<strong>Fred Anderson for example, is selling stock worth more than 6 million. If he had any reason to believe Apple stock would be going up after MWNY, would he be doing the same thing, when a few points after MWNY would mean a million dollars difference in the stock value?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they all just need money? Or maybe they sell stock, stock price falls, they buy more stock, G5 is introduced, stock rises, they sell stock again.
Or maybe they're just aliens and decided to pack up now that the X Files are done for.
First we have the most probable; New case design, speedbump to 1G2Hz, DDR and perhaps bluetooth. At best we get G4.5....
No revolution, no long term solution to the ever lagging cpu performance...
Then we have my hopes, which are maybe not so likely but anyways; Leave the G4 behind. Since there seem to be no G5 on the horizon this will mean x86. To be ahead of the game once again this could mean AMDs new 64bit "Hammer" chip. As far as I know there was an operating system called Next OS, it originaly ran on Motorolas 68030... But it was then translated to work on Pentiums. Why can't Apple do the same thing again?
This would solve the problems with Apple lagging behind in the performance race. But it would probably break som ageements made with Motorola. And it would mean lots of technical issues...
And then one question: Whatever happened to Rhapsody?
9 Apple execs all deciding to sell stock at the same time. Sure it's no big deal.
Fred Anderson for example, is selling stock worth more than 6 million. If he had any reason to believe Apple stock would be going up after MWNY, would he be doing the same thing, when a few points after MWNY would mean a million dollars difference in the stock value?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe a filing is a signal that 90 days from now this stock will be sold for market value. You could look at two ways, the execs are looking at the stock price and think that it will at least stay at the same price or could go higher. Execs get large lumps of shares and that is part of their compensation, so they sell them, but they cannot sell them rapidly. They could not say sell NOW! Unless it is shares that they have bought on their own, the way to keep insider trading down is to impose the 90 day rule that the SEC has. That way a company could not come out with good news and then sell their stock that day to take advantage of the timing to give them a few extra % return. I think that with the economy being the way it has been the selling is a good sign. A sign that maybe for a few months the Execs can see through the fog and it dosen't look bad, maybe even good!
Rhapsody: dead, mutated into Mac OS X (that's Apple's latest operating system).
NextStep: the fundament of Rhapsody and thus OS X.
Moving to x86: not going to happen, porting the OS is the easiest part, you'd have to port or recompile ALL (yeah, that's all) software ever written for Mac OS X, including drivers and, if you wanted Carbon apps. I repeat, moving to x86 is a nono and is not going to happen anytime soon (read not within the next 5 years). Especially as x86 is nearing the end of its life.
And btw, if that gets your hopes high, Darwin, the basics of OS X runs on x86 too.
<strong>NeM, your ignorance strikes me out of my shoes:
Rhapsody: dead, mutated into Mac OS X (that's Apple's latest operating system).
NextStep: the fundament of Rhapsody and thus OS X.
Moving to x86: not going to happen, porting the OS is the easiest part, you'd have to port or recompile ALL (yeah, that's all) software ever written for Mac OS X, including drivers and, if you wanted Carbon apps. I repeat, moving to x86 is a nono and is not going to happen anytime soon (read not within the next 5 years). Especially as x86 is nearing the end of its life.
And btw, if that gets your hopes high, Darwin, the basics of OS X runs on x86 too.
G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fear G news, that even if you repeat one hundread time that we won't see Apple moving to X86 chips that there will still be some people here to say that.
"Funny - just today I have a 2 hour meeting in a printing company (doing all kinds of stuff from postcards to high volume printing of books) and the guy I was talking with said that for a recent project he had to run a batch job on some 200 tiff images. Well just for the kicks he ran it on both and Athlon XP 1700+ (I think, but definately XP and single processor) and a dual 800 G4 Quicksilver. He stopped the G4 after image 45 since the Athlon was at 80 already. Of course it might have been something where AltiVec is not much of a help, but honestly - who's using those cheap looking filters in photoshop anyway? The only ones I use are gaussian and motion blur."
Gee, I thought people sold their stocks after their company options came to the call point because they have to pay tax on the options even if they don't sell the stock, therefore if you don't sell your $6M in stock you still pay taxes (?$2.8M) on the options. Gee would you sell your stocks to pay your taxes or just whip-out $2,8M of your own cash to pay the IRS?
Then again, some people are waiting for the G5 until they upgrade their 'puters. (even when the G5's come out I think I will probably wait for the second generation). By the time the G5 is out most people could have had a dualgigger for a year and a half. Go figure.
