[quote] Are you telling me they would have a G3 ibook, G4 PB, G5 iMac, and G5 PM? I don't think that would make the product matrix very clear. <hr></blockquote>
If the G5 costs less than the G4 you will never see a G4 in an iMac. Apple will either stay with G3 IBM or otherwise or will go G4 if it is cheap enough.
Apple does not need to hold back the performance of an iMac relative to the Power Mac. iMacs will not be DP, they are not expandable, they will not support raid os scussi. In otherwords a high performing iMac will not effect Power Mac sales.
The iMac is directly compeating against Windows boxes for the consumer market. As such it's all about price and performance. If the G5 is cheap enough and there is no reason not to include it. The public want cutting edge technology and it that that sells.
I am not making a forecast here because it really depends on cost, if the G5 is cheap enough it will replace the G3.
I think it is quite likely that the IBM G3's will find there way into laptops and G5's into the rest.
Well, the G4 goes into the Ti Powerbook and that is even worse than convection cooling. An iMac should be able to supply both more mass than a Ti book (for better radiative cooling) and better air flow (for convection cooling). Plus there is always the example of the cube.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The TiBook has heat ducts running to the metal chasis, and the Cube didn't have a CRT in the same case. I don't know... it just seems like a G4 would overheat inside an iMac. I sure hope I get proven wrong in a month and a half
<strong>There wouldn't be so much work on Apollo if G5 was going into everything under the sun.</strong><hr></blockquote>
7460 will be the next cpu for the pro line. Even if MOSR is right, the 8500 isn't in production yet. So we won't see a 8500 in a PM before the middle or end of 2002.
I wonder who said a 8500 is cheaper in production than a 7460? That's nonsense.
G4 in iMac? No, for one year it will stay G3.
It's time to become a little bit more realistic here again.
7460 will be the next cpu for the pro line. Even if MOSR is right, the 8500 isn't in production yet. So we won't see a 8500 in a PM before the middle or end of 2002.
I wonder who said a 8500 is cheaper in production than a 7460? That's nonsense.
G4 in iMac? No, for one year it will stay G3.
It's time to become a little bit more realistic here again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is the 7460 in production? Do you have inside information? The cost is directly related to the amount of material required. If the 7460 and 8500 are both produced using the same process, then the 7460 will be less expensive. However, it may be that the 8500 will be cheaper than any other G4.
We are all wishing for the G5 this January, but it sure doesn't seem like this thread has hard evidence for 7460/8500 predictions. But Jobs says that Apple is after the other 95%, and I don't think there will be much progress there unless there are some leaps forwards, such as the G5 being available this Spring.
I agree with JW Pepper - cost will drive the processor choice. 7460's in iMacs, Sahara's in iBooks, 7460 in TiBook, and G5's in PM's in 2002. I'm hoping for January!!!
If has indeed commited a team to PPC design, how long would it be before we started seeing PPC's produced with Apple's needs in mind? And what are Apple's needs? They are not basically embedded processors, which is where Mot and IBM would like to take PPC. Perhaps the PPC's Mot and IBM would like to make are good for the portable (and to an extent, iMac) lines, but the PowerMac needs something more of a desktop CPU architecture. Look for longer pipelines, huge heat, and huge power consumption from whatever becomes the PROmachine PPC. Apple wants this. Eventually, new fab techniques will make those chips small, cool, efficient enough for laptop and iMac use -- kinda the way x86 mobile chips are always slightly behind desk-top x86. Same way TiBook is behind Powermac now. There are really no heat/power issues that a heat sink and a fan can't deal with, thus a big hot & hungry proc isn't a problem for the powermac. And Apple wants a chip for it, but the rest of the line up will not get that chip.
Also, look for 7460 in the powermac. I'd put G5 closer to the second half of 2002, not the first. Hell, I'm tempted to say the end of 2002 if it is indeed a 64bit part.
Don't look for anything revolutionary in January -- it just won't happen. If any of this speculation is even remotely possible, the revolution will come when OSX reaches 12 o'clock, and NOT before. And the really good stuff will come after OSX has been default for a few months. This time next year will be huge. Expect a lot of bitching in January and for at least another 8-9 months after that.
