No, it would need to be custom-coded -- and in reality, only a very few applications would likely end up using them. We're talking about very light-weight DSPs here. However, for certain very specific applications, they'll enabled some very cool stuff to happen.
Hmmm... Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking about better memory management for more processors? I'm just guessing, but could this be a sign that the long rumored and often drooled over quad processor boxes may indeed become a reality before too much longer?
No, it was called the Channel architecture, and as far as I can recall it predates the personal computer revolution. MicroChannel was a scaled-down version for the PC which was utterly doomed when that became a commodity market. I don't know the exact details, but several of the people I work with programmed Channel architectures back in the day, and it was capable of some powerful stuff. Not just Boolean logic. A (very simple) DSP would be in line with what it could do.
<hr></blockquote>
Ah... this was from the day when memory was faster than the processor. That day is long gone now. I personally think processing architectures like we're seeing develop in the new graphics chips will be the trend for massive computations going forward. I know there are a lot of skeptics, but I suspect they haven't seen what I've been privvy to.
"A little bird told that Trinity shall return, after eating pie, more voluminous than a dolphin..."
Are we sure Trinity is the codename for the Cube? That's interesting. One poster said his information suggested the new G4 case would look something like two Cubes stacked one on top of the other. Ergo:
Cube shall return, after eating pie. . . After eating pie. . . A new Cube-like tower that grew after eating Apple Pi?
"after eating pie, more voluminous than a dolphin..."
More voluminous than a dolphin. Dolphin is the codename for the G3 processor inside of the GameCube, which features SIMD instructions. After eating pie, of great volume, greater than that of Dolphin. The G5 is the high end, very large cousin of Dolphin! It will be featured in a renewed Trinity! Ergo, the G5 is a huge, high end cousin of the Dolphin, which will make its debut in a tower derivation of the Cube. Now I feel fulfilled.
moki originally posted:<strong> [quote] I'll say it again for this coming MacWorld/NY -- I think some very cool stuff is in the works, but you aren't going to see it in a month. <hr></blockquote></strong>
I just hope Apple understands the implications of waiting to bring these cool things to the market. Perhaps the company doesn't think it has immediate competition since it's the only game in the Mac town. The PC market doesn't stand still.
moki originally posted:<strong> [quote] This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested. <hr></blockquote></strong>
Now that is very distressing. Such an episode points to poor middle management, letting a project continuously slip due to added features in such a manner. Doesn't Apple realize that low end, $750 machines have DDR already? moki, can we at least hope for a fully implementation of DDR, or is this the same crippled Xserve version?
Now that is very distressing. Such an episode points to poor middle management, letting a project continuously slip due to added features in such a manner. Doesn't Apple realize that low end, $750 machines have DDR already? moki, can we at least hope for a fully implementation of DDR, or is this the same crippled Xserve version?
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
Not to nitpick, but the Xserve does have a full DDR implementation... the problem is that the G4 doesn't. They could easily push this into the consumer level machines, I expect. They won't unless they can still differentiate the PowerMacs.
Not to nitpick, but the Xserve does have a full DDR implementation... the problem is that the G4 doesn't. They could easily push this into the consumer level machines, I expect. They won't unless they can still differentiate the PowerMacs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand the sentiment expressed here, but I don't consider the Xserve to have a full DDR implementation. In order for it to be a full implementation in my book, the processor has to be able to benefit. Since we're still stuck with that same FSB, the processor's no better off. Therefore, it's not a full DDR implementation.
And from new cable modem @ home...! (trust me, this is after a nine month drought whilst going through divorce procedings...)
I for one would LOVE to see a new Cubesque micro-tower for the new PowerMac form factor...
Dual or Quad 1.2GHz G5 CPUs (512KB L2 cache/4MB L3 cache per CPU), 400MHz FSB, 2GB PC2600 DDR SDRAM (4 @ 512MB DIMMs), and three (3) expansion slots (one AGP 8x 110Pro, two 128bit/66MHz PCI X slots)...
Three (3) UltraATA133 interfaces, one for SuperDrive2 (faster) + another device (two full-size drive bays on case), two for RAID array (four hot-swap drives on case), FireWire2, USB2, Gigabit Ethernet, digital audio optical I/O...
Hook up a pair of Cinema Displays, and away we go...!