<strong>NeM, your ignorance strikes me out of my shoes:
Rhapsody: dead, mutated into Mac OS X (that's Apple's latest operating system).
Nextstep: the fundament of Rhapsody and thus OS X.
Moving to x86: not going to happen, porting the OS is the easiest part, you'd have to port or recompile ALL (yeah, that's all) software ever written for Mac OS X, including drivers and, if you wanted Carbon apps. I repeat, moving to x86 is a nono and is not going to happen anytime soon (read not within the next 5 years). Especially as x86 is nearing the end of its life.
And btw, if that gets your hopes high, Darwin, the basics of OS X runs on x86 too.
G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pardon me for striking you out of your shoes with my ignorance, that really wasn't my meaning and I apologise.
I guess I will have to explain my question a tad more... Back in the days when Apple presented Rhapsody and it's roadmap I recall seeing in Macworld (Sweden) that Rhapsody would run on the x86 platform. Just as NextStep did...
But if Rhapsody and the original roadmap is no more then I guess that the roadmap has changed and now no longer features support for x86.
And I do understand that recompiling _all_ of the code written for Mac OS X is quite an undertaking, but if you want to move on to a 64bit platform, wouldn't you have to do the same thing then? Or can you make a 64bit processor emulate an old 32bit? I guess so, but then can't you make an operating system on x86 emulate an operating system running PPC? I realize that the performance loss would be extreme... But the performance gap to x86 is widening day by day, one day that is gap is going to be extreme... Thus making up for the loss in performance due to emulation.
I would like to emphasize what I said in my previous post. This is NOT what I think will happen. This is what I HOPE will happen... If you're intrested in what I THINK will happen then read my previous post.
Hoping not to strike somenone else with my ignorance....
Starting a move to X86 now would be... I can't even think of a word to describe the insanity. People seem to think that the X86 is the "end all" of processors, and will just keep getting faster. You can bet that neither Intel nor AMD think that.
There is no doubt that faster, cooler, and all around more efficient chips will be available in the foreseeable future. A huge problem for both MS and Apple is how to make their OSs (and other software) run on the thing without a total rewrite. Apple better not be on the sidelines, or defending the wrong goalpost, when that happens. If they aren't part of the next generation, they will truly be selling buggy whips. (Ancient analogy, I know. Look it up if you don't understand).
[quote]But if Rhapsody and the original roadmap is no more then I guess that the roadmap has changed and now no longer
features support for x86.
And I do understand that recompiling _all_ of the code written for Mac OS X is quite an undertaking, but if you want to
move on to a 64bit platform, wouldn't you have to do the same thing then? Or can you make a 64bit processor emulate
an old 32bit? I guess so, but then can't you make an operating system on x86 emulate an operating system running PPC?
I realize that the performance loss would be extreme... But the performance gap to x86 is widening day by day, one day
that is gap is going to be extreme... Thus making up for the loss in performance due to emulation.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes, "YellowBox" was initially intended to run on x86, but the BlueBox never was either. Since yellowbox is basically the ancestor of Cocoa today, that'd mean that only the OS X only apps would be supported, and they'd still have to be recompiled or even rewritten partially. remember that cocoa is basically the unix layer of OS X, and thus it's no surprise that it could run on x86. Which it does, in shape of Darwin. Just without GUI, and all the API layers on top of it.
And yes, both the Hammer and the G5 are said to actually run 32bit applications natively, apart from 64bit applications, so that problem would be minimal. Only Intel's 64bit platform doesn't currently support native 32bit execution and runs DOG slow in 32bit emulation. Aparently a change in architectural design is coming up to address the issue. (in order to compete with AMDs upcoming offerings).
While running PPC apps in emulation is thinkable, you must know that to date, no PPC emulator is shipping anywhere past an early alpha status. Aparently it's much easier to emulate "CISC" with RISC than vice versa (don't flame me on the CISC, RISC issue, I know what it is and how both merge into each other, but you get the point).
Fact is, the only useable mac emulators today emulate 68K chips and don't run any OS later than 8.1, plus they require original Mac ROM chips (but that's not a problem, since Apple could come up with a fix, if they moved to x86).
Point is, that even if the x86 chips suddenly became four times faster than a G4 (which at the moment, they are not), they'd still struggle getting even remotely decent performance in emulation. Just look at Virtual PC, undoubtedly a really great emulator, still eats 60-70% of your CPU speed, now think vice versa, and you'd probably have 15-20% of the original x86 speed left in PPC emulation...and it's going to take a while until that is faster than a real PPC.