Apple has "just" released the Quicksilver casing which I doubt they will renew for a while.
What they WILL hopefully do is somehow hack the latest G4 to accept DDR ram to keep us viscious Mac mongers happy for a bit until the G5 comes out. Thats the LEAST they can do.
The G3 to G4 transition have been a failure so far.
The two main advantages of the G4 the MERCI 5 SMP and the Altivec engine is not supported by the OS that most uses nor by any applications but a handful. Yes you have to think outside PhotoShop! Does anyone remember the AltiVec hype? It would enable PC emulation at Pentium speed and bla bla bla...Very easy to implement way better than MMX will give performance boost everywere!
An almost 3 years old B&W G3/450 might be an eminently upgradable machine but the leap is all of 50 MHz to G4/500....
Have the market upgraded the G3 computers to the "superior" G4 in large numbers?
The G4 would be a good CPU if it could be used over entire line so we would have more Altivec implemenetation and also th G4 really need OS X or an other OS with better SMP support than OS 8&9.
AltiVec might be a very elegant solution to many problems but frankly does not shear CPU speed work bette? Apple have to stop straddling the fence, either get G4 on all Macintoshes portable and stationary to get software developers to use AV and SMP, or admit that AV was a elegant failed idea and rip the AV unit out of the G5.
NO 64 bit in 2002, count on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that AMD's Clawhammer, a 64-bit part with full 32-bit compatability, will be available to consumers at the end of 2002. I really wish that Apple would go to AMD and work out a pact in which they would use Clawhammers with the CISC translation unit stripped out and a PPC unit stuffed in, if it's even necessary...is there anything that differentiates PPC from generic RISC?
Besides, AMD are already fabbing G4s for Moto in their Dresden facility.
DrBoar: Altivec is a good solution for some things, mainly processing large contiguous blocks of data, but Apple is finding out the same thing that Intel did (and failed to learn from) with the MMX fiasco, and that AMD did from the 3DNow! bollocks. Programmers have a tough enough job without adding more crap to the pile, and most of them don't want to deal with coding in support for the SIMD unit du jour . Also, Altivec has tied Apple too closely to Motorola. Worse, the PowerMac's lack of memory bandwidth means that the Altivec unit is being mostly wasted.
General performance enhancements are always preferable to tricky instruction sets. It causes no extra headaches for programmers, applies to every program that runs on the platform, and so on. While specific instruction sets may enhance particular applications greatly, users are always happier when everything is accelerated somewhat than when one or two programs get a upwards blast of performance.
I'm suddenly getting a blast of deja vu...or is it just flatulence?
Besides, AMD are already fabbing G4s for Moto in their Dresden facility.
<hr></blockquote>
Are you sure about that? I read a lot of conjecture early this year that such a move would be good for Apple, but I don't recall hearing that it ever happened. Did it?
As long as we're all talking about existing market conditions and such that point whether or not the G5 will happen, I think it's pretty clear there are mixed conditions right now.
Just because Jobs and Apple would *love* to release a backwards compatible 64 bit chip that trounces the fastest Pentium in standard benchmarking tests (and they would), doesn't mean Motorola can given them what they need....
Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time).
Basically, all the product cycles and marketing signals point to Apple needing and wanting the G5. All the technical and business issues point to more G4's at slightly increased speeds every few months. At least until Apple doesn't something about getting their chips from someone else.
All bitching aside (I'm happy with my current machine) Apple should've ditched Motorola over a year ago in favor of IBM. Initially things would've stayed slow because IBM would've had to ramp up their production facilties for the G4, etc. But by now we'd be sitting pretty.
Sooner or later Apple will learn what a loser of a company Motorola is. Inside and out. Worst company I've ever had the displeasure of working with (if even for a short time). Thank God I wasn't an employee.
