or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › There is no G5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

There is no G5 - Page 5

post #161 of 457
Idaho,

We're not that stupid.

- Mark
post #162 of 457
Oh yea steve jobs came by today and said thats all wrong!, this robe-ought to be dry by now, then I said "clever. now tell me when I wiill be forkign over my cash for the g5" he said "well heres one right now" then he handed me my current system which is a g5 1.6 ghz 333 mhz FSB 512 Megs of 333 mhz ddr-ram with a 120 gig byte hardrive and an ati rage 128 pro(apparently these things are the best)
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #163 of 457
MacMall rep told me that the Ti Books are 133 MHz bus?MOSR says the New PM due in Feb. will still be QuickSilvers?Would they not want to differentiate them from last yrs models?They state that Apple has been working on a shorter,wider case for the PM for two years.I just hope they ship a G-5 with all the latest technology sometime soon this year.
I think the demand would be dramatic.I really believe that Apollo will be for the low-end PM and also for the Ti PowerBook.
post #164 of 457
Why is the evidence of the G4 more solid than that of the G5?

1. Moto announced G4 Apollos in Oct 2000. They might actually be making them now.
2. Moto reported that Ghz+ G4 Apollos were "on schedule for early 2002". That would be now.
3. Moto actually makes G4s today, now, currently in "early 2002."

Let's look at the evidence for the G5... ... ... ... the Register ... bunk from AI board ... ... hmm ... ... that's about it.

How about the evidence against the G5.
1. They don't actually make them now.
2. They only announced the 8540 on Oct 17, 2001. A full YEAR after they announced the Apollo, which in case nobody has noticed, is NOT even shipping 1+ years later.
3. As someone else pointed out the first G5 announced isn't even targeted at desktops
4. CPU in #3 won't even begin SAMPLING until 2nd quarter 2002.
5. Motorolas track record.

So in order for there to be a G5 anywhere in the near future, we'd need to see them ship their "next generation" processor at nearly the same time they ship a product announced a year and a half ago AND we haven't even seen that processor yet.

I'd love to see a G5 really soon now(tm), but it just ain't gonna happen no matter how optimistic you are or how pessimistic (realistic) other are.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: SFVcpz ]</p>
AI ate my old profile and won't return my emails :o(
Reply
AI ate my old profile and won't return my emails :o(
Reply
post #165 of 457
[quote] How about the evidence against the G5.
1. They don't actually make them now. <hr></blockquote>

So you've been to Moto and IBM's plants to see what currently on the lines? Wow, then you are more knopwledable then I thought!
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #166 of 457
Thread Starter 
Ah, it's good to see others take up the cause of sanity (i.e., the G5 ain't coming tomorrow).

I've actually become quite bored with it.

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #167 of 457
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #168 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>Ah, it's good to see others take up the cause of sanity (i.e., the G5 ain't coming tomorrow).

I've actually become quite bored with it.

SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Sanity"? There are plenty of hints from various developers (among other rumors) that the G5 is a real possibility (although not nessesarily a probability). It's not insane to think that a G5 may come. Personally I'm getting "Quite bored" hearing you keep on repeating your opinion that they definately won't come. For the record I think that G4's are more likely but I don't rule out the possibility of a G5.
post #169 of 457
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by X704:
<strong>

"Sanity"? There are plenty of hints from various developers (among other rumors) that the G5 is a real possibility (although not nessesarily a probability). It's not insane to think that a G5 may come. Personally I'm getting "Quite bored" hearing you keep on repeating your opinion that they definately won't come. For the record I think that G4's are more likely but I don't rule out the possibility of a G5.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Show me one. Every single G5 link is based on 2 year old news, or by people who don't know shit from shinola.

SdC
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
My signature irritates people. However, my cat can still jump a watermelon, and the Apollo is the next chip coming to the Powermac line. Although, at this point, I'd believe that Cyrix is the next...
Reply
post #170 of 457
I'm getting sick of the arrogance of some posters around here.
post #171 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:
<strong>

Show me one. Every single G5 link is based on 2 year old news, or by people who don't know shit from shinola.

SdC</strong><hr></blockquote>

Interesting isn't it? When did you last hear of a processor that was on the way disappearing from view for two years?

