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah</strong><hr></blockquote>

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Tonton, you're splitting hairs with me. Please, just stick to the topic.


[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

How is asking for further information on an opinion (that you don't THINK IBM will devote the resources) or any sort of info/data to back it up splitting hairs?

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

1. Here you are suggesting that I change my mind where/when appropriate.

This is not true.

If you could remove your head from your ass for one moment, you would realize that I have not changed my position about "IBM not having the resources to compete". I wrote a damn page about it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Here. I'll post entire paragraphs to be fair in showing your statements in context.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Does IBM have the resources (money and staff) to compete with Intel? Maybe. Will it allocate enough to compete? Probably not. Most of IBMs research is specialized--becuase that's where their profit design lies. The 970, as a spinoff of the Power4, is simply another product to peddle to penetrate markets. I have not heard IBM say they will attempt to make the 970 an industry standard, nor have I heard them say how far they will push this chip. If anyone wishes to point out statements from the press, feel free. (*1* see note below*)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now excuse me while I continue spelunking the ol' sphincter.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

...somebody kill this thread. It's going, like, around in circles, 'n stuff. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Yeah, let's kill the thread.

Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Janey: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?
Lisa: Hph... yeess, I'm going to marry a carrot.
Janey: Huh! She admitted it, she admitted she was gonna marry a carrot!</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's exactly comments like this - which you post a ton of - that prevents others to have a normal discussion here. F_ck, if you want to debate "in depth" with someone telling him Simpsons anecdotes do this via e-mail!

Even _if_ you are the only one who's right here you should have noticed that your dicsussion doesn't lead to anyhint. Just leave it at that.

[quote]Originally posted by Flounder:
<strong>

How is asking for further information on an opinion (that you don't THINK IBM will devote the resources) or any sort of info/data to back it up splitting hairs?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Because I've already been asked for it and I've already responded to it
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002700&p=10#000 376" target="_blank">here.</a>


[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>If you are pushing the 970, where do you see the 970 within the consumer market within the next 15 years</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll play!

Replaced by the next 2 generations of microprocessors. There have been advancements in both gallium arsenide and germanium seeding into sillycon that show considerable promise in increasing GHz.

Being uninformed as I am, I have seen reports from IBM and Motorola on these laboratory animals, but not a peep from Intel. Has Intel also made breakthroughs?? or are they going to license this tech from someone??

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]

Just a footnote. Several years ago I read an article that included statements from Intel basically saying that SOI would not contribute significantly to processor design once the processor reached 0.1µm and they would not develop this tech. Seems they may be backtracking somewhat - aren't they going to include SOI now???

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>
Just a footnote. Several years ago I read an article that included statements from Intel basically saying that SOI would not contribute significantly to processor design once the processor reached 0.1µm and they would not develop this tech. Seems they may be backtracking somewhat - aren't they going to include SOI now???
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think so -- I read just recently that Intel is adopting a technique that will let them get below 0.09 micron, whereas IBM is going to take SOI down to 0.09 micron before switching to this other new technique. I can't remember the details, but it sounds like there are different roads to travel and Intel and IBM aren't following eachother. IMO this is a good thing.

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I don't think so -- I read just recently that Intel is adopting a technique that will let them get below 0.09 micron, whereas IBM is going to take SOI down to 0.09 micron before switching to this other new technique. I can't remember the details, but it sounds like there are different roads to travel and Intel and IBM aren't following eachother. IMO this is a good thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe it's called stretched or strained SOI, but still SOI.

<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-268083.html" target="_blank">web pageIBM's version</a>

<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-976120.html" target="_blank">Another article about IBM's</a>

Opps, my mistake. SOI and strained silicon not related.

<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/semi/news/OEG20020813S0012" target="_blank">yet another</a> and this
"To date, IBM Corp. has been the main proponent of strained silicon, with a plan to add its version of strained silicon to IBM's 65-nm process node, which is expected to move to first manufacturing in 2005. IBM plans to combine its strained silicon expertise with its silicon-on-insulator capabilities. However, IBM researchers have indicated at least a 10 percent cost adder for strained silicon, and said much work remains to balance the mobility enhancement in the NMOS and PMOS portions of a CMOS device.