There is, however one slight possibility that might also make you happy: While moving to x86 seems the most unlikely thing Apple could do, moving to a RISC chip, probably PPC compatible, but made by, say AMD, is thinkable.
Since chips like the Athlon and the Hammer are internally actually RISC chips, it is *thinkable*, that such a chip could be used for future PPC replacement. But even then, that would be a major technical challenge.
So, no, I don't think Apple is going to jump off the PPC bandwagon anytime soon, even if that bandwagon is trailing behind the locomotive.
But at least I have my shoes back on now, and I'd lie to excuse me for that outburst, but I'm just really fed up with all those whiners who think that moving to x86 is a piece of cake that any asshole could do in half a days work. I'm glad you're more reasonable about this.
I wouldn't expect anything earth-shattering that we (as an audience) don't already know about - but is a MacWorld keynote aimed at us or people with more ordinary (and probably healthier) levels of interest, as well as non-specialist media such as daily newspapers.
I don't see a G5: Steve knows that the annual pilgrimage to the Bay are the key devotee audience. It's home turf, near as dammit and he will want to keep that powder dry until SF '03 which I remember reading was the original target date anyway.
For those who say there is no G5, show us some solid evidence - which isn't AIM (or your neighbor's cousin's dogwalker) saying that AIM isn't saying anything. The fact that nobody is leaking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ordinary folk have not seen any of the following as yet:-
Jaguar (10.2) - big update with lots of feature enhancements inc. iChat and Sherlock 3: I would make that the bedrock of the keynote.
xServe - not a definitive product by any means, but cleverly engineered and aimed at the kind of Silicon Alley people who are likely to turn up at this bash.
New TiBook/New iBook - all worth demoing just for the sheer hell of showing the best/biggest screen in the market as well as a machine which is Apple's big education earner at the moment.
Bluetooth - Neat
====
That's a lot of content, but is there room for more?
I think there will be a realignment of the PMac consisting 1.2GHz x 2, 1.0GHz and the bottom of the line will be repositioned at 933. As for the intro of a new motherboard - who knows? Will it get a huge community off Apple's back? Maybe. Will it give Apple the opportunity to state that its' high end is now architecturally on a par with Wintel? Not quite, but it would be a good spin.
My bet is 60/40 in favor of a new board, which is more hope than anything else.
In reality, if it was my company (I wish), I would hold everything (Faster Firewire, DDR, Faster Bus, plus - last, but not least - G5) for a big stepchange announcement, designed to catch a post-recessionary economy. Holding back also writes about 75% of my MWSF speech, which would save me having to work too hard during the holiday season.
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade - but look at my handle.
[quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
<strong>
For those who say there is no G5, show us some solid evidence - which isn't AIM (or your neighbor's cousin's dogwalker) saying that AIM isn't saying anything. The fact that nobody is leaking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a good turn around, Show that it doesn't exist rather than does exist.
Therefore, I can't show you that aliens don't exist means that they do exist. hmmm...
That's a good turn around, Show that it doesn't exist rather than does exist.
Therefore, I can't show you that aliens don't exist means that they do exist. hmmm...</strong><hr></blockquote>
God, I would hate you to become a prosecuting attorney!
All you can say to me is that you haven't had any aliens in your neck of the woods as far as you know. Saying that there are no aliens just cos you haven't seen them doesn't cut it logically. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we are on the end of spiral arm at the unfashionable end of the galaxy. Why go all pre-Galileo and assume that we would be the first stopover in any alien's sightseeing tour <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Did we have solid evidence about eMac before the announcement? There were rumors a year ago of a 17" iMac, but was that the eMac or was it just coincidence or synchronicity. Nobody saw the eMac coming, especially with those specs. but it definitely exists and probably has done since the back end of last year.
Funny - just today I have a 2 hour meeting in a printing company (doing all kinds of stuff from postcards to high volume printing of books) and the guy I was talking with said that for a recent project he had to run a batch job on some 200 tiff images. Well just for the kicks he ran it on both and Athlon XP 1700+ (I think, but definately XP and single processor) and a dual 800 G4 Quicksilver. He stopped the G4 after image 45 since the Athlon was at 80 already. Of course it might have been something where AltiVec is not much of a help, but honestly - who's using those cheap looking filters in photoshop anyway? The only ones I use are gaussian and motion blur.