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #172 of 457
You might take a look at this:

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDFH1101.pdf" target="_blank">Motorola PowerPC Microprocessor Family, Today and Tomorrow</a>
Presented at Smart Networks Developer Forum, May 20-23, 2001. They focus a great deal on the e-500 core and the upcoming G5 chips. Yes, they're talking about the embedded chip, but it's silly to assume that they're putting all this effort into it if its going to be an embedded chip and nothing more. It is logical to assume that Apple is insisting they keep the desktop version under wraps. They may not be, but it is reasonable to suggest it.

Another interesting link: <a href="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001apr/bch20010410005320.htm" target="_blank">Geek.com News</a> from April 2001. The article itself isn't much, but the reply from "Mot Insider" is:

"MOSR has misinformation... (1:50pm EST Tue Apr 10 2001)
...as usual. The G5 will not start out multicore and MacOS Rumors has the speeds wrong. On a 130nm process with SOI and copper, the 14 stage pipeline G5 will start at 1.6GHz and scale well beyond 2GHz. But before that we will see a 7460 G4 made on a 130nm SOI process, functionally equal to the 7450 but on an improved process. This G4 (codenamed Apollo), will achieve 1.2GHz and scall to most likely 1.7-1.8GHz.
Shortly (a quarter) after the debut of the 7460, you will see the 7500 on the same process in early 2002 with speeds between 1.6GHz and 2.5GHz. In late 2002 you will see the 100nm 75X0 start out at 2.4GHz and scale up to 3.5GHz. Also, MOSR neglected to mention that the 7500 will make extensive use of Rapid IO and have an on die DDR memory controller. The RIO ports will have a fast serial connection to several devices on the motherboard such as PCI-X bridges, peripheral controllers, ethernet and firewire controllers. The RIO bus is a serial 16-bit hub topology but runs at high speed (500-1000MHz). - by Mot insider"
[Note: This past summer Moto announced the renaming of the 7500 series to 8500.]

In light of what we know has transpired in the last 8 mo., he is very accurate on the Apollo information (particularly if they're what's coming next week at 1.2-1.4 GHz). That lends credance to his comments on the G5.

Those of you who claim there have been no reports of the G5 in the last two years ought to do a little nosing around on Motorola's web site and do a web search for "Motorola G5". You'll get thousands of hits. Yes, a lot of them are reports of a report of a report, but there are a few genuine nuggets in there, too. Its reliability is a matter of opinion, but saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous.

[edit: typo]

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
"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 #173 of 457
What we are talking about here is information directly stemming from Motorola or Apple. The only recent document that mentions the G5 (the 64 bit processor we want to learn to love) is the roadmap, and that basically gives no information about the non-embedded part.

There is a difference between admissable evidence and hearsay. The geek.com reply is most definitely hearsay, and the only place I've seen it suggested the G5 might have a 14 stage pipeline.

I don't say any of this is wrong just "not proven" (a verdict available only to Scottish courts). I also will not speculate on when it might appear.

Michael
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
Sintoo, agora non podo falar.
Reply
post #174 of 457
I've been reading the posts on whether or not the G5 is coming and I noticed that in general, the posts from people who say "no G5" have an overall negative tone while the posts from people who say "G5 is coming" are generally positive. The "no G5" posts seem to come from people who are unhappy and miserable.

Pessimists, don't worry, be happy. You'll live longer.

- Mark
post #175 of 457
Did Mot ever mention anything about the non-embedded G4 or G3 before it came out?
post #176 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>"MOSR has misinformation... (1:50pm EST Tue Apr 10 2001)
...as usual. The G5 will ... &lt;omitted for brevity&gt; </strong><hr></blockquote>


This is at least as plausible as anything else we've heard. Since it is quoted from April 2001 a schedule alteration of +/- 1 quarter could easily be expected -- either way. One way is the usual engineering slippage. The other way is Steve Jobs yelling at them to hurry up. The technical information in the quote looks reasonable as well, nothing outlandish. The only new bit is the 14-stage pipeline. RapidIO is one possibility, but perhaps Apple yanked that out and stuck in HyperTransport because that could help them deliver sooner.

Still no conclusive information either way. The pessimists can continue to be pessimistic, and the optimists can continue to be optimistic. I prefer to be optimistic, and if I'm wrong then I just think about how much money I'm not going to spend on a new Mac for another quarter or two!
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #177 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>


This is at least as plausible as anything else we've heard.

