or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF - Page 6

post #201 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

That sounds relevant to me.

I'm looking at the root of the problem, you're looking at the surface. The platform is attached to the ISA. Period. First you say the ISA is irrelevant to the developer, then you say that developers would be screwed by Apple if they switched ISAs. Which is it? I think you're just trying to justify you're agrument that "platform" development doesn't include the ISA, which is BS, and you're intelligent enough to know this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh, you can twist it around if you want but my point is sound and isn't a surface issue.

The point is (again) that the platform is the operating system & ISA combination, and Apple switching to x86 does nothing to make the platform more like the WIntel platform because it would still be MacOS X on x86. It would be different than MacOS X on PowerPC, and it would be different from WIntel. Porting MacOS X PowerPC code to MacOS X x86 would be easier than going to WIntel, but it would still require new code releases, more work for developers, testing, etc. Apple has managed to make the Mac more "hardware nimble", but the fact is that there is a great deal of investment in PowerPC right now, and to force another shift upon developers right now might just be enough to kill the platform once and for all. Given plenty of lead time they might be able to make it happen, but it better not be in '03 -- the platform still hasn't stabilized on MacOS X.

One more try: Using the same ISA cannot make two platforms the same, but it makes them different.

I really hate it when somebody brings up "intelligence" during a discussion, its just a cop out. You obviously don't even understand the argument that you're calling BS so you fall back on insults. Come back when you actually understand something about the technology that you're spouting off about.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #202 of 237
"Given plenty of lead time they might be able to make it happen, but it better not be in '03 -- the platform still hasn't stabilized on MacOS X."




I think I'd settle for that. If 2003 gets a 970 and Quark X Mac then I'm sure Apple will be happy for the time being...

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 #203 of 237
MacLuv

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
Come back when you actually understand something about the technology that you're spouting off about.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I ask that you PROVE that you understand the technology that you are referring to. And to that end I have a program to write. Much more fun than reading MacLuvs' attempts at thinking his way out of a paperbag.

Think and surprise all of us! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #204 of 237
[quote]Because IBM stated that they will start sampling 970 in Q2, that means nothing is going to be available earlier. IBM can say anything they want but what they do can be different from time to time.<hr></blockquote>

Exactly, and has anyone thought of this: Those release dates may be for a "general" release of the 970. Certainly there could be a "private" contract between the two providing Apple with chips at an earlier date. Might be called something other than a 970, but could still be the same, or even customized more specifically for Apple.

What the hey?
"Generals and Majors always
seem so unhappy 'less they got a war"
Reply
"Generals and Majors always
seem so unhappy 'less they got a war"
Reply
post #205 of 237
Do the winter holidays make everyone irritable?
Yes my child, he closed quite a few threads in his day.

Locomotive
Reply
Yes my child, he closed quite a few threads in his day.

Locomotive
Reply
post #206 of 237
"Exactly, and has anyone thought of this: Those release dates may be for a "general" release of the 970. Certainly there could be a "private" contract between the two providing Apple with chips at an earlier date. Might be called something other than a 970, but could still be the same, or even customized more specifically for Apple."

It would be nice to have surprise...

Didn't G4 surprise everybody when it was first launched. Said it was coming much later than arrived. Similar occurence..? That would buy Apple 970 launch to shipping time. A stretch...but in reach of a San Fran launch?

I still think Kid Red's dual 1.4 is more likely. Dual 1 gig at low end? Tasty Mac?

LEmBONB

[ 12-29-2002: 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 #207 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>It would be nice to have surprise...

Didn't G4 surprise everybody when it was first launched. Said it was coming much later than arrived.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, and shortly afterward Apple found themselves wishing they'd waited another few months, the way everyone thought they would.

The G4 was introduced to the world with a "speed dump," followed by stagnation apparently caused by a coherency problem with the L1 cache. This alone should be enough to convince people that the last thing the 970 needs is a similar rush job. We all want the thing yesterday, but we want it finished, tested, and working, right?

[ 12-29-2002: 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 #208 of 237
Some general observations:

1. This thread is about the next generation chip that Apple will place it its pro lineup - better known by the meaningless vapor-brand "G5". This thread is not about OS X, Quack Xless, or any other application.

2. That said, while Clive's understanding of Apple's current market status (and what's driving that status) isn't technically anymore grounded in fact than the arguments of his counterparts, he is generally correct I think.