I commented on consumer level 64bit chips. Intel's is/will be expensive, AMD won't undercut it buy much, if at all. And PPC certainly won't either. Oh no, 64bit remains the province of *very high end* workstations and servers for at least another year. We're talking $10,000+ boxes here; Apple has enough trouble selling a $5,000 box (Canadian prices.)
<strong>Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moogs, I couldn't agree with you more. Apple really needs to rethink its Processor Strategy. I think they ought to go with IBM. I have always been a big advocate of IBM. They are professional, and (from what I have heard) have treated Apple with respect, something that Motorola hasn't done in years. Now is the time to buy out Motorola's portion of the G* Series of chips and license the plans to IBM at a REASONABLE price, if not at a loss, to bring the prices of the chips down.
Are you sure about that? I read a lot of conjecture early this year that such a move would be good for Apple, but I don't recall hearing that it ever happened. Did it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, according to a variety of sources (C|Net and every tech site in the universe), AMD and Moto were in talks c. 1999 to have G4's fabbed at Dresden. What complicates the picture is that the Dresden fab is jointly owned and operated by AMD and Moto, so any actual decision that took place doesn't have to come out into the public view. My guess is that it did happen, but only for a short period of time.
Matsu: Consumer 64 bit will happen next year (actually, it has happened if you count Sun's $999 SunBlade 100), unless the G5 and Hammer are delayed even more than they already have been. Intel's Itanium is overpriced because Intel sunk an unbelievable amount of money into its development, found out that it sucked, and are plowing even more money into what is essentially a complete and total revision of the chip.
AMD and Apple/Moto, on the other hand, are taking existing designs and ramping them to 64-bit. The PPC was designed to transition easily to 64-bit, as was the Athlon. So, the design processes are simpler and cheaper.
Also, the Itanium is meant to compete in the high-end server market, against the Power4 and the UltraSparc iii. The Hammer, on the other hand, is meant to compete with the Xeon, and can be stripped down to make a consumer-level chip. The G5 is much the same...in fact, what I've heard about the G5 and the Hammer makes me wonder why Apple is even bothering with the G5, since both are practically the same bloody chip, instruction set notwithstanding.
I can't blame Motorola for not pressing on with R&D. Apple's marketshare is low, and, as was pointed out to me in a PM, the G4 is in the minority of the units that Apple sells. Since the G3s are provided by IBM, why should Moto care to continue development of the PPC at all? Were I them, I'd try to get away from Apple, as with all of the troubles that Moto is going through, they don't need Jobs breathing down their neck.
IBM, on the other hand, sells loads of G3s, and is actively developing the chip. But, they're hamstrung in their efforts by the Moto problem and Apple's unwillingness to make their consumer line seem faster than their Pro line.
Apple, IBM, and Moto simply need to negotiate an end to the PPC Alliance. It causes problems for all three of them, and I think that it's one of the crappy deals that Jobs referred to when he became iCEO. However, Apple can't get out of the mess until the G5 arrives, and then only if it doesn't have AltiVec. Bleh.
[quote] The G5 is much the same...in fact, what I've heard about the G5 and the Hammer makes me wonder why Apple is even bothering with the G5, since both are practically the same bloody chip, instruction set notwithstanding. <hr></blockquote>
Then why doesn't/couldn't Apple have AMD make a mac chip? I've seen AMD and Apple mentioned before, how likely would it be for AMD to make chips for Apple if Moto can't?
Moogs, I couldn't agree with you more. Apple really needs to rethink its Processor Strategy. I think they ought to go with IBM. I have always been a big advocate of IBM. They are professional, and (from what I have heard) have treated Apple with respect, something that Motorola hasn't done in years. Now is the time to buy out Motorola's portion of the G* Series of chips and license the plans to IBM at a REASONABLE price, if not at a loss, to bring the prices of the chips down.</strong>[/QUOTE
Changing processor strategy will mean have PC chips unstead PPC chips. The problem of the PPC chips is that the market is too small for the desktop. That's why PPC chips are essentially designed for the embedded market; a market that will overall in the future the desktop chip market. Remember apple barely represent 5% of the personal computer market, not sufficient to be competitive. Even AMD must do miracle each years in order to stay competitive : he have to design better and cheaper chips than INTEL.