&lt;SNIP&gt;

Still no conclusive information either way. The pessimists can continue to be pessimistic, and the optimists can continue to be optimistic. I prefer to be optimistic, and if I'm wrong then I just think about how much money I'm not going to spend on a new Mac for another quarter or two!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes indeed. And I so resemble that closing sentence.
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
Still waiting for a PowerMac that is a significant jump in performance from current levels.
Reply
post #178 of 457
[quote] Originally posted by TJM:
"MOSR has misinformation... (1:50pm EST Tue Apr 10 2001)
...as usual. The G5 will ... &lt;omitted for brevity&gt; <hr></blockquote>

Is the Apollo the 7500? The article said the 7500 is now the 8500. Could that be the head of all the confusion and the premise behind the assertion "The G5 will be a renamed G4+ Apollo"?

Maybe everyone is right, the Apollo is coming out as the G5!? That's the best of both worlds if indeed it does scale that high and have all those features.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #179 of 457
1.4 GHz is fine with me, G4 or G5 it wouldn't matter very much. I suppose a 1.4 or 1.6 GHz G4 would throw everyone for a loop, since those predicting the Apollo are saying that it will top out at 1.2 GHz or so, and those predicting the G5 are saying 1.4-1.6 GHz.

So basically that would mean that all of the speculation here at AI is wrong, but in a good way!
post #180 of 457
JD- Exactly.

Think Secret just chimed in-
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/apollog4update.html" target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/features/apollog4update.html</a>

Basically, G4 Apollo starting at 1.0ghz and possibly topping out at 1.4ghz like NMR said. New mobo!! Also, could be released next week, or in Feb, or in march. So no one knows when we will get them.

But, maybe the Apollo will be the G5? New mobo, 1.4ghz chip, new case, hell, it sounds like a G5 to me!! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #181 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

Is the Apollo the 7500? The article said the 7500 is now the 8500. Could that be the head of all the confusion and the premise behind the assertion "The G5 will be a renamed G4+ Apollo"?

Maybe everyone is right, the Apollo is coming out as the G5!? That's the best of both worlds if indeed it does scale that high and have all those features.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I don't think this is the case -- the Apollo is the 7460 and Apple will call it a G4. I don't think they'd want the PR stink that would likely happen if they just rebadged it a G5. The 7500 was renumbered to 8500 when Moto started planning out its "G5" strategy. New core and bus interface.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #182 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>


I don't think this is the case -- the Apollo is the 7460 and Apple will call it a G4. I don't think they'd want the PR stink that would likely happen if they just rebadged it a G5. The 7500 was renumbered to 8500 when Moto started planning out its "G5" strategy. New core and bus interface.</strong><hr></blockquote>


But the Apollo is rumored to have a new mobo, new PCI bus, new AGP possibly as well.

Technically, what's the difference between the 7460 and the 7500 (before they re#ed it?) Just seems easier to belive the G5 is the Apollo then the Apollo is a new G4 and that a G5 is a totally seperate chip.

Dunno, maybe I'm reachin'

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #183 of 457
If they call the 7460 a "G5", then what do they call the 8500? A "G6"?

I'm still not sure about the Apollo ever going into Powermacs. If Apple does ship an Apollo Powermac in Feb., then what do they do when G5s are ready later in the year? Usually Apple doesn't fill the channels with a new CPU, then 6 months later empty them and refill them with an entirely new product. Speedbumped G4s and I could see this happen, but going through two different CPUs in one year? I dunno. That's why I think Apple will ship the G5 Powermacs, and then at MWNY, slip the Apollo into the iMac lineup. This way the entire desktop line would be between 1.0 and 1.6, 1.8 GHz by MWNY.

Well that's what I WANT, but I suppose it's not characteristic of Moto to deliver in that fashion.
post #184 of 457
The G5 will have a RapidIO port. Maybe even 2*8bit. This is for certain. It was stated on the old AI boards by Motoman, the best source we've (IMO) had. The specs posted on Geek.com sound about right, apart from the speeds. I really can't see Moto being able to get even a 14 stage pipeline on a .13 (Hip7) process at that sort of speed. I think that we'll be looking at between 1 and 1.6 Ghz G5's being released at somepoint this year. If Apollo's are released this month, then either MWNY or the Autumn Seybold. If not, then the Febuary Seybold.
post #185 of 457
Reasons to be cheerful:

<a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=8300945231&m=336095374 3&p=1" target="_blank">Ars thread</a>

Lots of well-informed speculation about upcoming CPUs and memory tech.