I have a friend that works <a href="http://www.wentworthlabs.com/"; target="_blank">here</a>, and about a year ago he told me that there was "a company" that came to Wentworth wanting them to design the testing equipment for a 5GHz CPU, and that they had to turn them down because they(and the majority of the other companies in that industry) didn't have the capability to test chips at that high of a frequency.
Now, this guy knows that I'm *really* into Macs/Apple, and the way he said this(you know, with meaning), made me think it had something do Apple in some way.
Now, I told myself that this would be practically impossible, considering at this time Apple's top clock speed was <1GHz, but I thought I'd keep an eye out for a chip company that was prepping the release of such a chip in the next year or so.
No company is as secretive as Apple(and their partners), and I certainly haven't heard anything about such a chip from AMD/Intel... So, has anybody else heard something about such a chip?
[edit]: just cause I knew you'd ask, I did ask him to give me more information, but he cited NDA restrictions]
BTW, he also talked alot about the shortcomings of Intels long-term viability against AMD in terms of chip design/speed, and with the prototype opteron/hammer benchmarks, it looks like he might have been right about that...
I found an interesting link buried in some directories on apple's ftp server. This is instructions for applying a heat sink to the emac. This is odd doncha think? I will watch for some more stuff like this.
Want to know what I think? I think this is preemptively posting directions for dealing with a new processor line. Just a though but I found this odd little pdf which just popped up out of the blue to be kinda interesting. Thought I'd share it with you.
I understand the sentiment expressed here, but I don't consider the Xserve to have a full DDR implementation. In order for it to be a full implementation in my book, the processor has to be able to benefit. Since we're still stuck with that same FSB, the processor's no better off. Therefore, it's not a full DDR implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the processor receives nobenefit from having more bandwidth on the other side of the memory controller to share with DMA devices?
<strong>Hey! Wake up! Interesting find here.... I found an interesting link buried in some directories on apple's ftp server. This is instructions for applying a heat sink to the emac. This is odd doncha think? I will watch for some more stuff like this.
Want to know what I think? I think this is preemptively posting directions for dealing with a new processor line. Just a though but I found this odd little pdf which just popped up out of the blue to be kinda interesting. Thought I'd share it with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's nothing odd about this whatsoever, it's simply instructions for re-placing the eMac's heatsink, which, as the first page of the document states "whenever the heatsink is removed, the bottom side of the heatsink and the top of the microprocessor must be cleaned and thermal past must be applied."
It's simply a support document for anyone who might be taking appart an eMac for servicing, the heatsink would routinely be removed by a service tech checking out a malfunctioning eMac, and this is nothing more than a friendly reminder to replace the thermal paste. You'll find that there's also an article like this for the current iMac, which has a two-part heatsink that comes appart when dissassembled for service.
Here's a tip, if you see hoof prints, don't start looking for zebras. The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.
Regarding Pi. If I recall correctly "Pi" meant Pipeline Instructions. Apple PI was some sort of custom pipeline instructions that Apple wanted in the G5 chip. Again, I don't really understand this stuff 'cuz I'm not in the chip business, but that's what I remember.
<strong>Now that is very distressing. Such an episode points to poor middle management, letting a project continuously slip due to added features in such a manner. Doesn't Apple realize that low end, $750 machines have DDR already?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh huh. And who exactly is making money off of said $750 machines? Nobody really. The market is in a funk. So Apple ships a 2 GHz G5 with a 533MHz FSB. In this market, who's buying? Sure, you'll be happy, but Apple really won't be any better off.
Apple needs something more than MHz here and there. Even when the MHz gap was much smaller and Apple was kicking ass in Photoshop bake-offs, things really weren't any better. We really need something more distinctive than an arbitrary claim that the box is faster.
Uh huh. And who exactly is making money off of said $750 machines? Nobody really. The market is in a funk. So Apple ships a 2 GHz G5 with a 533MHz FSB. In this market, who's buying? Sure, you'll be happy, but Apple really won't be any better off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> First off, perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I should elaborate on my statement. The point I was making about $750 DDR PCs is not that Apple should go that route. The fact is, though, the G4s need true DDR; DDR isn't so much more expensive that the margins on the G4 would be killed if DDR were introduced.
It didn't make the price of the Xserve skyrocket to implement DDR, even though the FSB kills the speed gain. Especially given the fact moki stated the DDR board could have been released long ago, please don't try to assert that Apple can't do it. Mismanagement has apparently screwed things up in this case.