No one ever said better technology means automatic marketshare or profitability improvements. If they did, the existing number of Quark users would be drastically smaller by now, and the number of switchers drastically higher - among other things.

I frequently hear comments that go something like this from would-be Apple users: "I've always thought Apple's technology was better, but the simple fact is their machines always cost too much relative to higher end PCs". So its not superior technology Apple has to convince people of, so much as they have to deliver serious bang for the buck - especially during hard economic times - and they simply do not do this.

3. This statement

"When the 970 comes, Quark will release a mostly 32-bit carbon product, while Indesign will be mostly be 64-bit Cocoa."

is absurd to the point of being funny.

A) Applications aren't going to be "Mostly 64-bit" or "Partly 32-bit" - even if they are built on modular designs. They will either be compiled as 64-bit apps, or they won't be. 3rd party plugins not withstanding of course.

B) Unless you work there, you have no idea what Adobe's plans are for releasing 64-bit PPC products down the road, much less what the timeframes for release are.

C) NONE of their products are going to be Cocoa-based. I won't go into why because it's been plastered on these boards over and over for almost 2 years now. Adobe chose Carbon for a reason. If you care to know why, do some research - it's not hard to find explanations.

4) I think the only changes to the Power Mac line that we could possibly see on Jan 7th are mild speed-ups with a 200MHz bus. No major architectural changes, no "G5". The evidence overwhelmingly supports G4-based Power Macs well into next year, if not into 2004.

I'm not even sure why we're sweating this so much (although it seems expectations are much more reasonable than they usually are going into MWSF).

I say that because frankly, I agree with the point that for most users, the current bandwidth-choked PM line still performs very well on most tasks. Granted video, 3D and music production people could use a big boost for the money - but most people who buy G4 towers use them for things like running Photoshop and Dreamweaver in tandem, or playing UT, or doing MS Office stuff. Even though we're focusing on all these professional production issues (publishing in this case), I think those people are likely outnumbered by the "typical user scenario" noted above.

I'm using an old G4/500, and while the app launch times and certain render-sensitive tasks are sluggish under Jaguar, I can still get a lot done during the course of my free days. I could get quite a bit more done with even the Dual 867 vs what I have now. Point being, if Apple could release Power Macs with a 200MHz bus in January, and are smart enough to drop the prices another $150 - the machines would be a big hit with most individual G4 owners IMO.

Not ideal and not what we really need for the long haul, but enough to boost sales quite a bit while giving users "more bang for less bucks" - and isn't that the point?
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #209 of 237
It's amazing how defensive some people can be...

You are right maybe with heavy disk intensive tasks the DDR Power Macs pull ahead...not by much but they probably do. But I am talking about every day tasks. I use FCP a LOT. I had a sdram Power Mac and I almost chose the DDR GHz Power Mac to replace it but after I saw benchmarks I went with the Dual 867.

My point is this: I had to spend extra for the DDR ram. Does the current G4 processor correctly support that DDR ram? Is there stil a large bottleneck between RAM and the G4 as there has been all along? Yes. These machines are the result of Apple Marketing trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation.

and who was talking about the Xserve? I thought we were discussing Power Macs..
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
I'm making plastics right now!
Reply
post #210 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
NONE of [Adobe's] products are going to be Cocoa-based. I won't go into why because it's been plastered on these boards over and over for almost 2 years now. Adobe chose Carbon for a reason. If you care to know why, do some research - it's not hard to find explanations.

<hr></blockquote>

Moogs:

You could have gestured at an explanation in the same amount of space you used for ranting.

Anyhow, I searched for "cocoa" in frameusers, and came across a statement from an Adobe rep (dated jan 2001) to the effect that cocoa is unsuitable for cross-platform development. Is this the substance of your objection?

Others:

Despite this being a FH thread, I'd like to ask: is cocoa suitable for cross-platform development?
post #211 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by boy_analog:
<strong>

Moogs:

You could have gestured at an explanation in the same amount of space you used for ranting.

Anyhow, I searched for "cocoa" in frameusers, and came across a statement from an Adobe rep (dated jan 2001) to the effect that cocoa is unsuitable for cross-platform development. Is this the substance of your objection?