As we have already deal many times it's very difficult to change the family line of chips.
If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?
<strong>If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct that's why there is very little chance to see apple switching to the X 86 chip family.
[quote]Apple, IBM, and Moto simply need to negotiate an end to the PPC Alliance. It causes problems for all three of them, and I think that it's one of the crappy deals that Jobs referred to when he became iCEO. However, Apple can't get out of the mess until the G5 arrives, and then only if it doesn't have AltiVec. Bleh.<hr></blockquote>
Motorola owns the trademark "AltiVec" and the implementation in the G4.
Apple, however, came up with the API, and for the platform that's what matters. If they wanted to go with IBM (the most expensive fab in the world, as Eskimo pointed out), IBM could design their own vector unit to meet Apple's spec, and AltiVec would be moot. In fact, word has it that IBM has designed a vector unit - although I don't know if it's compatible or not.
Comments
If the G5 costs less than the G4 you will never see a G4 in an iMac. Apple will either stay with G3 IBM or otherwise or will go G4 if it is cheap enough.
Apple does not need to hold back the performance of an iMac relative to the Power Mac. iMacs will not be DP, they are not expandable, they will not support raid os scussi. In otherwords a high performing iMac will not effect Power Mac sales.
The iMac is directly compeating against Windows boxes for the consumer market. As such it's all about price and performance. If the G5 is cheap enough and there is no reason not to include it. The public want cutting edge technology and it that that sells.
I am not making a forecast here because it really depends on cost, if the G5 is cheap enough it will replace the G3.
I think it is quite likely that the IBM G3's will find there way into laptops and G5's into the rest.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Well, the G4 goes into the Ti Powerbook and that is even worse than convection cooling. An iMac should be able to supply both more mass than a Ti book (for better radiative cooling) and better air flow (for convection cooling). Plus there is always the example of the cube.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The TiBook has heat ducts running to the metal chasis, and the Cube didn't have a CRT in the same case. I don't know... it just seems like a G4 would overheat inside an iMac. I sure hope I get proven wrong in a month and a half
<strong>There wouldn't be so much work on Apollo if G5 was going into everything under the sun.</strong><hr></blockquote>
7460 will be the next cpu for the pro line. Even if MOSR is right, the 8500 isn't in production yet. So we won't see a 8500 in a PM before the middle or end of 2002.
I wonder who said a 8500 is cheaper in production than a 7460? That's nonsense.
G4 in iMac? No, for one year it will stay G3.
It's time to become a little bit more realistic here again.
<strong>
7460 will be the next cpu for the pro line. Even if MOSR is right, the 8500 isn't in production yet. So we won't see a 8500 in a PM before the middle or end of 2002.
I wonder who said a 8500 is cheaper in production than a 7460? That's nonsense.
G4 in iMac? No, for one year it will stay G3.
It's time to become a little bit more realistic here again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is the 7460 in production? Do you have inside information? The cost is directly related to the amount of material required. If the 7460 and 8500 are both produced using the same process, then the 7460 will be less expensive. However, it may be that the 8500 will be cheaper than any other G4.
We are all wishing for the G5 this January, but it sure doesn't seem like this thread has hard evidence for 7460/8500 predictions. But Jobs says that Apple is after the other 95%, and I don't think there will be much progress there unless there are some leaps forwards, such as the G5 being available this Spring.
I agree with JW Pepper - cost will drive the processor choice. 7460's in iMacs, Sahara's in iBooks, 7460 in TiBook, and G5's in PM's in 2002. I'm hoping for January!!!
Also, look for 7460 in the powermac. I'd put G5 closer to the second half of 2002, not the first. Hell, I'm tempted to say the end of 2002 if it is indeed a 64bit part.
Don't look for anything revolutionary in January -- it just won't happen. If any of this speculation is even remotely possible, the revolution will come when OSX reaches 12 o'clock, and NOT before. And the really good stuff will come after OSX has been default for a few months. This time next year will be huge. Expect a lot of bitching in January and for at least another 8-9 months after that.