He said design work, layout, illustrations and similiar a 733 will do great, but whenever heavy caclulation is needed there's the PC to turn to. He also said for other calculation intensive work he has a Wintel rack and was wondering whom Apple is targeting with XServe. Oh and he showed me two nice 5TB SCSI raid systems, saying that for the backups they're doing (all the stuff the customers print there) IDE wont cut it, again wondering whom Apple is targeting with the IDE raid.. Oh and those raids were smaller than Apples 3U thingie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most graphics design centers we work with are MOVING BACK to the macOS. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of a machine to work 1.5 times faster on batch processing...it has to do with support costs. When you can cut IT staff by $140,000/year the move is VERY attractive. Especilly when you can pay designers $9-$20/hour.
Also, I COMPLETELY agree that IDE is NOT a good solution for a large graphics center. However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. Also, there is no way to fit 5TB in a 3U form factor. Lets say that you can fit 14 drives in the 3U form factor...with 73G drives running NO raid would only yield 1TB of storage...and it would cost BIG bucks...and for just backups?!?
[quote]Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist:
<strong>
God, I would hate you to become a prosecuting attorney!
All you can say to me is that you haven't had any aliens in your neck of the woods as far as you know. Saying that there are no aliens just cos you haven't seen them doesn't cut it logically. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we are on the end of spiral arm at the unfashionable end of the galaxy. Why go all pre-Galileo and assume that we would be the first stopover in any alien's sightseeing tour <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Did we have solid evidence about eMac before the announcement? There were rumors a year ago of a 17" iMac, but was that the eMac or was it just coincidence or synchronicity. Nobody saw the eMac coming, especially with those specs. but it definitely exists and probably has done since the back end of last year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speaking of God--
This type argument is what some people do theologically. You can't prove God does not exist, therefore He must exist.
I know, totally off topic. Sorry.
What we see will make few people happy, but I think it will be a signifficant step towards something really new. That is something that hasn't happened in quite awhile.
Most graphics design centers we work with are MOVING BACK to the macOS. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of a machine to work 1.5 times faster on batch processing...it has to do with support costs. When you can cut IT staff by $140,000/year the move is VERY attractive. Especilly when you can pay designers $9-$20/hour.
Also, I COMPLETELY agree that IDE is NOT a good solution for a large graphics center. However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. Also, there is no way to fit 5TB in a 3U form factor. Lets say that you can fit 14 drives in the 3U form factor...with 73G drives running NO raid would only yield 1TB of storage...and it would cost BIG bucks...and for just backups?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is another way of looking at the whole issue of the way Apple's RAID array is put together.
From what I read, the array will be connected to the host using Fber Channel, which is a minimum of 1 Gb/sec and possibly 2 Gb if you use leading-edge technology. I can't remember the exact transfer rate of the proposed drives, but 1Gb divided by 10 drives is 100 Mb/sec/drive theoretical maximum or 12.5MB/sec given each drive having an independant path to the Fiber controller. Are the drives quicker than that?
So you are then left with what is the slowest part of most companies' setup which is the LAN, which for most organisations is 100Mb/sec. If you have 10 workstations connected to the server, you are realistically only getting a couple of megabytes/second/client when running under average loading.
The real benefit of SCSI3 or pure FC systems is when you have 100's or 1000's of clients acessing servers through a corporate class Gigabit backbone.
Need more than a 2MB/sec, you're looking at putting Fiber Channel into your client systems and then getting fabric infrastructure together (Have you looked at the price of Fabric switches recently? Still able to breathe normally?). Different proposition altogether and not a mass market proposition at all.
Maybe, Apple's product is "RAID for the rest of us" - just a point of view really.
This type argument is what some people do theologically. You can't prove God does not exist, therefore He must exist.
I know, totally off topic. Sorry.
What we see will make few people happy, but I think it will be a signifficant step towards something really new. That is something that hasn't happened in quite awhile.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: The Pilot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ooohh, that's unfair -
My first point is that the people who say the G5 is cancelled or otherwise in Apple's roadmap don't have any solid proof to back that up, anymore than I have the proof to say that it exists and is currently in alpha testing somewhere ready to be released at SF 03.
My second point calls the law of averages into play: the odds are that sentient life exists somewhere else in the universe other than this ball of rock. Analogously, the odds and market forces would tend to suggest that Apple should have something up its corporate sleeve to replace G4 at the high-end, even if that isn't an AIM processor at all. I'm not calling on a theological argument in any way, other than my faith that Apple is still more than capable of surprising me when I least expect it .
Of course, that argument leads to me expecting nothing at all so I'm always pleasantly surprised which is pretty much all I want from life really.