Others:

Despite this being a FH thread, I'd like to ask: is cocoa suitable for cross-platform development?</strong><hr></blockquote>

NeXT Step has been on Alpha(maybe), Moto 68000, Intel, Spark, and was the idea germ for Java. The idea was about portability. I believe that what they are referring to is that developing a project for MacOSX, which is NextStep kind of, would require allot of work to port over to Windows, even if they were both on Intel hardware. Which is what Programmer, and others have said. Cocoa is mapped to a series of calls to Mach/BSD. Once you have the kernal working on some hardware the frameworks are much easier to port over. I believe that the NeXT guys had this done for PPC within a few months with NeXT 4. I would like to point out that Apple had some guys fly to Apple for a weekend to port their software over to Next4 on PPC, might have been the guys from Omni, I can't remember. That's right one weekend, but this was from NeXT to NeXT, just different hardware. History, ramble But there was an agreement that what Apple would buy NeXT 5 and so as the development went along Steve took charge, the plan was broadened. Adobe decided to drop display PostScript at Microsofts' request, which ment that Apple had to develope display PDF which delayed the launch of OSX by more than a year but Apple released it in a year. But we all lived through the 10.0 release and could see that we were all living through that delay. In a way it is better, we have Quartz and display PDF. Had it not been for MS we would have been using display postscript. Hence Apples' strong embrace of open standards, MS cannot request that OpenGL be dropped to the OpenGL group and have much effect.

Back on track: It seems that January would be rushed for the 970, I hope it to be early, I hope it is here in July.

My appologies for the ramble. I was attempting to answer a question that appeared to be running.

[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: Brendon ] Added part about weekend development.

[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: Brendon ]

[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: Brendon ]</p>
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #212 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by boy_analog:
<strong>
Despite this being a FH thread, I'd like to ask: is cocoa suitable for cross-platform development?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not really. There are exceptions: Omni Group ported Giants: Citizen Kabuto to Cocoa. But then, games are their own thing, since they take over the screen and provide custom user interfaces.

The big problem is that it's a framework (actually, several frameworks), which means that you get tremendous amounts of functionality from a few lines of code ... which means that the code is well-nigh useless on a platform that doesn't have those frameworks. Currently, the closest equivalent to Cocoa on another platform is GNUStep, and that's not near close enough.

The other problem was Objective-C, which does run on every platform gcc runs on, but which is still an unheard-of choice for cross-platform work. That's generally done in C++ or Java. Almost all Windows development is VB or C++, neither of which looks or acts like Objective-C. Objective-C++ blunts that objection somewhat, as does Cocoa for Java. But it doesn't change the fact that anyone looking to share code with Windows is going to prefer C++.

Carbon, on the other hand, can be used in straight C++ (for that matter, straight C), and it's almost immediately familiar to seasoned Mac programmers, so it's the more obvious choice for companies like Adobe which have millions of lines of existing C and C++ code, support for Mac and Windows alike, and lots of seasoned Mac programmers.

[ 12-30-2002: 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 #213 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>It's amazing how defensive some people can be...

You are right maybe with heavy disk intensive tasks the DDR Power Macs pull ahead...not by much but they probably do. But I am talking about every day tasks. I use FCP a LOT. I had a sdram Power Mac and I almost chose the DDR GHz Power Mac to replace it but after I saw benchmarks I went with the Dual 867.

My point is this: I had to spend extra for the DDR ram. Does the current G4 processor correctly support that DDR ram? Is there stil a large bottleneck between RAM and the G4 as there has been all along? Yes. These machines are the result of Apple Marketing trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation.

and who was talking about the Xserve? I thought we were discussing Power Macs.. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Xserves and MDD Macs share the same tech.

Most benchmarks only test a fraction of a program - eg. renders and things like that.

They don't test for network speed and so on, and I'll bet that most pros are on a network.

Regarding bandwidth: The bandwidth between a G4 and RAM is around 1GB/sec, and on a SDRAM machine the bandwidth of the RAM is 1GB/sec.

That 1GB/sec needs to be shared among the G4 and the DMA components, but on a DDR RAM Mac the G4 has 1GB/sec. to itself and the DMA components share 1GB/sec.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #214 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Brendon:
<strong>Adobe decided to drop display PostScript at Microsofts' request, which ment that Apple had to develope display PDF which delayed the launch of OSX by more than a year but Apple released it in a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apple dumped Display PS because of a not so nice license fee (PDF is free), and Adobe wasn't happy about Apple dumping Display PS.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #215 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Xserves and MDD Macs share the same tech.