Dan Hutcheson, president of VLSI Research Corp. (San Jose, Calif.), said "it is pretty clear that Intel has made a major breakthrough here. It is amazing that they would use strained silicon at the 90-nm node, and if the cost adder is only 2 percent then the process additions would need to be pretty trivial.""

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]

One last lament :confused: Oh great googly moogly, I could have sworn I read somewhere that Intel was going to combined strained silicon and SOI. me goes to corner to mend my ways.

[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

Well, AMD haven't achieved 'critical mass' and have done a reasonable job of competing with Intel 'head on' for the last several years.

The 'Clawhammer' and 'Opteron' offer the chance to get some of those meaty bus' contracts and start making some money. Being the gamer's friend alone won't help them. It's AMD's chance to go after Intel on their home turf.

I can't accept Macluv's insinuation that IBM is too bloated to cope with Intel. A company, suffeting from bloat itself. And even with 'critical' mass has found it hard going with its Itanic cpu and has hardly blown AMD out the water with its Pentium 4. Too me, Intel look like a bloated monopoly who look vulnerable to any company with a reasonable business plan and a billion or so. Especially as 'we' move to a post x86 era. I think the whole market is up for grabs. I sez Intel and M$ will last a little less longer than the Romans did...

Intel and M$ coalition will put up a fight. They do have billions to protect their yard. But I think some of that "95%" is up for grabs.

AMD, a company who are still bleeding to death did a remarkable job of taking desktop cpu share away from Intel. Their share has fluctuated and petered downwards since the Pentium 4 dug in. Point? IBM has much more in the way of resources to bare against Intel and will bring it to bare if Intel aims its guns at IBM's turf.

The 970 is an IBM cpu where IBM's barely flexed its muscles! It's a derivative of another world class cpu. It'll scale better for Apple's desktop purposes.

IBM as a bloated company can't compete? If that's a central argument... It may have been true one day a decade ago. But these days? IBM is the kinda company you wouldn't want to take on. Not in terms of CPU tech'. IBM have been state of the art with their cpu tech R$D labs for years now. All that's lacked from a cpu market place point of view is a reason to go after the desktops. If Intel/Linux are even thinking about storming IBM's server and service gates then they'd better think again.

I think the IBM and Apple planets are in alignment for the next PPC chapter.

Lemon Bon Bon

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I don't think so -- I read just recently that Intel is adopting a technique that will let them get below 0.09 micron, whereas IBM is going to take SOI down to 0.09 micron before switching to this other new technique. I can't remember the details, but it sounds like there are different roads to travel and Intel and IBM aren't following eachother. IMO this is a good thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Intel have said they will adopt what they call "Fully depleted substrate", which is very similar to SOI in behaviour, although acheived slightly differently.
The other technology you may have heard of is strained silicon, which IBM have said they will use at .065micron, with SOI. This technology increases the mobility of holes, and hence the speed of p-channel transistors, giving a slight improvement to switcing speed.
Another technology that may appear is isotopically pure silicon28, another way of increasing mobility, it looks as if AMD may be the first with this one.
I expect they will all be in use by the .065micron node.

michael

LBB-- really quick reply to 1st part of your post. I was wondering why you were saying "AMD" hasn't achieved critical mass, as companies don't achieve critical mass, technology does. Are you confused by this statement?
[quote]originally said by me<strong>
Intel, on the other hand, has almost *unlimited* resources to push the x86 further as &gt;it&lt; has already achieved critical mass.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

"It" refers to x86, not Intel. Sorry for the misunderstanding. If you want to understand the importance of critical mass, look up Metcalf's Law and Law of Disruption. I was first introduced to the concept by reading the Bill Gates/Sculley memo about seven years ago. I didn't want to believe it back then.

If you would like me to elaborate I'll be happy to, right now I have to get some sleep.



[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

Speaking as a non-participant in this argument, and therefore fairly objective....Macluv, you really need practice discussing/debating like an adult.

Fish


ps btw, before you use terms like "strawman" (in a post where you criticize someone's lack of knowledge of debate, no less), you should get a handle on what it means.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>....

If you would like me to elaborate I'll be happy to, right now I have to get some sleep.



[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

No thank you

[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Speaking as a non-participant in this argument, and therefore fairly objective....Macluv, you really need practice discussing/debating like an adult.