This type argument is what some people do theologically. You can't prove God does not exist, therefore He must exist.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, nice try but there is no God1, God2, God3, or (the current model) God4. If there were then the issue of whether there would be a God5 would be considerably different than whether there is a God. Furthermore, we, the human race, cannot build a God (heh, well maybe that's debatable ), but we can design and build PowerPCs.
Comments
<strong>Fred Anderson for example, is selling stock worth more than 6 million. If he had any reason to believe Apple stock would be going up after MWNY, would he be doing the same thing, when a few points after MWNY would mean a million dollars difference in the stock value?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they all just need money? Or maybe they sell stock, stock price falls, they buy more stock, G5 is introduced, stock rises, they sell stock again.
Or maybe they're just aliens and decided to pack up now that the X Files are done for.
First we have the most probable; New case design, speedbump to 1G2Hz, DDR and perhaps bluetooth. At best we get G4.5....
No revolution, no long term solution to the ever lagging cpu performance...
Then we have my hopes, which are maybe not so likely but anyways; Leave the G4 behind. Since there seem to be no G5 on the horizon this will mean x86. To be ahead of the game once again this could mean AMDs new 64bit "Hammer" chip. As far as I know there was an operating system called Next OS, it originaly ran on Motorolas 68030... But it was then translated to work on Pentiums. Why can't Apple do the same thing again?
This would solve the problems with Apple lagging behind in the performance race. But it would probably break som ageements made with Motorola. And it would mean lots of technical issues...
And then one question: Whatever happened to Rhapsody?
<strong>
9 Apple execs all deciding to sell stock at the same time. Sure it's no big deal.
Fred Anderson for example, is selling stock worth more than 6 million. If he had any reason to believe Apple stock would be going up after MWNY, would he be doing the same thing, when a few points after MWNY would mean a million dollars difference in the stock value?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe a filing is a signal that 90 days from now this stock will be sold for market value. You could look at two ways, the execs are looking at the stock price and think that it will at least stay at the same price or could go higher. Execs get large lumps of shares and that is part of their compensation, so they sell them, but they cannot sell them rapidly. They could not say sell NOW! Unless it is shares that they have bought on their own, the way to keep insider trading down is to impose the 90 day rule that the SEC has. That way a company could not come out with good news and then sell their stock that day to take advantage of the timing to give them a few extra % return. I think that with the economy being the way it has been the selling is a good sign. A sign that maybe for a few months the Execs can see through the fog and it dosen't look bad, maybe even good!
Rhapsody: dead, mutated into Mac OS X (that's Apple's latest operating system).
NextStep: the fundament of Rhapsody and thus OS X.
Moving to x86: not going to happen, porting the OS is the easiest part, you'd have to port or recompile ALL (yeah, that's all) software ever written for Mac OS X, including drivers and, if you wanted Carbon apps. I repeat, moving to x86 is a nono and is not going to happen anytime soon (read not within the next 5 years). Especially as x86 is nearing the end of its life.
And btw, if that gets your hopes high, Darwin, the basics of OS X runs on x86 too.
G-news
<strong>NeM, your ignorance strikes me out of my shoes:
Rhapsody: dead, mutated into Mac OS X (that's Apple's latest operating system).
NextStep: the fundament of Rhapsody and thus OS X.
Moving to x86: not going to happen, porting the OS is the easiest part, you'd have to port or recompile ALL (yeah, that's all) software ever written for Mac OS X, including drivers and, if you wanted Carbon apps. I repeat, moving to x86 is a nono and is not going to happen anytime soon (read not within the next 5 years). Especially as x86 is nearing the end of its life.
And btw, if that gets your hopes high, Darwin, the basics of OS X runs on x86 too.
G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>
I fear G news, that even if you repeat one hundread time that we won't see Apple moving to X86 chips that there will still be some people here to say that.
Yep.
Lemon Bon Bon
Then again, some people are waiting for the G5 until they upgrade their 'puters. (even when the G5's come out I think I will probably wait for the second generation). By the time the G5 is out most people could have had a dualgigger for a year and a half. Go figure.
<strong>NeM, your ignorance strikes me out of my shoes:
Rhapsody: dead, mutated into Mac OS X (that's Apple's latest operating system).
Nextstep: the fundament of Rhapsody and thus OS X.
Moving to x86: not going to happen, porting the OS is the easiest part, you'd have to port or recompile ALL (yeah, that's all) software ever written for Mac OS X, including drivers and, if you wanted Carbon apps. I repeat, moving to x86 is a nono and is not going to happen anytime soon (read not within the next 5 years). Especially as x86 is nearing the end of its life.
