"I think it's coming. Apple is going to come! One giant climax to change the face of computing. The Powermac G5 is going to eat Pentium 4s for breakfast, AMD Clawhammers for lunch....and for dinner, it's going to go hungry because there's nothing left for it to eat!! It's going to be the BEAST of all CPUs, the one that even Apple has trouble cooling."
I hope so... I've been waiting a few years now for Apple to actually DO something exciting with the guts of their machines. It's the one area where they are guilty of neglect.
strange 14 stage pipeline in the power 4 , the same number discribed in some previous rumors about the G5. It appears that the people who create the rumors have copied these specifications on the power 4, or the people already knews that the G5 will be based upon the power 4 core.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I heard this from a friend at a bar while drinking some brews, but he said 95% of all rumors are made up!
<strong>The new tower design has some mondo cooling capability. That tower isn't designed to cool a G4....it's designed to cool a POWER 5! Seriously, what G4 puts out the sort of heat that would need a case with that sort of cooling capacity?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mondo Cooling? Why, because it has 4 holes drilled in the case? A purported 7 lb. heat sink, how much does the dual gig heat sink weigh?
<strong>Mondo Cooling? Why, because it has 4 holes drilled in the case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No - because the metal interior has been mega-perforated, an obvious first step if one wants extreme ventilation.
Or did you not notice the resemblance between the case interior and a sieve? Maximum airflow!
Whether we see the recently-leaked case or no, Dawg is absolutely right: it is AT LEAST an experiment in extreme - even radical - ventilation; my guess (worst-case) is that this is (the fruit of) an effort to apply Cube-style cooling tech to a non-Cube form factor.
May I remind you that the altivec has 32 128b registers, not 1?
[Added:] The altivec can do operations on all its' registers at once, that is the point with it and what makes it differ from the ordinary register bank. It is a SIMD unit, "single instruction multiple data".
Or do you mean that the new cpus will be 32 times as fast (not calculating with the possible gain of doing something else while running the altivec unit)?
Saying that the altivec is a work around is just plain false. It is as saying as an floating point unit is a work around. They speed up certain kinds of programs by utilizing silicon for certain operations.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to mention that the AltiVec unit has a whole bunch of operations which the integer unit simply doesn't have, and that would have to be emulated by a sequence of instructions per data element (not just one). Add with saturate, shifting 128 bit values, etc.
<strong>I think it's coming. Apple is going to come! One giant climax to change the face of computing. The Powermac G5 is going to eat Pentium 4s for breakfast, AMD Clawhammers for lunch....and for dinner, it's going to go hungry because there's nothing left for it to eat!! It's going to be the BEAST of all CPUs, the one that even Apple has trouble cooling.
Anyone got a better explanation for all that insane cooling capacity of the new towers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think its completely impossible, but I'm also not expecting it. We don't know that the prototype machine pictured will reach production in the near future. We don't know that it isn't a significantly overclocked advanced G4 with much higher heat output than previous G4s. We don't even know that its not just a prototype that has over-inflated cooling capacity just as a precaution because they hadn't yet worked out the real cooling requirements.
I wouldn't go to town expecting to come home with a G5 at any point this year... but I also wouldn't put any money down on the G5 not showing up this year. We just don't know for sure.
Whether we see the recently-leaked case or no, Dawg is absolutely right: it is AT LEAST an experiment in extreme - even radical - ventilation; my guess (worst-case) is that this is (the fruit of) an effort to apply Cube-style cooling tech to a non-Cube form factor.
[[[The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...]]]
I'm not so sure.... Hop on over to distributed.net and check out the results of the Power4 vs the dual G4's. You might be surprised. Emulation is not an option IMHO. If Moto. and Apple spring a new 64-bit chip on us it will be able to run all 32-bit apps *natively*. And in case we need a refresher about why the industry is slowly moving to 64-bit, I cut a piece out of a previous post that talks precisely about such a move and pasted it here (works great for quick replies ;-)
I'm sure many of you remember it, but for those who haven't seen it....