Fish


ps btw, before you use terms like "strawman" (in a post where you criticize someone's lack of knowledge of debate, no less), you should get a handle on what it means.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Alrighty then. Thanks for stoppin' by. Give my best to Aunt Bess and the folks. I left an extra pack of condoms in your purse just in case you get lucky.

Pa.

[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

Alrighty then. Thanks for stoppin' by. Give my best to Aunt Bess and the folks. I left an extra pack of condoms in your purse just in case you get lucky.

Pa.</strong><hr></blockquote>

A childish reply to someone telling you you should learn to discuss like an adult. Great. Gee, you seem to _really_ have too much time on your hands - is your computer locker for pr0n or something?

Well, that was true to form, luv, and symptomatic of why your "arguments" are not given much merit here (based on this thread, at any rate).

Ignore the criticism if you want, but if you really care about getting your ideas across effectively, you should pay attention to the almost universal negative reaction to your posts. If you DO have worthwhile ideas you are positing here, they are lost in the endless (and often inane) stream of your smiley/sarcasm-laden posts.

If you don't care about getting your points across, then I suppose you are just enjoying trying to sound dismissive (although it comes off as childish rather than lofty). In that case - enjoy yourself!

Fish

Here I was checking up on this thread thinking there was actually some funded discussion on future hardware going on. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

I just heard that Bubba's CPUs was going to be using genuine melted Rubber Duckies for insulator and pairing them with Zilog Z80s from antique Kaypro II's to create some kind of whozit oven mit for Itanic iceberg lettuce processors!

Neat huh?

Now leave my straw man alone!

"I would not be just a nothin' my head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain."

♩♪♩♪♫♩

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>"I would not be just a nothin' my head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain."

♩♪♩♪♫♩</strong><hr></blockquote>


!!!! TONTON YOU ****IN' GOT IT! CHARLIE YOU WIN!

*SMOOTCH*

PS: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>

AI could really use an IGNORE or FFW button. Why don't U guys meet at the Apple booth come MWSF and throw some punches. May the best loser win. I find myself scrolling till i get to a PROGRAMMER post and find something worth reading.

[quote]Originally posted by phishy:
<strong>
Where does this leave Apple?

.... In the fall of 2000, IBM assembled its 970 development team at the request of Apple. The objective was to have the performance of the Power 4, at a much lower cost. IBM also saw potential in this chip for its linux solutions. IBM began delivering Apple engineering samples of the 970 in May of this year, about the time the 970 was taped out. Apple has numerous working prototypes, and will begin to send them to key developers later this month....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990507S0003" target="_blank">This EETIMES</a> article was posted May 7, 1999.

quote from the article [quote]"Asked whether IBM will develop a PowerPC that includes an AltiVec coprocessor, Elliott Newcombe, PowerPC product marketing manager at IBM's Research Triangle Park facility, said IBM is considering adding an AltiVec APU to one of IBM's designs.

"AltiVec could be an example of one of these coprocessors that could be plugged in [to a Book E-compliant PowerPC]," Newcombe said. "Nothing precludes IBM from doing that, but I cannot comment on whether a design is in progress. The market will decide whether we do that, and I can just say 'stay tuned.' ""<hr></blockquote>

If Apple had IBM assemble a team for the 970 in 2000, then, I am anxiously awaiting the introduction of the cpu Mr. Elliott Newcombe mentions in 1999. After all it has been in the planning stages a year earlier than the 970.

I don't know if this

or this

is appropriate

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

If Apple had IBM assemble a team for the 970 in 2000, then, I am anxiously awaiting the introduction of the cpu Mr. Elliott Newcombe mentions in 1999. After all it has been in the planning stages a year earlier than the 970. . .

</strong><hr></blockquote>

For every project carried to completion, there are likely ten or more that are started and then dropped at some stage. Many never make it past the analysis phase. The only thing we can pretty much bet on is the 970. Anything else is pure speculation, but we can dream -- what if? It sounds like you are hoping for a G4 replacement from IBM? That would be nice.

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>It sounds like you are hoping for a G4 replacement from IBM? That would be nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

???
The ppc970 is claimed by IBM to be roughly twice as fast _at the same clock_ as the current G4s. Sure, it runs a LOT hotter when run at 1.8 GHz on a .13 micron process, but picture this:
At 0.6 GHz, it should be as fast as one of the fastest current G4s. It should produce a relatively miniscule amount of heat at that speed. I don't have the power/Hz curve, but that's obvious.