"So Apple ships a 2 GHz G5 with a 533MHz FSB. In this market, who's buying? Sure, you'll be happy, but Apple really won't be any better off." Of course I would be happy. Most every other participant here would be as well. And the professional industries would be quite happy.
Great performance isn't a luxury in the computer space, especially with Intel making the gains it has made in the last couple of years. If the SPEC numbers I've seen posted here are to be believed, then the P4 is catching up to the Power4, which is currently the fastest processor money can buy. If that's the case, then we all must worry, since our G4 will be blown out of the water if the new P4s are posting those kinds of numbers. (It's disheartening to notice that no one bothers to even post SPEC numbers for the G4 anymore.)
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>
Apple needs something more than MHz here and there. Even when the MHz gap was much smaller and Apple was kicking ass in Photoshop bake-offs, things really weren't any better. We really need something more distinctive than an arbitrary claim that the box is faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, the MHz gap was much smaller, and true, things weren't all that much better. But that doesn't mean compounding the problem by falling further and further behind in processor technology is going to help us at all. A person who has health but no job isn't all that well off. Yet, if that person - who still has no job - then gets the flu, is that person doing any better? Obviously not. Under-performing processors, along with such a huge MHz gap, is poised to give Apple the flu. It's not a terminal case, yet, but individuals have died from the flu before. (Note: I'm not trying to state Apple will die - I am simply pointing out the serious nature of the current situation.)
True, the MHz gap was much smaller, and true, things weren't all that much better. But that doesn't mean compounding the problem by falling further and further behind in processor technology is going to help us at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But in a declining market, any marketable gains that Apple shows now are lost. Apple touts DDR RAM at MWNY, but if nobody is buying, the marketing punch is lost and DDR alone isn't enough to yank the market up for Apple.
What Apple needs to do is to *not* show incremental improvements now (they work better in a growing market when people will buy simply because they have budget), but rather to save them up and launch them all together when they can demonstrate an overall superior product.
Consider the creeping CPU speeds at Intel and AMD. How many people can articulate the benefits of 2.2 GHz over 1.6GHz? or 533MHz FSB vs. 333MHz? Oh, it's faster, sure, but faster enough to argue for funds to buy? How much faster? How much will we save with faster hardware? Those are the kinds of questions that come out when the money isn't there.
Apple appears to be positioning itself for specific markets. Bioinformatics folks can turn BLAST running 4x faster into a budget line-item. The film industry looks like they'll soon get a demonstration of the same from Apple. By showing dramatic and specific benefits of new hardware/software, Apple makes a better case - even if they're no better off than had they done incremental improvements. The reason is that the marketing isn't there in the latter case.
A is 33% faster than B which is 33% faster than C which is 33% faster than D which is 33% faster than E. It doesn't sell as well in this market as if you said A is 400% faster than E. That requires that B-D never exist.
Keep in mind that Apple cannot grow market share by appeasing us. It does need to do that, but their user base is loyal and willing to be abused. They grow by converting, and people don't convert for marginal reasons.
Apple's best bet - get Mac OS X as solid as any unix out there, and as servicable as any MS OS out there, and at the same time drop the hammer on killer hardware. Introduce the new Apple, with a full product line, native 3rd party apps, MCCA support, clear performance and reliability benefits. At that point, up-front cost won't matter that much, but the message needs to be very clear on each of those points.
From my view, Apple shouldn't sweat the incremental improvements. They should focus on demonstrating a substantial benefit to those outside of the current user base.
"after eating pie, more voluminous than a dolphin..."
More voluminous than a dolphin. Dolphin is the codename for the G3 processor inside of the GameCube, which features SIMD instructions. After eating pie, of great volume, greater than that of Dolphin. </strong><hr></blockquote>
PI = processing instructions?
Apple PI = Altivec?
My interpretation: the G3 gets Altivec
In some other thread two people mentioned that Apple refused Motorola's G5 on that PI thing.
Both combined could mean that IBM's G3 gets more than the current Altivec. Either an enhanced Altivec or Altivec and other new instructions.
But this chip sound like an interim solution till a POWER-derived chip is ready.
Comments
<strong>
No, it would need to be custom-coded -- and in reality, only a very few applications would likely end up using them. We're talking about very light-weight DSPs here. However, for certain very specific applications, they'll enabled some very cool stuff to happen.
