or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple to use 970, confirmed by IBM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to use 970, confirmed by IBM - Page 2

post #41 of 138
The problem with the G3 G4 transition was several fold, with the main one that the G4 did not scale higher then the G3 for a very long time and that the OS did not support SMP.

Who would buy a G4/500 tower if a iMac G3/450 was sold for a fraction of the price? --Very few!

Now having dual in towers and servers and single in ther other line is a viable option.
Also, replacing a 1GHz G3 with a 1GHz G4 does little to the performance outside strict Altivec performance. Replacing a 1GHz G4/G3 with a 1GHz 970 will at least double the performance.

A iMac is better of with 1 GHz 970 than 1.6 GHz G4 if they can be inplemented at similar total costs. Not only will the computer be faster but Apple would by using 970 invest in a CPU that has a future as a desktop CPU. Buying G4 is investing in a dead end desktop CPU, the fact that is very good in embedded applications is a good thing for CISCO but not for Apple.

I can not imagine that Apple could replace all G4 and G3 computers overnight with 970 but I do not see any problem with doing it if it would have been possible, if you understand what I mean.

ASAP:First the towers, shortly there after the servers. The other ones can wait for their natrual replacement cycles to incorporate the 970.

I would guess that the G4 hold out the longest in the iBook. With 970 in both PB and iB the two lines will merge totaly or partly.

So no more G4 speed bumps in the towers ever and no speed bumps next year at all to the G4. So: 2003 in with the 970 in towers and servers and plain vanilla speed bumps for the rest, 2004 out with the G4. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #42 of 138
Geez oh man! I need a laptop for school by September. I really hope we'll see some 970 laptops by then. I have never owned a laptop before...but this is going to be great.

Keynote presentations with my computer. OmniOutliner to take notes in class. And NES, SNES emulation when I'm bored in class. Heck...with the 970, I should get perfectly fast PSX and N64 emulations with Mupen and Flarestorm.

Combine this with 10.3 Panther which should continue to be optimized for speed and this package should blow away any Wintel offerings.

And the 'expect more software from Apple' comment I heard earlier is great news too.

Is 2003 going to be the turning point for Apple like 1997 was when the iMac was introduced?

I'd have to say yes. And if Stevie doesn't back away from his comments, if this is to be trusted as 'the year of the laptop', I should be getting my PowerBook 970 Extreeeeme by September.

We now have a great OS which will continue to make leaps and bounds at every release. And now we're getting a processor that doesn't suck to match the demanding software. HOT DAMN!!!!!!

[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: kim kap sol ]</p>
post #43 of 138
Panther? Oooohh, I like it! Sounds like some kinda super-deadly stealth jet, ready to bomb the Wintel world...
post #44 of 138
Hey, what's gonna happen when Apple runs out of 'big cat' names...what are they gonna use then? "Announcing OS X 10.7...'Margay!'"

Could the G3 be adapted to the 970's bus architecture, or are the chips too different? Because if it could be adapted, then Apple could just use IBM G3s with real DDR support, fast FSB, and Altivec. They would no doubt perform better than the current G4s and possibly draw less power.
Dual 2Ghz G5, Single 2Ghz Xserve G5, Dual 1Ghz QS G4, Single 1.25Ghz MDD G4.
Reply
Dual 2Ghz G5, Single 2Ghz Xserve G5, Dual 1Ghz QS G4, Single 1.25Ghz MDD G4.
Reply
post #45 of 138
[quote]Could the G3 be adapted to the 970's bus architecture, or are the chips too different? Because if it could be adapted, then Apple could just use IBM G3s with real DDR support, fast FSB, and Altivec. They would no doubt perform better than the current G4s and possibly draw less power.

<hr></blockquote>

Wouldn't be worth the effort. A PPC 970 1.1 Volt at 90nm woul only consumer probably 12watts or so @1.4Ghz. Why go through the effort to revamp the G3 or G4. They're pretty much history.

[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #46 of 138
OS X 10.5, Codename: Ocelot. Hmmm....I don't think so. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> But the cat name is good until it comes to "Calico".
post #47 of 138
Is it just me or IBM's roadmap with PPC 970 mass release should coincide with delivery of Panther ?

It should be easy then for Apple to relaunch heavily armed Powermac and XServe in the midst of The Battle : 10.3 & 10.3 Server, X11 final, 970 64 bits computing and new enclosure generation : time to show what is aggressive marketing at Apple !
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
Stephane

Fairy Machines to wreck havok
Reply
post #48 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Stephane:
<strong>Is it just me or IBM's roadmap with PPC 970 mass release should coincide with delivery of Panther ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah...it kinda does.