So either the ppc970 could work fine (at a lower clock), or at the least a mild variant would _certainly_ be fine. I mean, the ppc970 would work fine with one FPU disabled completely - which reduces heat.

And IBM is expected to convert to 0.9 by the end of 2003 - that's before I'd expect the laptop lines to switch over to a totally new processor _anyway_.

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>
For every project carried to completion, there are likely ten or more that are started and then dropped at some stage...</strong><hr></blockquote>

No Doubt.

Sorry I didn't better clarify. I was feebly trying to point out a possible discrepency in the original macrumors report that started this topic. Hence, my reference to the 2 choices of clickable smilies.

If the 1999 reference was to a future 970 it blows a hole in the article starting this topic. On the other hand, it may be reference to another desktop cpu.

<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg" target="_blank">IBM's Roadmap</a> shows the next generation PowerPC to have the following

1+ GHz
Multicore Superscaler
SMP Capable
Integrated SIMD engine(vroommm vrooommm)
Rapid I/O
n-way Crossbar Coreconnect

If this isn't the 970, IBM will be introducing another cpu(re: most probably 32 bit) for desktops in addition to the 970(re: 64 bit). If it is referencing the 970, IBM may have begun assemblying the team in 1999, a year before Apple requested this development team, according to the macrumors report.

[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]

and i was trying to get back on topic

[ 12-12-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>

and i was trying to get back on topic

</strong><hr></blockquote>

What a novel idea!

A project started earlier than the 970 could have been converted into the 970 project later. Or, if it is a separate project that is still alive and well, it could be like you suggest, a 32 bit processor. It might be advantageous to have a G4 like processor from IBM, optimized for lower cost and power, but with the same processor bus type as the 970. It may allow using the same motherboard chip set for both pro and consumer Macs, and consumer Macs would benefit from better memory performance. However, this is still just wild speculation.

Like Nevyn seems to be saying above, once the 970 process is shrunk low enough, the price and power could be very low in the single core version. In that case, why not use it in everything? The top performance chips could have two cores, or more eventually. The top chip will someday be based on the Power 5 no doubt.

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>

What a novel idea!

A project started earlier than the 970 could have been converted into the 970 project later. Or, if it is a separate project that is still alive and well, it could be like you suggest, a 32 bit processor. It might be advantageous to have a G4 like processor from IBM, optimized for lower cost and power, but with the same processor bus type as the 970. It may allow using the same motherboard chip set for both pro and consumer Macs, and consumer Macs would benefit from better memory performance. However, this is still just wild speculation.

Like Nevyn seems to be saying above, once the 970 process is shrunk low enough, the price and power could be very low in the single core version. In that case, why not use it in everything? The top performance chips could have two cores, or more eventually. The top chip will someday be based on the Power 5 no doubt.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would like to point out that we still don't know that much about the 970. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the 970 is a processor that is extremely dependent on a GREAT compilier. In that case I think that Apple has chose well. At least that is where I would want the performance ball to be at, in the compilier and not relying on brute force number crunching, ie. lots of heat. I can't wait for Hannabls' next installment. My point about the compilier is that it is easier and quicker to fix than the CPU.

[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>
It may allow using the same motherboard chip set for both pro and consumer Macs, and consumer Macs would benefit from better memory performance. However, this is still just wild speculation.

...the price and power could be very low in the single core version. </strong><hr></blockquote>

OT fantasy about IBM pimping high performance, low cost ATX boards to the Linux masses. If Linux is an acceptable solution for corps then the age-old "we won't risk anything but x86" hardware really starts to fall apart. It would benefit Apple trememdously even if they keep their hardware separate.

you people will never learn.
just because a "source at apple says..."
doesnt make it so.
im inclined to believe that this so-called "leak" doesnt know jack!
all of this processor information that has been flowing in the last few months is very disturbing to me.
but you people eat it up like candy and think every rumour is fact,and then you run with it and create new rumours.
i firmly believe even with all the problems at motorola they will still come out on top in the processor wars with IBM.
remember the design of the chip (alleged) was finished.
the problems arose in the manufacturing of it.
the performance of the g5 was unequaled (alleged).
why wouldnt apple just pickup the pieces and run with it?
what about all this AMD BROUH HA HA?
these boards are very frustrating because of the "so-called" experts and whinners.
im bullish on apple.
i think the g5 WILL come out.
I think it will be from motorola,and i have said so repeatedly.
im a believer,perhaps you all should be too.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

The high-end embedded G5 existed briefly on Motorola's roadmap (presumably in the "proposed" phase like the 7457-RM is now), then disappeared.