Most benchmarks only test a fraction of a program - eg. renders and things like that.

They don't test for network speed and so on, and I'll bet that most pros are on a network.

Regarding bandwidth: The bandwidth between a G4 and RAM is around 1GB/sec, and on a SDRAM machine the bandwidth of the RAM is 1GB/sec.

That 1GB/sec needs to be shared among the G4 and the DMA components, but on a DDR RAM Mac the G4 has 1GB/sec. to itself and the DMA components share 1GB/sec.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just to contribute a little to your discussion about the value of the DDR in the MDD PowerMacs -- the standard benchmarking methodology is to isolate exactly one thing so that you can time that. Unfortunately that often isn't how these machines are used and thus doesn't attempt to test important cases in practical use.

Case in point: there are two major bandwidth consumers in the system, the CPU and the GPU bus. The CPU's MPX can use about 1 GB/sec, and the GPU's AGP can use about 1 GB/sec. On non-DDR Macs there is about 1 GB/sec of memory bandwidth so either the CPU or the GPU can max out, but if they are both operating at once they need to share which impacts their performance. On the DDR machines there is 2.7 GB/sec of streaming bandwidth (theoretically) so there ought to be enough to go around.

In reality we don't know how close Apple's memory controller gets to the theoretical 2.7 GB/sec, but its probably &gt;1.8 GB/sec. As a result, in situations where both the CPU and the GPU are accessing the system's main memory at high speed the DDR machines ought to do better than the non-DDR machines. Quartz Extreme should make this a valuable feature, but you need to be using the GUI actively while running a computational test in the background -- and you have to figure out when QE is using the AGP bus because it might outsmart you and cache things in VRAM. So its a difficult benchmark test to do, but its the kind of thing that will benefit you in day-to-day work, rather than just in benchmarks.

The bus speed is higher too, remember, (133 -&gt; 167 MHz) so even the CPU's memory bandwidth by itself is higher and this has been measured in some benchmarks.

The downside of the MDD machines is that Apple shrunk the L3 cache to 1 MB/processor instead of 2. There will be some cases where this negatively affects performance slightly. Most of time the improvement in bus performance and greater available system bandwidth outweighs the loss of cache.

In a nutshell: In these Macs the DDR RAM bandwidth is being used, just not by the CPUs directly.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #216 of 237
Ok, back to thread content...

<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1216_xilinx.html" target="_blank">Here</a>, we have IBM and Xilinx announcing 90nm production in 2nd half of 2003. IBM has stated in the past that the 970 will be initially released as a 130nm product. So if we have 90nm in 2nd half of 2003, who's to say we won't have 130nm product (and new Powermacs, yum!) much sooner, say 1Q 2003?
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #217 of 237
post #218 of 237
I have to agree with Rhumgod, the IBM article states that IBM plans to manufacture the new product line in volume in the second half of 2003 at the company's state-of-the-art 300mm plant in East Fishkill, N.Y. . so if the 90nm will be available in the second half of 2003, what about the 130nm chips? Well MacWorld SF will be all consumer iMac, eMac, iApps and may be a digital device. Not sure about the portables? But since Apple looks like it wants out of the big MacWorld trade shows 4 times a year and may want to try to organize its own, smaller, regional conferences. Apple already produces Macworld in Paris. So may be there first one in North America will be a new PowerMac introduced late January to March. :confused:

Only time will tell
post #219 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Mmm? new rumor: <a href="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021230017949.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021230017949.htm</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

It says what I've been saying for a few months. A Moto G4+ of sorts in Jan/Feb and the 970 by Sept/Aug. I figure the G4 will be up to about 1.4ghz and the 970 starts at 1.4ghz so the high end becomes the low end as norm when the 970 comes out. The 1.8ghz will probably be to top end. I can't wait till the fall
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #220 of 237
Fall is too late. I'm rooting for spring.
post #221 of 237
I'll take a 1.4GHz DP w/200MHz FSB and existing DDR configuration to hold me over till next year.
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 #222 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Apple dumped Display PS because of a not so nice license fee (PDF is free), and Adobe wasn't happy about Apple dumping Display PS.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As I remember it Adobe was developing DisplayPS attempting to make it a real display environment, not just a printing environment. MS approached Adobe about co-developing a display technology for what would be in XP. Adobe dropped development of DisplayPS to shift resources to this co-development project. Apple was at that time a few months from releasing OSX. They may not have been getting the licensing deal that they had hoped for as well. But this is all history, display PDF is much faster and has many more features. And like you point out it is free. I believe that the reason that Apple even looked at DisplayPS was because they had experience and the Foundation and AppKit were built around it and that was a big investment in both time and money. I think that in the licensing deal Steve thought that Apple would get a huge break on the fee or even get it for free, being that the Macintosh market is many times bigger than the NeXT market. It is interesting that MS chose not to use the technology that they were co-developing instead going inhouse. I think that Adobe would have been much more willing to deal on DisplayPS fees if they thought the MS deal would fall through.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #223 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by DaeargiMan:
<strong>