Apple has "just" released the Quicksilver casing which I doubt they will renew for a while.
What they WILL hopefully do is somehow hack the latest G4 to accept DDR ram to keep us viscious Mac mongers happy for a bit until the G5 comes out. Thats the LEAST they can do.
The two main advantages of the G4 the MERCI 5 SMP and the Altivec engine is not supported by the OS that most uses nor by any applications but a handful. Yes you have to think outside PhotoShop! Does anyone remember the AltiVec hype? It would enable PC emulation at Pentium speed and bla bla bla...Very easy to implement way better than MMX will give performance boost everywere!
An almost 3 years old B&W G3/450 might be an eminently upgradable machine but the leap is all of 50 MHz to G4/500....
Have the market upgraded the G3 computers to the "superior" G4 in large numbers?
The G4 would be a good CPU if it could be used over entire line so we would have more Altivec implemenetation and also th G4 really need OS X or an other OS with better SMP support than OS 8&9.
AltiVec might be a very elegant solution to many problems but frankly does not shear CPU speed work bette? Apple have to stop straddling the fence, either get G4 on all Macintoshes portable and stationary to get software developers to use AV and SMP, or admit that AV was a elegant failed idea and rip the AV unit out of the G5.
<strong>
NO 64 bit in 2002, count on it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that AMD's Clawhammer, a 64-bit part with full 32-bit compatability, will be available to consumers at the end of 2002. I really wish that Apple would go to AMD and work out a pact in which they would use Clawhammers with the CISC translation unit stripped out and a PPC unit stuffed in, if it's even necessary...is there anything that differentiates PPC from generic RISC?
Besides, AMD are already fabbing G4s for Moto in their Dresden facility.
DrBoar: Altivec is a good solution for some things, mainly processing large contiguous blocks of data, but Apple is finding out the same thing that Intel did (and failed to learn from) with the MMX fiasco, and that AMD did from the 3DNow! bollocks. Programmers have a tough enough job without adding more crap to the pile, and most of them don't want to deal with coding in support for the SIMD unit du jour . Also, Altivec has tied Apple too closely to Motorola. Worse, the PowerMac's lack of memory bandwidth means that the Altivec unit is being mostly wasted.
General performance enhancements are always preferable to tricky instruction sets. It causes no extra headaches for programmers, applies to every program that runs on the platform, and so on. While specific instruction sets may enhance particular applications greatly, users are always happier when everything is accelerated somewhat than when one or two programs get a upwards blast of performance.
I'm suddenly getting a blast of deja vu...or is it just flatulence?
Besides, AMD are already fabbing G4s for Moto in their Dresden facility.
<hr></blockquote>
Are you sure about that? I read a lot of conjecture early this year that such a move would be good for Apple, but I don't recall hearing that it ever happened. Did it?
As long as we're all talking about existing market conditions and such that point whether or not the G5 will happen, I think it's pretty clear there are mixed conditions right now.
Just because Jobs and Apple would *love* to release a backwards compatible 64 bit chip that trounces the fastest Pentium in standard benchmarking tests (and they would), doesn't mean Motorola can given them what they need....
Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time).
Basically, all the product cycles and marketing signals point to Apple needing and wanting the G5. All the technical and business issues point to more G4's at slightly increased speeds every few months. At least until Apple doesn't something about getting their chips from someone else.
All bitching aside (I'm happy with my current machine) Apple should've ditched Motorola over a year ago in favor of IBM. Initially things would've stayed slow because IBM would've had to ramp up their production facilties for the G4, etc. But by now we'd be sitting pretty.
Sooner or later Apple will learn what a loser of a company Motorola is. Inside and out. Worst company I've ever had the displeasure of working with (if even for a short time). Thank God I wasn't an employee.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Admittedly wishing and wanting do not get a processor fabbed. I'm still holding out a little bit of hope.