And btw, if that gets your hopes high, Darwin, the basics of OS X runs on x86 too.
G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pardon me for striking you out of your shoes with my ignorance, that really wasn't my meaning and I apologise.
I guess I will have to explain my question a tad more... Back in the days when Apple presented Rhapsody and it's roadmap I recall seeing in Macworld (Sweden) that Rhapsody would run on the x86 platform. Just as NextStep did...
<a href="http://www.osdata.com/oses/rhapsody.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.osdata.com/oses/rhapsody.htm</a>;
But if Rhapsody and the original roadmap is no more then I guess that the roadmap has changed and now no longer features support for x86.
And I do understand that recompiling _all_ of the code written for Mac OS X is quite an undertaking, but if you want to move on to a 64bit platform, wouldn't you have to do the same thing then? Or can you make a 64bit processor emulate an old 32bit? I guess so, but then can't you make an operating system on x86 emulate an operating system running PPC? I realize that the performance loss would be extreme... But the performance gap to x86 is widening day by day, one day that is gap is going to be extreme... Thus making up for the loss in performance due to emulation.
I would like to emphasize what I said in my previous post. This is NOT what I think will happen. This is what I HOPE will happen... If you're intrested in what I THINK will happen then read my previous post.
Hoping not to strike somenone else with my ignorance....
NeM
There is no doubt that faster, cooler, and all around more efficient chips will be available in the foreseeable future. A huge problem for both MS and Apple is how to make their OSs (and other software) run on the thing without a total rewrite. Apple better not be on the sidelines, or defending the wrong goalpost, when that happens. If they aren't part of the next generation, they will truly be selling buggy whips. (Ancient analogy, I know. Look it up if you don't understand).
features support for x86.
And I do understand that recompiling _all_ of the code written for Mac OS X is quite an undertaking, but if you want to
move on to a 64bit platform, wouldn't you have to do the same thing then? Or can you make a 64bit processor emulate
an old 32bit? I guess so, but then can't you make an operating system on x86 emulate an operating system running PPC?
I realize that the performance loss would be extreme... But the performance gap to x86 is widening day by day, one day
that is gap is going to be extreme... Thus making up for the loss in performance due to emulation.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes, "YellowBox" was initially intended to run on x86, but the BlueBox never was either. Since yellowbox is basically the ancestor of Cocoa today, that'd mean that only the OS X only apps would be supported, and they'd still have to be recompiled or even rewritten partially. remember that cocoa is basically the unix layer of OS X, and thus it's no surprise that it could run on x86. Which it does, in shape of Darwin. Just without GUI, and all the API layers on top of it.
And yes, both the Hammer and the G5 are said to actually run 32bit applications natively, apart from 64bit applications, so that problem would be minimal. Only Intel's 64bit platform doesn't currently support native 32bit execution and runs DOG slow in 32bit emulation. Aparently a change in architectural design is coming up to address the issue. (in order to compete with AMDs upcoming offerings).
While running PPC apps in emulation is thinkable, you must know that to date, no PPC emulator is shipping anywhere past an early alpha status. Aparently it's much easier to emulate "CISC" with RISC than vice versa (don't flame me on the CISC, RISC issue, I know what it is and how both merge into each other, but you get the point).
Fact is, the only useable mac emulators today emulate 68K chips and don't run any OS later than 8.1, plus they require original Mac ROM chips (but that's not a problem, since Apple could come up with a fix, if they moved to x86).
Point is, that even if the x86 chips suddenly became four times faster than a G4 (which at the moment, they are not), they'd still struggle getting even remotely decent performance in emulation. Just look at Virtual PC, undoubtedly a really great emulator, still eats 60-70% of your CPU speed, now think vice versa, and you'd probably have 15-20% of the original x86 speed left in PPC emulation...and it's going to take a while until that is faster than a real PPC.
There is, however one slight possibility that might also make you happy: While moving to x86 seems the most unlikely thing Apple could do, moving to a RISC chip, probably PPC compatible, but made by, say AMD, is thinkable.
Since chips like the Athlon and the Hammer are internally actually RISC chips, it is *thinkable*, that such a chip could be used for future PPC replacement. But even then, that would be a major technical challenge.
So, no, I don't think Apple is going to jump off the PPC bandwagon anytime soon, even if that bandwagon is trailing behind the locomotive.