And while I always feel like beating the pulp out of people and their "It's snappier!" comments when new point releases of OS X are installed, I'm willing to cut a break to those that get Panther shipped on a 970 machine if they say "It's snappier!"
post #49 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Wouldn't be worth the effort. A PPC 970 1.1 Volt at 90nm woul only consumer probably 12watts or so @1.4Ghz. Why go through the effort to revamp the G3 or G4. They're pretty much history.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree -- if the 7x0 core, or a decendent of it w/ VMX, is put into a 44x-style system-on-a-chip with I/O & memory controller plus a RapidIO bus and its power consumption is down in the 2-3W range then it makes a lot of sense. Trying to stretch a single processor design across the gamut of applications is what has gotten Apple into its current mess, its time to have "options".
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #50 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I disagree -- if the 7x0 core, or a decendent of it w/ VMX, is put into a 44x-style system-on-a-chip with I/O & memory controller plus a RapidIO bus and its power consumption is down in the 2-3W range then it makes a lot of sense. Trying to stretch a single processor design across the gamut of applications is what has gotten Apple into its current mess, its time to have "options".</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact, IBM does have a design similar to this in planning. The unknown variable is if it will include VMX or not. By including it, it would make an ideal solution for Apple's portable low-end/consumer machines.
post #51 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>
In fact, IBM does have a design similar to this in planning. The unknown variable is if it will include VMX or not. By including it, it would make an ideal solution for Apple's portable low-end/consumer machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>

yeah, so does moto's 7457.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #52 of 138
Baah! Die, Moto, die! Heck, I don't know why I even bothered to capitalize moto!
post #53 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by gar:
<strong>

yeah, so does moto's 7457.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When is that due again? With RapidIO and built in memory controller? Motorola hasn't even commited to the 7457-RM. And the 130nm 7457 (just a die shrunk 745X with 512K cache) is STILL not due until the late 3rd or 4th quarter of THIS year. God knows why. And it'll STILL have that lame MPX 166MHz bus; Motorola will be lucky if they could get it up to 200MHz even. With a roadmap like that, it's no wonder Apple would pin their hopes on IBM for the future.
post #54 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>OS X 10.5, Codename: Ocelot. Hmmm....I don't think so. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> But the cat name is good until it comes to "Calico". </strong><hr></blockquote>

Panther is OK, as long that don't color the X logo on the box pink.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #55 of 138
How 'bout a Carbon fiber X on the box? That would be cool. And it would be a good metaphor. "Carbon" fiber? Get it? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #56 of 138
[quote]Combine this with 10.3 Panther which should continue to be optimized for speed and this package should blow away any Wintel offerings.

And the 'expect more software from Apple' comment I heard earlier is great news too.

Is 2003 going to be the turning point for Apple like 1997 was when the iMac was introduced?

<hr></blockquote>

Yep.

Lemon Bon Bon

capitalise moto'? when they can't get it up? nah. no captials for them in fact why give them any punctuationatallnadda
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 #57 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

Panther is OK, as long that don't color the X logo on the box pink.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but at least they'd have an excuse to use the tune in Switch ads

If only Peter Sellers was alive...

My name is Inspector Clueso, and I'm a switcher!

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 #58 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>
When is that due again? With RapidIO and built in memory controller? Motorola hasn't even commited to the 7457-RM. And the 130nm 7457 (just a die shrunk 745X with 512K cache) is STILL not due until the late 3rd or 4th quarter of THIS year. God knows why. And it'll STILL have that lame MPX 166MHz bus; Motorola will be lucky if they could get it up to 200MHz even. With a roadmap like that, it's no wonder Apple would pin their hopes on IBM for the future.</strong><hr></blockquote>

sorry my fault, i didn't realise that the G3 has rapidIO already. <img src="embarrassed.gif" border="0">


[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>
Yeah, but at least they'd have an excuse to use the tune in Switch ads

If only Peter Sellers was alive...

My name is Inspector Clueso, and I'm a switcher!

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

well, that won't be a problem at all: let pixar render that anglosaksian dwarf... something like Weta Digital did with Gollem in Lord of the rings.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #59 of 138
Remember when we thought that the G5 would be out in january 2000?

Sad...
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #60 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>Remember when we thought that the G5 would be out in january 2000?

Sad...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but that was all wild speculation that fed itself and ZERO concrete facts. I'm sure some of this is the rumor mill just feeding on itself but the FACT is that this chip DOES exsist.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #61 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by gar:
<strong>
sorry my fault, i didn't realise that the G3 has rapidIO already. </strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't. IBM has plans to do it though.
post #62 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch:
<strong>Remember when we thought that the G5 would be out in january 2000?