<a href="http://www.eet.com/story/OEG19990507S0003" target="_blank">EETimes</a>

Far more co-operation between IBM and Moto than many on these boards would have expected. (Taken from the above thread.)
post #186 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>You might take a look at this:

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/SNDFH1101.pdf" target="_blank">Motorola PowerPC Microprocessor Family, Today and Tomorrow</a>
Presented at Smart Networks Developer Forum, May 20-23, 2001. They focus a great deal on the e-500 core and the upcoming G5 chips. Yes, they're talking about the embedded chip, but it's silly to assume that they're putting all this effort into it if its going to be an embedded chip and nothing more. It is logical to assume that Apple is insisting they keep the desktop version under wraps. They may not be, but it is reasonable to suggest it.

Another interesting link: <a href="http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001apr/bch20010410005320.htm" target="_blank">Geek.com News</a> from April 2001. The article itself isn't much, but the reply from "Mot Insider" is:

"MOSR has misinformation... (1:50pm EST Tue Apr 10 2001)
...as usual. The G5 will not start out multicore and MacOS Rumors has the speeds wrong. On a 130nm process with SOI and copper, the 14 stage pipeline G5 will start at 1.6GHz and scale well beyond 2GHz. But before that we will see a 7460 G4 made on a 130nm SOI process, functionally equal to the 7450 but on an improved process. This G4 (codenamed Apollo), will achieve 1.2GHz and scall to most likely 1.7-1.8GHz.
Shortly (a quarter) after the debut of the 7460, you will see the 7500 on the same process in early 2002 with speeds between 1.6GHz and 2.5GHz. In late 2002 you will see the 100nm 75X0 start out at 2.4GHz and scale up to 3.5GHz. Also, MOSR neglected to mention that the 7500 will make extensive use of Rapid IO and have an on die DDR memory controller. The RIO ports will have a fast serial connection to several devices on the motherboard such as PCI-X bridges, peripheral controllers, ethernet and firewire controllers. The RIO bus is a serial 16-bit hub topology but runs at high speed (500-1000MHz). - by Mot insider"
[Note: This past summer Moto announced the renaming of the 7500 series to 8500.]

In light of what we know has transpired in the last 8 mo., he is very accurate on the Apollo information (particularly if they're what's coming next week at 1.2-1.4 GHz). That lends credance to his comments on the G5.

Those of you who claim there have been no reports of the G5 in the last two years ought to do a little nosing around on Motorola's web site and do a web search for "Motorola G5". You'll get thousands of hits. Yes, a lot of them are reports of a report of a report, but there are a few genuine nuggets in there, too. Its reliability is a matter of opinion, but saying it doesn't exist is ludicrous.

[edit: typo]

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL!

I'd be willing to give the first person that proves me (more like reminds me in a decade) wrong $100 that we will NEVER EVER see a 3.5 Ghz motorola processor powering a Macintosh computer.

NEVER

EVER
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
Nov 98 - Earliest Registered User on record
Jan 02 - Earliest iPad prediction
Reply
post #187 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by JRC:
<strong>

LOL!

I'd be willing to give the first person that proves me (more like reminds me in a decade) wrong $100 that we will NEVER EVER see a 3.5 Ghz motorola processor powering a Macintosh computer.

NEVER

EVER</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let me guess... 8 years ago you were declaring that the PPC601 didn't exist and we would NEVER EVER see a G4 chip, let alone one clocked as high as 800 MHz???? (the PowerMacs came out in March 1994, btw)
"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 #188 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by mavster:
<strong>for all your chip gurus out there..

is it possible to strip altivec out of the g4/future g5 and have it on its own asic </strong><hr></blockquote>

There is nothing wrong with altivec. Why should they strip it out? Moto seems to have a problem with the cache design and definitely has a problem with the fpu design.

BTW does any compiler do optimisations for the G4e family (3+1 dispatch, more funtional units and different latency/thoughput timing compared to the G4 family)?

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: smalM ]</p>
post #189 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by Mac Sack Black:
<strong>
Seeing as it is a further foray into Moto's
SoC program, the less complicated 8500 should be ready before that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure about the "less complicated" thing - after all, the 8540 lacks both AltiVec and even a scalar FPU. And taking into account the rumored complete redesign of the FPU, it doesn't look much less complcated to me.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #190 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by cowerd:
<strong>
While you're pontificating you may want to change your post to reflect a little reality. If you are calling the 8500 the desktop version of the 8xxx series, then it is more complicated than the 8450, seeing as how the 8450 specs don't call out an altivec unit, L3 cache etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think he might have been referring to the various integrated stuff inside the 8540 which is not strictly necessary for the desktop market (2 GBit Ethernet controllers, additional 100MBit one, PCI-X interface, DUART interface).
Then again, all those are just I/O "building blocks" connected to the OCeaN switch, so removing them wouldn't really reduce chip complexity that much (it wouldn't affect the core itself at all).
AltiVec and a scalar FPU on the other hand are an entirely different matter, as they extend (i.e. are directly connected to) the core itself.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #191 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>

Support for specific ports and Ethernet is built into the processor? What's the motherboard for?