But at least I have my shoes back on now, and I'd lie to excuse me for that outburst, but I'm just really fed up with all those whiners who think that moving to x86 is a piece of cake that any asshole could do in half a days work. I'm glad you're more reasonable about this.
Et oui, powerdoc, j'en suis sûr que ce n'était pas la dernière fois que je vais être ennuyé par un mec qui pense qu' Apple devrait passer Ã* x86.
C'est la vie...
G-News
I don't see a G5: Steve knows that the annual pilgrimage to the Bay are the key devotee audience. It's home turf, near as dammit and he will want to keep that powder dry until SF '03 which I remember reading was the original target date anyway.
For those who say there is no G5, show us some solid evidence - which isn't AIM (or your neighbor's cousin's dogwalker) saying that AIM isn't saying anything. The fact that nobody is leaking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ordinary folk have not seen any of the following as yet:-
Jaguar (10.2) - big update with lots of feature enhancements inc. iChat and Sherlock 3: I would make that the bedrock of the keynote.
xServe - not a definitive product by any means, but cleverly engineered and aimed at the kind of Silicon Alley people who are likely to turn up at this bash.
New TiBook/New iBook - all worth demoing just for the sheer hell of showing the best/biggest screen in the market as well as a machine which is Apple's big education earner at the moment.
Bluetooth - Neat
====
That's a lot of content, but is there room for more?
I think there will be a realignment of the PMac consisting 1.2GHz x 2, 1.0GHz and the bottom of the line will be repositioned at 933. As for the intro of a new motherboard - who knows? Will it get a huge community off Apple's back? Maybe. Will it give Apple the opportunity to state that its' high end is now architecturally on a par with Wintel? Not quite, but it would be a good spin.
My bet is 60/40 in favor of a new board, which is more hope than anything else.
In reality, if it was my company (I wish), I would hold everything (Faster Firewire, DDR, Faster Bus, plus - last, but not least - G5) for a big stepchange announcement, designed to catch a post-recessionary economy. Holding back also writes about 75% of my MWSF speech, which would save me having to work too hard during the holiday season.
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade - but look at my handle.
<strong>
For those who say there is no G5, show us some solid evidence - which isn't AIM (or your neighbor's cousin's dogwalker) saying that AIM isn't saying anything. The fact that nobody is leaking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a good turn around, Show that it doesn't exist rather than does exist.
Therefore, I can't show you that aliens don't exist means that they do exist. hmmm...
Or answer my question what could be improved in a new case?
<strong>
That's a good turn around, Show that it doesn't exist rather than does exist.
Therefore, I can't show you that aliens don't exist means that they do exist. hmmm...</strong><hr></blockquote>
God, I would hate you to become a prosecuting attorney!
All you can say to me is that you haven't had any aliens in your neck of the woods as far as you know. Saying that there are no aliens just cos you haven't seen them doesn't cut it logically. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we are on the end of spiral arm at the unfashionable end of the galaxy. Why go all pre-Galileo and assume that we would be the first stopover in any alien's sightseeing tour <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Did we have solid evidence about eMac before the announcement? There were rumors a year ago of a 17" iMac, but was that the eMac or was it just coincidence or synchronicity. Nobody saw the eMac coming, especially with those specs. but it definitely exists and probably has done since the back end of last year.
<strong>
Funny - just today I have a 2 hour meeting in a printing company (doing all kinds of stuff from postcards to high volume printing of books) and the guy I was talking with said that for a recent project he had to run a batch job on some 200 tiff images. Well just for the kicks he ran it on both and Athlon XP 1700+ (I think, but definately XP and single processor) and a dual 800 G4 Quicksilver. He stopped the G4 after image 45 since the Athlon was at 80 already. Of course it might have been something where AltiVec is not much of a help, but honestly - who's using those cheap looking filters in photoshop anyway? The only ones I use are gaussian and motion blur.
He said design work, layout, illustrations and similiar a 733 will do great, but whenever heavy caclulation is needed there's the PC to turn to. He also said for other calculation intensive work he has a Wintel rack and was wondering whom Apple is targeting with XServe. Oh and he showed me two nice 5TB SCSI raid systems, saying that for the backups they're doing (all the stuff the customers print there) IDE wont cut it, again wondering whom Apple is targeting with the IDE raid.. Oh and those raids were smaller than Apples 3U thingie.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most graphics design centers we work with are MOVING BACK to the macOS. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of a machine to work 1.5 times faster on batch processing...it has to do with support costs. When you can cut IT staff by $140,000/year the move is VERY attractive. Especilly when you can pay designers $9-$20/hour.