Sad...</strong><hr></blockquote>Not 2000. The G4 came out in late 1999. The Register's rumors were for Jan. 2002.
post #63 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>
It doesn't. IBM has plans to do it though.</strong><hr></blockquote>


great. so my remark about the 7457 everybody was flamming wasn't as stupid as it seems:
Motorola has the same plans with it's 7457 RM (but if it ever will be released is another story, look at the 7500. great plans, everybody expected this G5 and after a few months Moto pulled it from it's roadmap, sad indeed)
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #64 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by gar:
<strong>great. so my remark about the 7457 everybody was flamming wasn't as stupid as it seems:
Motorola has the same plans with it's 7457 RM (but if it ever will be released is another story, look at the 7500. great plans, everybody expected this G5 and after a few months Moto pulled it from it's roadmap, sad indeed)</strong><hr></blockquote>

The 7457 will just have the existing MPX bus and no other changes except a double sized L2. Power levels will drop. This will definitely be an improvement for Apple portables, no doubt about it. When it arrives late this year.

The 7457-RM was last listed as "under considertion" on a Motorola roadmap a few months ago, and given Moto's typical timeline for new processor development this doesn't bode well. I think everybody is skeptical that we'll ever see it, and if we do that it will be in a useful timeline for Apple's purposes. The 970 might arrive @ 0.09 micron before the 7457-RM shows up @ 0.13 and the idea of a 7457-RM @ 0.09 will instill much laughter. Nobody would complain if it actually materialized, it just seems far more likely that IBM will get there first.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #65 of 138
johnpg, is this the presentation you saw?

<a href="http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/disco/mew/Talks/Follows_IBM.pdf" target="_blank">IBM LINK</a>

Very interesting.
post #66 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I disagree -- if the 7x0 core, or a decendent of it w/ VMX, is put into a 44x-style system-on-a-chip with I/O & memory controller plus a RapidIO bus and its power consumption is down in the 2-3W range then it makes a lot of sense. Trying to stretch a single processor design across the gamut of applications is what has gotten Apple into its current mess, its time to have "options".

</strong><hr></blockquote>

It seems like four or five years ago that I read about Motorola developing a system-on-a-chip processor code named Thunderbird at the time. It even had a PCI bus controller, if I remember correctly. I always thought that something like this would be great for very low cost systems, and hoped Apple would have such a chip someday.

If I understand what you are saying, it could be a possibility from IBM. Apple needs this kind of chip so they can lower prices on Macs for the home, educational and general purpose business computer markets.
post #67 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>It seems like four or five years ago that I read about Motorola developing a system-on-a-chip processor code named Thunderbird at the time. It even had a PCI bus controller, if I remember correctly. I always thought that something like this would be great for very low cost systems, and hoped Apple would have such a chip someday.

If I understand what you are saying, it could be a possibility from IBM. Apple needs this kind of chip so they can lower prices on Macs for the home, educational and general purpose business computer markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That became the 8xxx embedded host processor series, I believe. Not appropriate for Apple desktop use due to the weak core and lack of FPU&VMX. Conceptually, however, a G3/G4+memory controller+RIO makes a lot of sense and I have to believe that either IBM or Moto will get there eventually.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #68 of 138
Bah! Yes, the G4 will be with us for a long while after the 970 is instituted in a Powermac, probabably in the iBooks and maybe iMacs.
post #69 of 138
[quote] eventually <hr></blockquote>



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 #70 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

That became the 8xxx embedded host processor series, I believe. Not appropriate for Apple desktop use due to the weak core and lack of FPU&VMX. Conceptually, however, a G3/G4+memory controller+RIO makes a lot of sense and I have to believe that either IBM or Moto will get there eventually.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO.

There are portions of the semiconductor space in which Motorola is really a champ. Some of Moto's chips only consume 1 or 2 watts and are every bit as competent as G3s of a couple years ago. Given first Apple's then their own near-death experiences of the past few years, though, I don't believe Moto's got the cojones to compete in the top end, performance-is-everything, power-consumption-be-damned arena any more.

I think there is a role for Motorola processors in Apple's future, but only by using them in Moto's strengths - ultra low-power, moderate performance portables.
"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 #71 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>

Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Jobs apparently loved the eMate.

I would not put it past him to revive something very much like it.
"...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 #72 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The problem is that they are generally not capable of running Macintosh software. The Mac APIs, libraries, and apps in generally are full of uses of standard PowerPC FPU-based floating point math which these embedded processors typically have omitted or implemented in a non-standard fashion. For this reason a 7x0 core is about the minimum required to run MacOS X and its applications. Sure you could come up with a new platform and build around that, but more attractive is simply using a more advanced core in a SoC package... which we haven't seen yet from IBM or Moto.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #73 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

The problem is that they are generally not capable of running Macintosh software. The Mac APIs, libraries, and apps in generally are full of uses of standard PowerPC FPU-based floating point math which these embedded processors typically have omitted or implemented in a non-standard fashion. For this reason a 7x0 core is about the minimum required to run MacOS X and its applications. Sure you could come up with a new platform and build around that, but more attractive is simply using a more advanced core in a SoC package... which we haven't seen yet from IBM or Moto.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Picky, picky, picky....