[[[In many cases migrating to 64-bit could actually be *slower*. Why? It's fairly simple if you take the time to look at it and understand what's really going on. It isn't so obvious to people who have fallen for the "number's game" that Intel (with processors) and Micro$oft (with version numbers) have mastered in their Marketing campaigns. Here is where all the assumptions (by less informed people) started to arise:
During the transition from 16 to 32 bits applications and systems *did* gain speed. This was because many of the 16 bit machines often had to work with 32 bit numbers. A range from 0 to 65535 was simply not enough for common data. Therefore, in that case there is a *significant* difference between processing two 16 bit chunks or a single 32 bit chunk. However, here is the kicker (and something many people don't realize)... There are very few common applications that really need more than 32 bit wide data, or more than 32 bits of address space. Period. So in these cases, moving an app to 64-bit code would be a huge waste of time with little return and in many cases, it would even hurt performance. What this means is that there are *very few* kludges currently at work which process several chunks of 32 bit data. This, in turn, means that going to 64 bit will only speed up *those* very few kludges, while all pointer variables everywhere will consume double as much memory! In Apples case, having a single 64-bit CPU solution that can execute 32-bit code natively is a much smarter approach since it will give the developers of the *common* apps ample time to migrate their 32-bit apps to 64-bit. There isn't going to be a performance difference after migrating those apps to 64-bit anyway. So why the push toward 64-bit? We'll look at why Apple is moving to 64-bit. It probably isn't entirely for the reasons you might expect. More on that later...
As for the developers who cold use the extra horsepower. Guess what? The 64-bit CPU that is running 32-bit code natively is right there, just as happy to run 64-bit code. This means that developers will have vastly more flexibility when coding their apps. The key areas of the big "number-cruncher" apps can be moved to 64-bit, where 64-bit addressing would be an enormous boost. Here is how a trusted friend and PPC/AltiVec programmer explains it:
He expanded on this comment taken from a Darwin development board:
<snip> PPC uses a 16 bit offset from a register to determine the load/store address. The instructions don't change, nor do their operands when you go from 32 to 64 bit. Only the data in the registers differs, which would be controlled by whether you loaded a pointer using a load word or load double word. .... cont. <end snip>
Reply:
[[[Yes, the instruction format is identical. Yet there is a price for going to 64 bit: immediate values (constants embedded in machine instructions) are 16 bits wide. Filling a 32 bit register takes two instructions; filling a 64 bit register with an arbitrary bit pattern requires five instructions (synthesize two 32 bit values in four instructions, then combine them with a fifth).]]] - (Anonymous source)
By now you should understand why going from 32-bit to 64-bit doesn't automatically translate into more performance. Likewise, I'm sure you will see the added flexibility and advantages developers will have when coding for a a 64-bit processor that can run 32-bit code natively as well as true 64-bit code. And do keep in mind that OSX-64 will likely be able to run 32-bit apps natively as well. This is vastly different that Intel's approach in ITANIC which relies on emulation and M$'s approach with Win-64 doesn't seem to be any better. Anyway, 64 bit addressing won't help those few apps directly unless you've got gobs of RAM. Possibly 2Gig or greater. Now, The real reason for Apple moving to 64-bit...
Hmmm.. It sort of goes along this line of reasoning: In the very near future there will be desktops with more than 4Gig of RAM, so we will need to address that. That is to say going to 64 bits today is more of a forward-looking move. There are a few applications in existence that really benefit from a 64 bit machine, but those are server-type, "big iron" stuff. For example, The AltaVista search engine used to run its database on an Alpha machine with 16 gigs of RAM. This basically allowed it to service most of the requests without ever going to disk.
However, the sheer size of the problems and datasets being processed keeps increasing steadily. Some people claim that "typical" applications occupy 1.0 to 1.5 more address bits per year. If you just look at the 'default' amount of memory in simple, entry-level PCs, you can draw similar conclusions; Just do the math. Current off-the-shelf offerings range from 128MB to 512MB. This means at the high end, only three doublings are left before we reach the 4GB limit of 32 bit machines. Therefore, more addressing is needed. 64-bit will provide that.
On the desktop, video processing could end up being *the* application that drives the transition to 64 bit, not because it would make a huge difference in speed, but because it is much more convenient to handle files above 4GB on a 64 bit machine. ]]]
I Hope people have a slightly better understanding of what moving to 64-bit means.
Now, on the issue of the Power4... That chip is a 120-125 watt chip! The only hope is that IBM somehow develops a Power5 with significantly less power requirements. And the more chips you add the hotter things will become... So I really don't think we'll see a Power4 in a desktop Mac anytime soon. And since the Power5, 6, and 7 are a ways off..You can see what I mean.
The 7-pound heat-sink...
It is possible that Apple utilizes the ENTIRE CASE as such a heatsink. surely an empty husk of a case would be roughly 7 lb. if it were made from aluminum. The idea with a heatsink is surface area. Just like a car radiator and baseboard heating in homes. Actually I'd kinda like the idea of the entire case becoming the means by which the computer is cooled. If they can maximize airflow across all the surfaces of the case, it could work... The idea of a 7-pound block of aluminum sitting somewhere inside the case is preposterous! the volume of the heatsink alone would be enormous. Just something to think about.