Those release dates may be for a "general" release of the 970. Certainly there could be a "private" contract between the two providing Apple with chips at an earlier date. </strong><hr></blockquote>

This was my thought the day the chip date was announced.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #224 of 237
"This was my thought the day the chip date was announced."



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 #225 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>This was my thought the day the chip date was announced.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But doesn't the 970 have an Altivec unit on board? Not too many other companies use SIMD/Altivec that I know of. I am guessing the 970 is the chip for Apple and the PPC9xx family is for the general population. And mid to late Feb, by my guess.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #226 of 237
I Refuse to set myself up for a fall.
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 #227 of 237
Just another <a href="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021230017949.htm" target="_blank">nail</a> in the "970 soon theory" (not necessarily the nail, mind you).

Short version: Moto's 7457 soon, higher clocked 7457s later, and much later 7457RM for the iMac around the time of the 970 for PowerMacs.

Screed

[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #228 of 237
Geek.com are the BASTARDS who started the whole G5 at MacWorld (2002) thing. Linking to them causes AI's server to shudder.

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 #229 of 237
DONT COUNT MOTOROLA OUT JUST YET!
post #230 of 237
Why should we listen to you when every other scrawl you've posted has been an exercise in ignorance and incoherance?

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 #231 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:
<strong>Just another <a href="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021230017949.htm" target="_blank">nail</a> in the "970 soon theory" (not necessarily the nail, mind you).

Short version: Moto's 7457 soon, higher clocked 7457s later, and much later 7457RM for the iMac around the time of the 970 for PowerMacs.

Screed

[ 12-30-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

If I recall, the 7457RM is slated for early 04 delivery while the 970 should ship by Q3 of 03. Again Moto is a little too late, if they are able to live up to that timeline, and they havent had a good record of meeting projected ship dates since the initial release of the G4.
post #232 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>If I recall, the 7457RM is slated for early 04 delivery while the 970 should ship by Q3 of 03. Again Moto is a little too late, if they are able to live up to that timeline, and they havent had a good record of meeting projected ship dates since the initial release of the G4.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Since Motorola's avowed target market is the embedded space where low component counts, low costs, low power, and low heat are all very important it seems obvious that the rumoured 7457RM would have very different design goals than the 970. This is good for Apple -- the PowerPC was supposed to be (and is) a family of processors, not just one. Since processor design, like all engineering, is a set of tradeoffs and compromises there cannot be a single processor that is ideally suited to all uses. PowerPC, however, aims to put compatible processors into as many different product spaces as possible. In those terms it has been an outstanding success. PowerPCs are used in everything from small portable products, to network routers, to cars, to desktop computers, to notebook computers, to servers, and beyond. Back in '95 the PowerPC group at Somerset was designing the PC-class chips and they had 3 on the go at once: 603, 604, 620. These were aimed at the portable, desktop/workstation, and server markets respectively. The 603 emphasized low power, while the 604 emphasized performance. They stomped the Intel guys on both counts. Since then the high-performance side of the equation faltered when the Core2K failed to materialized, but now IBM promises to change this with the 970. This does not invalidate the need for the 7457RM.

The 7457RM takes the existing G4 core, process shrinks it to at least 0.13, brings the memory controller on board (thus taking this functionality out of the chipset), and moves to a new interconnect scheme designed for low-cost high-speed implementations (RapidIO). It will probably be at least 20% smaller/cooler than the 970 on a given process, and should be able to achieve at least 1.8 GHz on the 0.13 process. The cache and memory controller improvements should improve performance significantly. This should be a terrific processor for use in portable applications in the timeframe when (and if) it becomes available. The main question is whether Motorola has enough wherewithal to still build the thing.