THERE IS NO FREAKIN' G5! The Gx naming scheme just flew out the window. Look! There it goes! I'm inclinded to call the 7457-RM next generation, but it's very different to other G5 processors. The PowerPC 970 is even more different, yet it's next generation.

We have what looks to be a REAL processor from IBM, with proven lineage. What's Motorola got ATM? Nada.

Motorola and IBM arn't the kind of paranoid company Apple is. They arn't hiding anything. IBM has a fast, cool, desktop processor sampling soon. Motorola has a proposed high-end embedded processor, which could result in yet another Motorola-induced headache for Apple.

Once burned, twice shy.

Barto

"i think the g5 WILL come out.
I think it will be from motorola,and i have said so repeatedly.
im a believer,perhaps you all should be too."

I don't think so.

A canadian Moto' rep' said that a desktop/computer G5 wasn't even on their radar.

When Joe Rubenstein said the G4 has 'alot of life left in it' (groans from the Apple faithful...) that kinda backed up the G5 'cancelled' stories...

Lemon Bon Bon

[quote]Originally posted by geekmeat:
<strong>you people will never learn.
just because a "source at apple says..."
doesnt make it so.
im inclined to believe that this so-called "leak" doesnt know jack!
all of this processor information that has been flowing in the last few months is very disturbing to me.
but you people eat it up like candy and think every rumour is fact,and then you run with it and create new rumours.
i firmly believe even with all the problems at motorola they will still come out on top in the processor wars with IBM.
remember the design of the chip (alleged) was finished.
the problems arose in the manufacturing of it.
the performance of the g5 was unequaled (alleged).
why wouldnt apple just pickup the pieces and run with it?
what about all this AMD BROUH HA HA?
these boards are very frustrating because of the "so-called" experts and whinners.
im bullish on apple.
i think the g5 WILL come out.
I think it will be from motorola,and i have said so repeatedly.
im a believer,perhaps you all should be too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

All leaks might be (and probably are) completely false, and this includes the ones that you choose to believe just as much as it includes the ones others choose to believe.

The one incontrovertible fact is that IBM has announced a PowerPC processor with AltiVec that IBM says will ship 2H '03 at speeds up to 1.8 GHz w/ P4@2.5 GHz level performance in a relatively low-power, low-complexity package.

We also have about 50 years of IBM history which tells us that, by and large, when it comes to product announcements IBM is about the most conservative company in the computer business. Apple currently uses, and has in the past used, many IBM made and designed PowerPC chips (601, 603, 604, G3).

So why oh why do people still object to the idea?! Is there some vestige of IBM-hate left over from way back in the mid-80's? IBM ceased to be the "enemy" a long time ago, and now they build some of the best processors in the world which happen to be exactly what Apple needs.

I mean DUH!

[ 01-01-2003: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
We also have about 50 years of IBM history which tells us that, by and large, when it comes to product announcements IBM is about the most conservative company in the computer business. Apple currently uses, and has in the past used, many IBM made and designed PowerPC chips (601, 603, 604, G3).</strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM also has an Antitrust Injunction in force against it _mandating_ that they _never_ go the 'vaporware' route. There's a limited amount of time that they can pre-announce a product before they have to come up with the product, all features announced present or start paying fines. That is - IBM has a much stricter set of 'false advertising' rules because they were caught hyping pure fluff one time too many in the 80's.

Since then, they have a history of 'sandbagging'. That is, they announce 80% of what they feel they can deliver. That way, little gotchas don't cream them when they aren't able to live up to what they expected.

This doesn't ensure us a better chip - it just seems a safe bet that the 970 _will_ be here on the schedule announced.

'General availability 2h03 @ 1.8GHz'