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm... Is it just me, or is anyone else thinking about better memory management for more processors? I'm just guessing, but could this be a sign that the long rumored and often drooled over quad processor boxes may indeed become a reality before too much longer?
Nahh, I didn't think so either.
No, it was called the Channel architecture, and as far as I can recall it predates the personal computer revolution. MicroChannel was a scaled-down version for the PC which was utterly doomed when that became a commodity market. I don't know the exact details, but several of the people I work with programmed Channel architectures back in the day, and it was capable of some powerful stuff. Not just Boolean logic. A (very simple) DSP would be in line with what it could do.
<hr></blockquote>
Ah... this was from the day when memory was faster than the processor. That day is long gone now.
Are we sure Trinity is the codename for the Cube? That's interesting. One poster said his information suggested the new G4 case would look something like two Cubes stacked one on top of the other. Ergo:
Cube shall return, after eating pie. . . After eating pie. . . A new Cube-like tower that grew after eating Apple Pi?
"after eating pie, more voluminous than a dolphin..."
More voluminous than a dolphin. Dolphin is the codename for the G3 processor inside of the GameCube, which features SIMD instructions. After eating pie, of great volume, greater than that of Dolphin. The G5 is the high end, very large cousin of Dolphin! It will be featured in a renewed Trinity! Ergo, the G5 is a huge, high end cousin of the Dolphin, which will make its debut in a tower derivation of the Cube. Now I feel fulfilled.
moki originally posted:<strong> [quote] I'll say it again for this coming MacWorld/NY -- I think some very cool stuff is in the works, but you aren't going to see it in a month. <hr></blockquote></strong>
I just hope Apple understands the implications of waiting to bring these cool things to the market. Perhaps the company doesn't think it has immediate competition since it's the only game in the Mac town. The PC market doesn't stand still.
moki originally posted:<strong> [quote] This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested. <hr></blockquote></strong>
Now that is very distressing. Such an episode points to poor middle management, letting a project continuously slip due to added features in such a manner. Doesn't Apple realize that low end, $750 machines have DDR already? moki, can we at least hope for a fully implementation of DDR, or is this the same crippled Xserve version?
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
[QB]
Now that is very distressing. Such an episode points to poor middle management, letting a project continuously slip due to added features in such a manner. Doesn't Apple realize that low end, $750 machines have DDR already? moki, can we at least hope for a fully implementation of DDR, or is this the same crippled Xserve version?
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
Not to nitpick, but the Xserve does have a full DDR implementation... the problem is that the G4 doesn't. They could easily push this into the consumer level machines, I expect. They won't unless they can still differentiate the PowerMacs.
<strong>
Not to nitpick, but the Xserve does have a full DDR implementation... the problem is that the G4 doesn't. They could easily push this into the consumer level machines, I expect. They won't unless they can still differentiate the PowerMacs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand the sentiment expressed here, but I don't consider the Xserve to have a full DDR implementation. In order for it to be a full implementation in my book, the processor has to be able to benefit. Since we're still stuck with that same FSB, the processor's no better off. Therefore, it's not a full DDR implementation.
And from new cable modem @ home...! (trust me, this is after a nine month drought whilst going through divorce procedings...)
I for one would LOVE to see a new Cubesque micro-tower for the new PowerMac form factor...
Dual or Quad 1.2GHz G5 CPUs (512KB L2 cache/4MB L3 cache per CPU), 400MHz FSB, 2GB PC2600 DDR SDRAM (4 @ 512MB DIMMs), and three (3) expansion slots (one AGP 8x 110Pro, two 128bit/66MHz PCI X slots)...
Three (3) UltraATA133 interfaces, one for SuperDrive2 (faster) + another device (two full-size drive bays on case), two for RAID array (four hot-swap drives on case), FireWire2, USB2, Gigabit Ethernet, digital audio optical I/O...
Hook up a pair of Cinema Displays, and away we go...!
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: MacRonin ]</p>
Now, this guy knows that I'm *really* into Macs/Apple, and the way he said this(you know, with meaning), made me think it had something do Apple in some way.
Now, I told myself that this would be practically impossible, considering at this time Apple's top clock speed was <1GHz, but I thought I'd keep an eye out for a chip company that was prepping the release of such a chip in the next year or so.