"Options, we like to have options."
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #233 of 237
"The 7457RM takes the existing G4 core, process shrinks it to at least 0.13, brings the memory controller on board (thus taking this functionality out of the chipset), and moves to a new interconnect scheme designed for low-cost high-speed implementations (RapidIO). It will probably be at least 20% smaller/cooler than the 970 on a given process, and should be able to achieve at least 1.8 GHz on the 0.13 process. The cache and memory controller improvements should improve performance significantly. This should be a terrific processor for use in portable applications in the timeframe when (and if) it becomes available. The main question is whether Motorola has enough wherewithal to still build the thing."

I think if these processors change conusmer/prosumer lines mid-flight. ie IBM hits the 'power'Macs and Moto' hit the consumer lines. ie 2 970 hits the 'power'Macs mid 2003 and the Rio 1.8 gig G4 hits the iMac 2004 (given the pace of updates...) then that would, within the space of a year put Apple lightyears ahead of the rather mundane and dispiriting last few years re: cpu.

"Options, we like to have options."

Yeah. Let's hope both deliver.

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 #234 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>
7457RM. ... This should be a terrific processor for use in portable applications in the timeframe when (and if) it becomes available. The main question is whether Motorola has enough wherewithal to still build the thing.

"Options, we like to have options."</strong><hr></blockquote>

The part I keep hanging up on is that RIO or HT are both switched fabrics -&gt; this keeps screaming 'Please don't stop as just _2_' to me. RIO & HT aren't really aimed at being slot-interconects, but both seem to have ways to do it -&gt; If I've got the CPU, the memory controller, and a link to the outside world all on the one 7457RM chip, the only thing we need to be a blade is RAM, right? RIO's limit is 256 devices... Suddenly the 7457RM's claim to fame (low heat) becomes an important part of 'How many?'

ALl idle speculation of course. I do think Pixar would buy more than one.
post #235 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:
<strong>The part I keep hanging up on is that RIO or HT are both switched fabrics -&gt; this keeps screaming 'Please don't stop as just _2_' to me. RIO & HT aren't really aimed at being slot-interconects, but both seem to have ways to do it -&gt; If I've got the CPU, the memory controller, and a link to the outside world all on the one 7457RM chip, the only thing we need to be a blade is RAM, right? RIO's limit is 256 devices... Suddenly the 7457RM's claim to fame (low heat) becomes an important part of 'How many?'

ALl idle speculation of course. I do think Pixar would buy more than one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Absolutely, and the 970 is built with SMP in mind as well. IBM, at least, plans on building N-way 970-based machines where N is a rather large number. We'll probably seen multi-core and multi-threaded versions of the 9x0 processors eventually as well.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #236 of 237
Ok, think about this:

The reason that computer "speed" has to increase rapidly is that application demands increase.

(i.e.: 64K was plenty to run WordStar on the Zilog Z-80 inside a Kaypro II in 1984, and that version of WordStar still fulfills 90% of the functionality of 2003 word processors - mailmerge, typography effects, etc; so... why doesn't anyone still use the Kaypro II? Because things like GUIs came along, and WYSIWYG, and multitasking, and on, and on - ALL software demands placed on hardware makers)

Why do Ad Agencies buy hundreds of iMacs for print design work instead of PowerMacs? The iMacs do the job, and do it well. They are more powerful than the print applications need, when total cost of ownership is applied to current technology.

Sure, the PMs are better at video, animation, rendering, science calculation, etc - but these are NOT print design.

Here's the biter:

InDesign 3 and Xpress 5.5 (6.0?) may demand more than the iMacs can provide. This would force yet another round of upgrades. Other apps will also help this along.

So these agencies, etc, might be buying computers with a two year life instead of 4-5 years -ASSUMING they want to upgrade applications.
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 #237 of 237
Originally posted by boy_analog:

Despite this being a FH thread, I'd like to ask: is cocoa suitable for cross-platform development?


Not YET is the correct answer, I think.

Objective C is a superset of C. Apple has been adding C++ compatibility into it in recent times (much of this exists in current versions of the frameworks).

So the key then is the operability of the frameworks on other hardware.

Think Darwin for X86/AMD.

Think Apple just has to make the frameworks,etc available. They've got X86-compatible frameworks if they have Marklar (OS X on X86/AMD), right?

Yeah, let's give the linux guys a leg up
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF