Only problem now with thinking the L3 cache is SRAM is the page that has the L3 cache description still says updated 16 Jan and still says DDR SDRAM. (same in the available PDF) WTF? Did it get updated or not?</strong>
It got updated. At least the PDF did. The version I downloaded in January says DDR SRAM.
<strong>THT, do you have some Apple hardcopy that has a little more care taken in it's writing?</strong>
No.
The problem is that there needs to be explicit support for memory types, and the Moto 7455 documentation still says SRAM support only. The issue would simply be settled if someone, actually more than 1 person, took the heat sink of their new PowerMacs and have a look see. xlr8yourmac.com usually finds someone that does this, but this time around, I haven't seen any. Maybe it's there and I missed it though.
Thank you. Someone has some sense around here it would seem.
I've always been skeptical of Dorsal, and I picked up on his M.O. in a few minutes. He predicts every possible upgrade that Apple could implement, and then after the upgrade he can point to his prediction and claim that it was dead on.
Uh, no. If I predict that tomorrow it will either be sunny, or cloudy, or cloudy and rainy, or sunny and rainy, and then on the next day it happens to be sunny, that doesn't necessarily mean that my prediction was reliable. The only difference between this example and Dorsal's predictions is that he is extremely well versed in bleeding edge computer tech, so his predictions represent all of the possible outcomes.
<strong>Oh. Yah. Because it's so massively hard to troll in the AI boards.
-Short Bus Driver</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, I thought every new thread in this forum was a "trolling" attempt. Its kind of the whole point of a future hardware discussion group.
So the verdict on the L3 cache memory is that I was right and it is SRAM, not SDRAM? Good, even Apple couldn't be that stupid (documentation errors not withstanding).
Apple has clearly stated that the new L3 cache where DDRAM, if this info they gave is incorrect then it would be false advertising. I don't know the law in US , but In France it's illegal and you can be sued for this.
<strong>Apple has clearly stated that the new L3 cache where DDRAM, if this info they gave is incorrect then it would be false advertising. I don't know the law in US , but In France it's illegal and you can be sued for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR simply means data is transfered on the leading and trailing edges of the clock signal. Both SDRAM and SRAM can be built to do this. I have no doubt that the L3 is using DDR, the question is whether it is using SDRAM, or SRAM. Their documentation seems to say SDRAM in most places, but this doesn't make much technical sense -- SRAM would be much more effective. I suspect it is just the that their technical writers never heard of SRAM and thus were "correcting" the documents... or the spelling checker doesn't have an entry for SRAM, just SDRAM, and it was being helpful. I've seen this happen a few times.
I've always been skeptical of Dorsal, and I picked up on his M.O. in a few minutes. He predicts every possible upgrade that Apple could implement, and then after the upgrade he can point to his prediction and claim that it was dead on. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You act like this is some sort of contest. Your comments say a lot more about you than about Dorsal.
Dorsal doesn't "predict" what Apple will release: he simply reports the hardware he's seen and how well it works. He may offer a guess as to how mature the technology is and therefore how soon it could come to market, but he claims no insider information as to what Apple is actually planning to release, or when.
Secondly, I don't recall Dorsal ever gloating over any of his predictions being borne out. If he's here to pump his ego, he's being awfully mellow about it.
Like a lot of people here, you seem very paranoid about being trolled. Lighten up and actually read what Dorsal posts without projecting too many of your own anxieties onto it.
Apple spent a gigantic amount of money building a factory to create the 5.25" "Twiggy" CLV floppy disks that were in the Lisa.
The factory yield was less than 5%, IIRC. The book I read, West of Eden, said they wasted over $1 billion on the factory effort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That neatly explains why they never tried building a mechanism again, doesn't it?
This sort of thing really makes me want to stay with Intel. I have a good understanding of what will be available over the next year.
I'm holding back from any further Apple purchase because I have no idea what's coming from Apple. If Intel is at 3Ghz by December with a 533Mhz bus and 1066Mhz RDRAM for LESS $$$ than a 1.6hz G5 (even if it's 5% faster than the Intel), forget Apple, fewer dollars on equipment means more in my pocket for living my life.
Yeah XP sucks donkey but OS X has it's crappy aspects as well, and since I can't get a high resolution screen from Apple without selling the farm, I can spend the time on learning to disable Passport in the XP registry.
DDR simply means data is transfered on the leading and trailing edges of the clock signal. Both SDRAM and SRAM can be built to do this. I have no doubt that the L3 is using DDR, the question is whether it is using SDRAM, or SRAM. Their documentation seems to say SDRAM in most places, but this doesn't make much technical sense -- SRAM would be much more effective. I suspect it is just the that their technical writers never heard of SRAM and thus were "correcting" the documents... or the spelling checker doesn't have an entry for SRAM, just SDRAM, and it was being helpful. I've seen this happen a few times. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ha yes i see. Read too quickly that thread ...I think it's rather DDR SRAM, because i never eard of 500 mhz DDR SDRAM (on a graphic card they will talk of 1000 mhz memory : 500 * 2)
Apple spent a gigantic amount of money building a factory to create the 5.25" "Twiggy" CLV floppy disks that were in the Lisa.
The factory yield was less than 5%, IIRC. The book I read, West of Eden, said they wasted over $1 billion on the factory effort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, that's exactly the chapter I'm on in Michael Malone's "Infinite Loop". Has a great little anecdotal story about how the Mac team kept hiding one of Sony's disk drive engineers everytime Jobs would pay a visit.
"This sort of thing really makes me want to stay with Intel. I have a good understanding of what will be available over the next year.
I'm holding back from any further Apple purchase because I have no idea what's coming from Apple. If Intel is at 3Ghz by December with a 533Mhz bus and 1066Mhz RDRAM for LESS $$$ than a 1.6hz G5 (even if it's 5% faster than the Intel), forget Apple, fewer dollars on equipment means more in my pocket for living my life."
Some notes from a source I trust - Take them with all the salt your diet requires:
WWDC - No hardware. Software event.
MWNY - 1gig G4 133Mhz bus $1449 256 MB RAM
1.2 gig G4, 512 DDR (266) RAM around $2100
1.4 gig G4, 1gig DDR (266) RAM around $3000
Dualies possible, but unknown.
New Powerbooks April 30. Source claims 867 Mhz with DDR RAM. And new Graphics subsystem.
If Apple has a DDR compatible G4 for the PowerBook, it might make a good test bed for the new mobo (since Apple tends to have unified motherboards nowadays).
They put it in a highly-profitable machine and it kicks BUTT, creating lots of demand.... Hmm. time to buy some more stock.
The biggest surprise is the possibility that the PB would get DDR RAM first?! If that's true, the portable crowd will be crowing for months.
I actually wouldn't be shocked if the mid- and high-end were duallies, or if they all were. That would turn the top of the line into the bottom of the line (modulo RAM and drive choices) which Steve is fond of doing.
<strong>New Powerbooks April 30. Source claims 867 Mhz with DDR RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>If it's the Apollo, Motorola's documentation claims a 133Mhz bus speed limit.
Unless:
1) they somehow are able to use DDR RAM anyway, or
2) Motorola's documentation is just hiding higher max bus speeds for Apple's sake, or
3) it's not the Apollo, but some as-yet-unknown chip, like a 7460.
Comments
Only problem now with thinking the L3 cache is SRAM is the page that has the L3 cache description still says updated 16 Jan and still says DDR SDRAM. (same in the available PDF) WTF? Did it get updated or not?</strong>
It got updated. At least the PDF did. The version I downloaded in January says DDR SRAM.
<strong>THT, do you have some Apple hardcopy that has a little more care taken in it's writing?</strong>
No.
The problem is that there needs to be explicit support for memory types, and the Moto 7455 documentation still says SRAM support only. The issue would simply be settled if someone, actually more than 1 person, took the heat sink of their new PowerMacs and have a look see. xlr8yourmac.com usually finds someone that does this, but this time around, I haven't seen any. Maybe it's there and I missed it though.
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
L4 cache?
Should have said "open your G5 case without being allowed to"
Anyone got links to what Book E actually is and what it covers?
[ 04-24-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
Dorsal is trolling us, and doing a good job with it at that.
My hat's off to him.
<hr></blockquote>
Oh. Yah. Because it's so massively hard to troll in the AI boards.
-Short Bus Driver
<strong>Dorsal is <a href="http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html"; target="_blank">trolling</a> us, and doing a good job with it at that.
My hat's off to him.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you. Someone has some sense around here it would seem.
I've always been skeptical of Dorsal, and I picked up on his M.O. in a few minutes. He predicts every possible upgrade that Apple could implement, and then after the upgrade he can point to his prediction and claim that it was dead on.
Uh, no. If I predict that tomorrow it will either be sunny, or cloudy, or cloudy and rainy, or sunny and rainy, and then on the next day it happens to be sunny, that doesn't necessarily mean that my prediction was reliable. The only difference between this example and Dorsal's predictions is that he is extremely well versed in bleeding edge computer tech, so his predictions represent all of the possible outcomes.
<strong>Eric D.V.H. wrote:
Actually, Apple has never made any drive mechanisms - HDD, optical, floppy or otherwise.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm quite certain this is incorrect.
Apple spent a gigantic amount of money building a factory to create the 5.25" "Twiggy" CLV floppy disks that were in the Lisa.
The factory yield was less than 5%, IIRC. The book I read, West of Eden, said they wasted over $1 billion on the factory effort.
<strong>Oh. Yah. Because it's so massively hard to troll in the AI boards.
-Short Bus Driver</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, I thought every new thread in this forum was a "trolling" attempt. Its kind of the whole point of a future hardware discussion group.
So the verdict on the L3 cache memory is that I was right and it is SRAM, not SDRAM? Good, even Apple couldn't be that stupid (documentation errors not withstanding).
<strong>Apple has clearly stated that the new L3 cache where DDRAM, if this info they gave is incorrect then it would be false advertising. I don't know the law in US , but In France it's illegal and you can be sued for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR simply means data is transfered on the leading and trailing edges of the clock signal. Both SDRAM and SRAM can be built to do this. I have no doubt that the L3 is using DDR, the question is whether it is using SDRAM, or SRAM. Their documentation seems to say SDRAM in most places, but this doesn't make much technical sense -- SRAM would be much more effective. I suspect it is just the that their technical writers never heard of SRAM and thus were "correcting" the documents... or the spelling checker doesn't have an entry for SRAM, just SDRAM, and it was being helpful. I've seen this happen a few times.
<strong>
I've always been skeptical of Dorsal, and I picked up on his M.O. in a few minutes. He predicts every possible upgrade that Apple could implement, and then after the upgrade he can point to his prediction and claim that it was dead on. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You act like this is some sort of contest. Your comments say a lot more about you than about Dorsal.
Dorsal doesn't "predict" what Apple will release: he simply reports the hardware he's seen and how well it works. He may offer a guess as to how mature the technology is and therefore how soon it could come to market, but he claims no insider information as to what Apple is actually planning to release, or when.
Secondly, I don't recall Dorsal ever gloating over any of his predictions being borne out. If he's here to pump his ego, he's being awfully mellow about it.
Like a lot of people here, you seem very paranoid about being trolled. Lighten up and actually read what Dorsal posts without projecting too many of your own anxieties onto it.
<strong>
I'm quite certain this is incorrect.
Apple spent a gigantic amount of money building a factory to create the 5.25" "Twiggy" CLV floppy disks that were in the Lisa.
The factory yield was less than 5%, IIRC. The book I read, West of Eden, said they wasted over $1 billion on the factory effort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That neatly explains why they never tried building a mechanism again, doesn't it?
Thanks for the clarification.
This sort of thing really makes me want to stay with Intel. I have a good understanding of what will be available over the next year.
I'm holding back from any further Apple purchase because I have no idea what's coming from Apple. If Intel is at 3Ghz by December with a 533Mhz bus and 1066Mhz RDRAM for LESS $$$ than a 1.6hz G5 (even if it's 5% faster than the Intel), forget Apple, fewer dollars on equipment means more in my pocket for living my life.
Yeah XP sucks donkey but OS X has it's crappy aspects as well, and since I can't get a high resolution screen from Apple without selling the farm, I can spend the time on learning to disable Passport in the XP registry.
Oh I don't know!!! it's all so silly.
<strong>
DDR simply means data is transfered on the leading and trailing edges of the clock signal. Both SDRAM and SRAM can be built to do this. I have no doubt that the L3 is using DDR, the question is whether it is using SDRAM, or SRAM. Their documentation seems to say SDRAM in most places, but this doesn't make much technical sense -- SRAM would be much more effective. I suspect it is just the that their technical writers never heard of SRAM and thus were "correcting" the documents... or the spelling checker doesn't have an entry for SRAM, just SDRAM, and it was being helpful. I've seen this happen a few times.
Ha yes i see. Read too quickly that thread ...I think it's rather DDR SRAM, because i never eard of 500 mhz DDR SDRAM (on a graphic card they will talk of 1000 mhz memory : 500 * 2)
<strong>
Apple spent a gigantic amount of money building a factory to create the 5.25" "Twiggy" CLV floppy disks that were in the Lisa.
The factory yield was less than 5%, IIRC. The book I read, West of Eden, said they wasted over $1 billion on the factory effort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, that's exactly the chapter I'm on in Michael Malone's "Infinite Loop". Has a great little anecdotal story about how the Mac team kept hiding one of Sony's disk drive engineers everytime Jobs would pay a visit.
I'm holding back from any further Apple purchase because I have no idea what's coming from Apple. If Intel is at 3Ghz by December with a 533Mhz bus and 1066Mhz RDRAM for LESS $$$ than a 1.6hz G5 (even if it's 5% faster than the Intel), forget Apple, fewer dollars on equipment means more in my pocket for living my life."
G5, whither art thou?
Lemon Bon Bon
WWDC - No hardware. Software event.
MWNY - 1gig G4 133Mhz bus $1449 256 MB RAM
1.2 gig G4, 512 DDR (266) RAM around $2100
1.4 gig G4, 1gig DDR (266) RAM around $3000
Dualies possible, but unknown.
New Powerbooks April 30. Source claims 867 Mhz with DDR RAM. And new Graphics subsystem.
If Apple has a DDR compatible G4 for the PowerBook, it might make a good test bed for the new mobo (since Apple tends to have unified motherboards nowadays).
They put it in a highly-profitable machine and it kicks BUTT, creating lots of demand.... Hmm. time to buy some more stock.
Whatcha think?
The biggest surprise is the possibility that the PB would get DDR RAM first?! If that's true, the portable crowd will be crowing for months.
I actually wouldn't be shocked if the mid- and high-end were duallies, or if they all were. That would turn the top of the line into the bottom of the line (modulo RAM and drive choices) which Steve is fond of doing.
<strong>New Powerbooks April 30. Source claims 867 Mhz with DDR RAM.</strong><hr></blockquote>If it's the Apollo, Motorola's documentation claims a 133Mhz bus speed limit.
Unless:
1) they somehow are able to use DDR RAM anyway, or
2) Motorola's documentation is just hiding higher max bus speeds for Apple's sake, or
3) it's not the Apollo, but some as-yet-unknown chip, like a 7460.
I think those are all pretty unlikely.