No company is as secretive as Apple(and their partners), and I certainly haven't heard anything about such a chip from AMD/Intel... So, has anybody else heard something about such a chip?
[edit]: just cause I knew you'd ask, I did ask him to give me more information, but he cited NDA restrictions]
BTW, he also talked alot about the shortcomings of Intels long-term viability against AMD in terms of chip design/speed, and with the prototype opteron/hammer benchmarks, it looks like he might have been right about that...
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: Steve's Job ]</p>
<a href="ftp://ftp.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Misc/Inserts/073-0703-a.pdf"; target="_blank">ftp://ftp.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Misc/Inserts/073-0703-a.pdf</a>;
I found an interesting link buried in some directories on apple's ftp server. This is instructions for applying a heat sink to the emac. This is odd doncha think? I will watch for some more stuff like this.
Want to know what I think? I think this is preemptively posting directions for dealing with a new processor line. Just a though but I found this odd little pdf which just popped up out of the blue to be kinda interesting. Thought I'd share it with you.
<strong>
I understand the sentiment expressed here, but I don't consider the Xserve to have a full DDR implementation. In order for it to be a full implementation in my book, the processor has to be able to benefit. Since we're still stuck with that same FSB, the processor's no better off. Therefore, it's not a full DDR implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So the processor receives nobenefit from having more bandwidth on the other side of the memory controller to share with DMA devices?
<strong>Hey! Wake up! Interesting find here.... I found an interesting link buried in some directories on apple's ftp server. This is instructions for applying a heat sink to the emac. This is odd doncha think? I will watch for some more stuff like this.
Want to know what I think? I think this is preemptively posting directions for dealing with a new processor line. Just a though but I found this odd little pdf which just popped up out of the blue to be kinda interesting. Thought I'd share it with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's nothing odd about this whatsoever, it's simply instructions for re-placing the eMac's heatsink, which, as the first page of the document states "whenever the heatsink is removed, the bottom side of the heatsink and the top of the microprocessor must be cleaned and thermal past must be applied."
It's simply a support document for anyone who might be taking appart an eMac for servicing, the heatsink would routinely be removed by a service tech checking out a malfunctioning eMac, and this is nothing more than a friendly reminder to replace the thermal paste. You'll find that there's also an article like this for the current iMac, which has a two-part heatsink that comes appart when dissassembled for service.
Here's a tip, if you see hoof prints, don't start looking for zebras. The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.
ciao,
michael
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: scadboy ]</p>
<strong>
Here's a tip, if you see hoof prints, don't start looking for zebras. The simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That reminds me of the diffferent colored zebras they had for fruit stripe bubble gum. Does anyone know if they still make that?
<a href="http://www.fruitstripe.com/product/fruitstripe.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.fruitstripe.com/product/fruitstripe.asp</a>;
ciao,
michael
<strong>Yes, they do, in fact, it's apparently the #1 "Kids Gum." Whatever the hell that means.
<a href="http://www.fruitstripe.com/product/fruitstripe.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.fruitstripe.com/product/fruitstripe.asp</a>;
ciao,
michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, sometimes when you find hoofprints you do find a Zebra (and a multicolored one at that)!
<strong>Now that is very distressing. Such an episode points to poor middle management, letting a project continuously slip due to added features in such a manner. Doesn't Apple realize that low end, $750 machines have DDR already?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh huh. And who exactly is making money off of said $750 machines? Nobody really. The market is in a funk. So Apple ships a 2 GHz G5 with a 533MHz FSB. In this market, who's buying? Sure, you'll be happy, but Apple really won't be any better off.
Apple needs something more than MHz here and there. Even when the MHz gap was much smaller and Apple was kicking ass in Photoshop bake-offs, things really weren't any better. We really need something more distinctive than an arbitrary claim that the box is faster.
<strong>
Uh huh. And who exactly is making money off of said $750 machines? Nobody really. The market is in a funk. So Apple ships a 2 GHz G5 with a 533MHz FSB. In this market, who's buying? Sure, you'll be happy, but Apple really won't be any better off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> First off, perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I should elaborate on my statement. The point I was making about $750 DDR PCs is not that Apple should go that route. The fact is, though, the G4s need true DDR; DDR isn't so much more expensive that the margins on the G4 would be killed if DDR were introduced.