<strong>Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moogs, I couldn't agree with you more. Apple really needs to rethink its Processor Strategy. I think they ought to go with IBM. I have always been a big advocate of IBM. They are professional, and (from what I have heard) have treated Apple with respect, something that Motorola hasn't done in years. Now is the time to buy out Motorola's portion of the G* Series of chips and license the plans to IBM at a REASONABLE price, if not at a loss, to bring the prices of the chips down.
<strong>
Are you sure about that? I read a lot of conjecture early this year that such a move would be good for Apple, but I don't recall hearing that it ever happened. Did it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, according to a variety of sources (C|Net and every tech site in the universe), AMD and Moto were in talks c. 1999 to have G4's fabbed at Dresden. What complicates the picture is that the Dresden fab is jointly owned and operated by AMD and Moto, so any actual decision that took place doesn't have to come out into the public view. My guess is that it did happen, but only for a short period of time.
Matsu: Consumer 64 bit will happen next year (actually, it has happened if you count Sun's $999 SunBlade 100), unless the G5 and Hammer are delayed even more than they already have been. Intel's Itanium is overpriced because Intel sunk an unbelievable amount of money into its development, found out that it sucked, and are plowing even more money into what is essentially a complete and total revision of the chip.
AMD and Apple/Moto, on the other hand, are taking existing designs and ramping them to 64-bit. The PPC was designed to transition easily to 64-bit, as was the Athlon. So, the design processes are simpler and cheaper.
Also, the Itanium is meant to compete in the high-end server market, against the Power4 and the UltraSparc iii. The Hammer, on the other hand, is meant to compete with the Xeon, and can be stripped down to make a consumer-level chip. The G5 is much the same...in fact, what I've heard about the G5 and the Hammer makes me wonder why Apple is even bothering with the G5, since both are practically the same bloody chip, instruction set notwithstanding.
I can't blame Motorola for not pressing on with R&D. Apple's marketshare is low, and, as was pointed out to me in a PM, the G4 is in the minority of the units that Apple sells. Since the G3s are provided by IBM, why should Moto care to continue development of the PPC at all? Were I them, I'd try to get away from Apple, as with all of the troubles that Moto is going through, they don't need Jobs breathing down their neck.
IBM, on the other hand, sells loads of G3s, and is actively developing the chip. But, they're hamstrung in their efforts by the Moto problem and Apple's unwillingness to make their consumer line seem faster than their Pro line.
Apple, IBM, and Moto simply need to negotiate an end to the PPC Alliance. It causes problems for all three of them, and I think that it's one of the crappy deals that Jobs referred to when he became iCEO. However, Apple can't get out of the mess until the G5 arrives, and then only if it doesn't have AltiVec. Bleh.
Then why doesn't/couldn't Apple have AMD make a mac chip? I've seen AMD and Apple mentioned before, how likely would it be for AMD to make chips for Apple if Moto can't?
<strong>
Moogs, I couldn't agree with you more. Apple really needs to rethink its Processor Strategy. I think they ought to go with IBM. I have always been a big advocate of IBM. They are professional, and (from what I have heard) have treated Apple with respect, something that Motorola hasn't done in years. Now is the time to buy out Motorola's portion of the G* Series of chips and license the plans to IBM at a REASONABLE price, if not at a loss, to bring the prices of the chips down.</strong>[/QUOTE
Changing processor strategy will mean have PC chips unstead PPC chips. The problem of the PPC chips is that the market is too small for the desktop. That's why PPC chips are essentially designed for the embedded market; a market that will overall in the future the desktop chip market. Remember apple barely represent 5% of the personal computer market, not sufficient to be competitive. Even AMD must do miracle each years in order to stay competitive : he have to design better and cheaper chips than INTEL.
As we have already deal many times it's very difficult to change the family line of chips.
<strong>If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct that's why there is very little chance to see apple switching to the X 86 chip family.
Motorola owns the trademark "AltiVec" and the implementation in the G4.
Apple, however, came up with the API, and for the platform that's what matters. If they wanted to go with IBM (the most expensive fab in the world, as Eskimo pointed out), IBM could design their own vector unit to meet Apple's spec, and AltiVec would be moot. In fact, word has it that IBM has designed a vector unit - although I don't know if it's compatible or not.