For that matter, why would an embedded processor depend upon Ethernet but a desktop processor wouldn't?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, the 8540 has three of them (1x100MBit, 2xGBit), which are usful for embedded / networking applications, but not so much so for a PowerMac.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #192 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by mavster:
<strong>for all your chip gurus out there..

is it possible to strip altivec out of the g4/future g5 and have it on its own asic (raycer guys job?), therefore allowing Apple to use strictly the embedded chips and saving Mot $$$ and time designing new chips??

just a thought...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Theoretically possible - maybe.
Practically feasible - no.
Having AltiVec on a separate ASIC would incur severe speed and design penalties. For every AltiVec instruction encountered in a program's instruction stream, the host processor would have to perform a (comparatively slow) I/O operation to talk to the AltiVec ASIC, and possibly to move data to be processed to / from the ASIC. This would likely be way slower than just doing the calculations inside the scalar FPU.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #193 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by mmicist:
<strong>
Remember that an embedded device is purpose specific, a desktop processor needs to fit in to a number of possible systems, with different requirements.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the 8540 is still reasonably general purpose (neglecting the missing FPU). Admittedly, two of the Ethernet ports and the DUART would be unnecessary in a desktop environment, but the rest is basically a CPU + UniNorth on steroids (again, once an FPU is added).

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #194 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>
Yes, they're talking about the embedded chip, but it's silly to assume that they're putting all this effort into it if its going to be an embedded chip and nothing more.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

"just embedded, nothing more"?
Guess where Moto make most of their money.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #195 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by cinder:
<strong>Did Mot ever mention anything about the non-embedded G4 or G3 before it came out?</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is no such thing as an embedded version of the G3 or G4.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #196 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by smalM:
<strong>
BTW does any compiler do optimisations for the G4e family (3+1 dispatch, more funtional units and different latency/thoughput timing compared to the G4 family)?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

In case you haven't been there already, the AltiVec mailing list (go to <a href="http://www.altivec.org)" target="_blank">www.altivec.org)</a> is probably a better place to pose such questions.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #197 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by RazzFazz:
<strong>

"just embedded, nothing more"?
Guess where Moto make most of their money.

Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm aware of that. Once they have the basic G5 design, however, derivitives of it are relatively cheap. Apple is about 1/6th of their business, IIRC. I think Moto realizes that they will sell G5 desktop chips as fast as they can make them. Apple will do all their marketing, so the extra 10 or 20% investment (or whatever) to make a desktop processor out of it would have a huge ROI. That's sound business, nothing more.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
"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 #198 of 457
RazzFazz
"There is no such thing as an embedded version of the G3 or G4."

I'll bite. This confuses me, if you go to Motorola's website for products, all Power PC products are listed under the "embedded processor" section.

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/" target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/</a>

Didn't CISCO buy the the G474XX for routers? I could have sworn they bought the same processor as Apple, could be wrong, heck, maybe routers don't use embedded processors, not my area of expertise.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #199 of 457
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>RazzFazz
"There is no such thing as an embedded version of the G3 or G4."

I'll bite. This confuses me, if you go to Motorola's website for products, all Power PC products are listed under the "embedded processor" section.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That was RazzFazz's point: There can't be an embedded version of an embedded processor, now can there?
"...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 #200 of 457
Could Apollo be for portables and iMac?

Could we see a 1Ghz TiPB in the next couple of months?

I think the 14" iBook is also making room to stick a G4 chip in by Summer.

Let's see, by MWNY then:

iMac - Apollo G4 1Ghz and 1.2 Ghz
iBook - Apollo G4 800Mhz and 1Ghz ~ possible Superdrive?

Ti PB - Apollo G4 1.2. 1.4 and maybe 1.6Ghz + Superdrive.
PM - G5 running 1.6 1.8 2.0 Ghz. This is if we get G4.5 or "apollo G5" in next 30-45 days running at 1.2 1.4 and 1.6 Ghz (these would move into Ti PB by Summer then, all R&D payed off)
You're going sane in a crazy world!
Reply
You're going sane in a crazy world!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › There is no G5