It didn't make the price of the Xserve skyrocket to implement DDR, even though the FSB kills the speed gain. Especially given the fact moki stated the DDR board could have been released long ago, please don't try to assert that Apple can't do it. Mismanagement has apparently screwed things up in this case.
"So Apple ships a 2 GHz G5 with a 533MHz FSB. In this market, who's buying? Sure, you'll be happy, but Apple really won't be any better off." Of course I would be happy. Most every other participant here would be as well. And the professional industries would be quite happy.
Great performance isn't a luxury in the computer space, especially with Intel making the gains it has made in the last couple of years. If the SPEC numbers I've seen posted here are to be believed, then the P4 is catching up to the Power4, which is currently the fastest processor money can buy. If that's the case, then we all must worry, since our G4 will be blown out of the water if the new P4s are posting those kinds of numbers. (It's disheartening to notice that no one bothers to even post SPEC numbers for the G4 anymore.)
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>
Apple needs something more than MHz here and there. Even when the MHz gap was much smaller and Apple was kicking ass in Photoshop bake-offs, things really weren't any better. We really need something more distinctive than an arbitrary claim that the box is faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, the MHz gap was much smaller, and true, things weren't all that much better. But that doesn't mean compounding the problem by falling further and further behind in processor technology is going to help us at all. A person who has health but no job isn't all that well off. Yet, if that person - who still has no job - then gets the flu, is that person doing any better? Obviously not. Under-performing processors, along with such a huge MHz gap, is poised to give Apple the flu. It's not a terminal case, yet, but individuals have died from the flu before. (Note: I'm not trying to state Apple will die - I am simply pointing out the serious nature of the current situation.)
[ 06-12-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
<strong>
True, the MHz gap was much smaller, and true, things weren't all that much better. But that doesn't mean compounding the problem by falling further and further behind in processor technology is going to help us at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But in a declining market, any marketable gains that Apple shows now are lost. Apple touts DDR RAM at MWNY, but if nobody is buying, the marketing punch is lost and DDR alone isn't enough to yank the market up for Apple.
What Apple needs to do is to *not* show incremental improvements now (they work better in a growing market when people will buy simply because they have budget), but rather to save them up and launch them all together when they can demonstrate an overall superior product.
Consider the creeping CPU speeds at Intel and AMD. How many people can articulate the benefits of 2.2 GHz over 1.6GHz? or 533MHz FSB vs. 333MHz? Oh, it's faster, sure, but faster enough to argue for funds to buy? How much faster? How much will we save with faster hardware? Those are the kinds of questions that come out when the money isn't there.
Apple appears to be positioning itself for specific markets. Bioinformatics folks can turn BLAST running 4x faster into a budget line-item. The film industry looks like they'll soon get a demonstration of the same from Apple. By showing dramatic and specific benefits of new hardware/software, Apple makes a better case - even if they're no better off than had they done incremental improvements. The reason is that the marketing isn't there in the latter case.
A is 33% faster than B which is 33% faster than C which is 33% faster than D which is 33% faster than E. It doesn't sell as well in this market as if you said A is 400% faster than E. That requires that B-D never exist.
Keep in mind that Apple cannot grow market share by appeasing us. It does need to do that, but their user base is loyal and willing to be abused. They grow by converting, and people don't convert for marginal reasons.
Apple's best bet - get Mac OS X as solid as any unix out there, and as servicable as any MS OS out there, and at the same time drop the hammer on killer hardware. Introduce the new Apple, with a full product line, native 3rd party apps, MCCA support, clear performance and reliability benefits. At that point, up-front cost won't matter that much, but the message needs to be very clear on each of those points.
From my view, Apple shouldn't sweat the incremental improvements. They should focus on demonstrating a substantial benefit to those outside of the current user base.
<strong>
"after eating pie, more voluminous than a dolphin..."
More voluminous than a dolphin. Dolphin is the codename for the G3 processor inside of the GameCube, which features SIMD instructions. After eating pie, of great volume, greater than that of Dolphin. </strong><hr></blockquote>
PI = processing instructions?
Apple PI = Altivec?
My interpretation: the G3 gets Altivec
In some other thread two people mentioned that Apple refused Motorola's G5 on that PI thing.
Both combined could mean that IBM's G3 gets more than the current Altivec. Either an enhanced Altivec or Altivec and other new instructions.
But this chip sound like an interim solution till a POWER-derived chip is ready.