I understand what you're saying completely. I didn't mean to imply that I thought current processors were suitable, only that such a processor was within reach.

For example, a Motorola 8560 with an FPU added would be pretty good for that sort of thing - probably overkill, in fact, even without AltiVec. It may be missing much more than the FPU - I'm certainly not an expert (or even exceptionally knowedgeable). They don't publish the power consumption of it yet, but its core runs at only 1.2 V, and puts out 1850 MIPS at 800 MHz. Their 82xx series run typically at 1.9 V and dissipate 2-3 W at 300 MHz or so with a 603e core. I doubt the 8560 would put out much more than that.

My point really was that this is an area where Motorola excels and they really could still be an important part of Apple's processor mix. It would only require Moto to extend proven designs a bit to fit Apple's needs, not try to maintain an entirely distinct line of high-power desktop chips used only by Apple. Whether or not they actually do is an entirely different matter. There's enough bad blood at this point that the relationship may be past salvaging.
"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 #74 of 138
[Not entirely convinced that economy of topic items in the topic list is worth shoehorning posts into ill-fitting topic headings, nevertheless, I re-post as follows...]

I've heard a lot of talk about OS X needing to be updated to a 64-bit OS for the PowerPC 970, and I've also heard a lot of talk that this shouldn't be that hard to do.

Still, I have a hard time imagining that such a change wouldn't constitute a major new version of the OS - 10.3, rather than 10.2.x.

Given that the 970 can run 32-bit code just fine, and that even at 32 bits, the 970 will be a substantial improvement over the G4, would it make sense for Apple, if 10.3 isn't right around the corner, to release new 970-based computers, with only a slightly tweaked OS 10.2.x that simply uses the 970 in 32-bit mode?

I think that would be a good move if it gets us new 970-based systems sooner that we would by waiting for OS 10.3.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #75 of 138
[This is a 970 thread, not a tablet thread]

Hmmm....I don't know about you guys, but a slow G3 with 4 MB of VRAM would run OS X Lite just fine, especially considering the small screen size of this idea.
post #76 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek (and moved from a locked thread):
<strong>Definitely not. It would be maginally acceptable to have the Powermac 970 announced before the 64-bit OS was ready, but that would be just plain cheap. I expect all Apple Pro software titles to be ready at the time that the PM 970 ships. That means that Finalcut Pro, not Express, Web Objects, and Shake will be ready to run 64-bit.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not that there aren't plenty of 970 rumors going about now, but still, I'd expect to hear much more rumbling if all of these 64-bit software upgrades were already well under development, most likely requiring that developer versions of a 64-bit OS, and the hardware to run it on.

Besides, OS X 10.3, while quite likely to be a 64-bit OS to support the 970, won't be all about 64-bitness. There's like to be a whole lot more to 10.3, and who knows how far along the whole package of goodies that will be 10.3 is?

For people hoping for July availability of a 970 Power Mac (not just a July announcement of something that will ship in September or later) it seems to me that there'd have to be widespread beta copies of 10.3 now, or very soon, if those July Power Macs are going to have a 64-bit 10.3 installed when they ship.

Now, maybe neither 970s nor OS 10.3 will be ready until northern-hemisphere Fall arrives, in which case, my speculation might be a moot point.

But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"?

I'd happily buy such a system -- I expect the 970 to be quite an enormous leap beyond the G4, even running in 32-bit mode, with or without a 64-bit OS behind it. Besides, I'd know that 64-bit goodness would come soon, and that I'd probably have something of a wait before much software was able to take advantage of 64-bit architecture anyway.

[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #77 of 138
How 'bout a "What will we see in 10.3" thread, in OS X Forum? I'll do that NOW.
post #78 of 138
Shetline-

Your theory hinges on the difficulty of moving OSX to 64bit. Well written apps by either Apple or 3rd parties should be able to support G4bits with a relatively minores tweaks and a recompile. You won't see Apple holding up PPC 970's system IMO. I doubt that the PPC 970 is going to see large scale production until 2H 2003 so 10.3 and the PPC 970 could/should coincide nicely as far as their release.

[quote] But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"?

<hr></blockquote>

I don't think Apple would have a problem with that. But I doubt that moving OSX to 64bit is going to present that much of a challenge anyways.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #79 of 138
I don't think Apple would do that...I think that they would try to have the 64-bit OS preloaded into the machine at the plant.
post #80 of 138
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek:
<strong>I don't think Apple would do that...I think that they would try to have the 64-bit OS preloaded into the machine at the plant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why not as it's most likely a few code tweaks and a recompile away. I believe it would depend more on the compiler supporting 64bit. Some of the GCC 3.x Mavens around here would be better off explaining but I think that moving to 64bit has confused many a person on just how it's done and what benefits it will entail.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple to use 970, confirmed by IBM