Also, I COMPLETELY agree that IDE is NOT a good solution for a large graphics center. However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. Also, there is no way to fit 5TB in a 3U form factor. Lets say that you can fit 14 drives in the 3U form factor...with 73G drives running NO raid would only yield 1TB of storage...and it would cost BIG bucks...and for just backups?!?
<strong>
God, I would hate you to become a prosecuting attorney!
All you can say to me is that you haven't had any aliens in your neck of the woods as far as you know. Saying that there are no aliens just cos you haven't seen them doesn't cut it logically. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we are on the end of spiral arm at the unfashionable end of the galaxy. Why go all pre-Galileo and assume that we would be the first stopover in any alien's sightseeing tour <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Did we have solid evidence about eMac before the announcement? There were rumors a year ago of a 17" iMac, but was that the eMac or was it just coincidence or synchronicity. Nobody saw the eMac coming, especially with those specs. but it definitely exists and probably has done since the back end of last year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Speaking of God--
This type argument is what some people do theologically. You can't prove God does not exist, therefore He must exist.
I know, totally off topic. Sorry.
What we see will make few people happy, but I think it will be a signifficant step towards something really new. That is something that hasn't happened in quite awhile.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: The Pilot ]</p>
<strong>
Most graphics design centers we work with are MOVING BACK to the macOS. It doesn't have anything to do with the ability of a machine to work 1.5 times faster on batch processing...it has to do with support costs. When you can cut IT staff by $140,000/year the move is VERY attractive. Especilly when you can pay designers $9-$20/hour.
Also, I COMPLETELY agree that IDE is NOT a good solution for a large graphics center. However, why in the world is that graphics center using a SCSI array to do back ups? All the graphics centers I've ever been in use CD's or DVD's for archiving. Also, there is no way to fit 5TB in a 3U form factor. Lets say that you can fit 14 drives in the 3U form factor...with 73G drives running NO raid would only yield 1TB of storage...and it would cost BIG bucks...and for just backups?!?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is another way of looking at the whole issue of the way Apple's RAID array is put together.
From what I read, the array will be connected to the host using Fber Channel, which is a minimum of 1 Gb/sec and possibly 2 Gb if you use leading-edge technology. I can't remember the exact transfer rate of the proposed drives, but 1Gb divided by 10 drives is 100 Mb/sec/drive theoretical maximum or 12.5MB/sec given each drive having an independant path to the Fiber controller. Are the drives quicker than that?
So you are then left with what is the slowest part of most companies' setup which is the LAN, which for most organisations is 100Mb/sec. If you have 10 workstations connected to the server, you are realistically only getting a couple of megabytes/second/client when running under average loading.
The real benefit of SCSI3 or pure FC systems is when you have 100's or 1000's of clients acessing servers through a corporate class Gigabit backbone.
Need more than a 2MB/sec, you're looking at putting Fiber Channel into your client systems and then getting fabric infrastructure together (Have you looked at the price of Fabric switches recently? Still able to breathe normally?). Different proposition altogether and not a mass market proposition at all.
Maybe, Apple's product is "RAID for the rest of us" - just a point of view really.
<strong>
Speaking of God--
This type argument is what some people do theologically. You can't prove God does not exist, therefore He must exist.
I know, totally off topic. Sorry.
What we see will make few people happy, but I think it will be a signifficant step towards something really new. That is something that hasn't happened in quite awhile.
[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: The Pilot ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ooohh, that's unfair -
My first point is that the people who say the G5 is cancelled or otherwise in Apple's roadmap don't have any solid proof to back that up, anymore than I have the proof to say that it exists and is currently in alpha testing somewhere ready to be released at SF 03.
My second point calls the law of averages into play: the odds are that sentient life exists somewhere else in the universe other than this ball of rock. Analogously, the odds and market forces would tend to suggest that Apple should have something up its corporate sleeve to replace G4 at the high-end, even if that isn't an AIM processor at all. I'm not calling on a theological argument in any way, other than my faith that Apple is still more than capable of surprising me when I least expect it
Of course, that argument leads to me expecting nothing at all so I'm always pleasantly surprised which is pretty much all I want from life really.
<strong>Speaking of God--
This type argument is what some people do theologically. You can't prove God does not exist, therefore He must exist.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Heh, nice try but there is no God1, God2, God3, or (the current model) God4. If there were then the issue of whether there would be a God5 would be considerably different than whether there is a God. Furthermore, we, the human race, cannot build a God (heh, well maybe that's debatable