<strong>We just don't know for sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for enlightening us on that fact!
However, I feel that with all of the high-end apps Apple has purchased recently, something BIG is in the mix. By big, I am thinking a new 64-bit chip. Jagwire uses GCC 3.1 and supports 64-bit executables, after all. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that Jobs announces Jagwire is 64-bit and, oh, by the way, so is the new PowerMac.
<strong>It is possible that Apple utilizes the ENTIRE CASE as such a heatsink.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Is the skin on my hand going to burn off when I touch the case!?
I think moving to 64-bit is a necessity! True, some 32-bit apps will trip on their dicks and be slower, but who cares! Seriously. The rest of the world is going 64-bit soon and does Apple really want to be stuck with 32-bit G4+++++'s that can only achieve 1.x GHz? Hell no. I think Jobs finally has gotten the idea that the PowerMacs of the past were the FASTEST machines on Earth. Remember when they achieved 300MHz? They were the first to do it. And these machines screamed over Wintels. I think it's time to get back on top, or to quote JYD above, climax in the face, or something like that
However, I feel that with all of the high-end apps Apple has purchased recently, something BIG is in the mix. By big, I am thinking a new 64-bit chip. Jagwire uses GCC 3.1 and supports 64-bit executables, after all. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that Jobs announces Jagwire is 64-bit and, oh, by the way, so is the new PowerMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like to keep people aware that these forums are pure speculation -- it seems like they forget sometimes and get awfully caught up in designing awesome theoretical Macs and really low prices which are going to ship in a week. Best to stay grounded.
I agree that there is a 64-bit Mac on the horizon, but I'm doubtful it'll show in '02 or that Jaguar includes 64-bit support. They've been busying making Jaguar fast, and adding full 64-bit support at the same time would detract from that. Not impossible, just improbable. Sure hope I'm wrong though.
<strong>"how much does the dual gig heat sink weigh?"
Perhaps you can tell us?
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
The weight of a heat sink is not what controls it's cooling efficiency, it's the surface area of the heat sink that controls its themodynamics. 7 lbs ain't gonna help
......We don't even know that its not just a prototype that has over-inflated cooling capacity just as a precaution because they hadn't yet worked out the real cooling requirements.....
The case is more then likely real. 1.4ghz tops if Mot can deliver. But next year is when X transition will be complate and Appke will have "more options".
So, let the cowards jump ship this year because of speed issues, they'll be doggy paddling to come back next year because Apple won't be relying on just one mobo from one company. Hey, I like options too
I think moving to 64-bit is a necessity! True, some 32-bit apps will trip on their dicks and be slower, but who cares! Seriously. The rest of the world is going 64-bit soon and does Apple really want to be stuck with 32-bit G4+++++'s that can only achieve 1.x GHz? </strong><hr></blockquote>
As has been noted here before:
1. 32 bit apps won't be slower on a 64 bit ppc - there is just a bit that tells the processor how to handle the very few and simple cases it has to handle differently (Think Different? :-).
2. There are just a very few cases where a program would gain speed by being remade into a 64 bit program using more 64 bit data types. Most programs would just be slower, a computer that has to shuffle 64 bits where only 32 are needed will waste more resources.
I think the main reason to go 64 bit is to be able to have larger than 4G virtual address space (please correct me if I am wrong).
If apple is going to "continue to innovate and invest..." (Jobs) then what's to say that Apple won't buy MOT's semiconductor linceses (they have an option at the end of 2002) and put a vector engine on a stripped-down POWER 4/5? AND then IBM can make all speeds in the G4 line, making them a complete solution for Apple.
Comments
<strong>
Anyone got a better explanation for all that insane cooling capacity of the new towers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
UH, it looks good?
Nah, I really hope you are right JD, it would definatly want to be a ncei change.
I hope so...
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
strange 14 stage pipeline in the power 4 , the same number discribed in some previous rumors about the G5. It appears that the people who create the rumors have copied these specifications on the power 4, or the people already knews that the G5 will be based upon the power 4 core.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I heard this from a friend at a bar while drinking some brews, but he said 95% of all rumors are made up!
<strong>The new tower design has some mondo cooling capability. That tower isn't designed to cool a G4....it's designed to cool a POWER 5! Seriously, what G4 puts out the sort of heat that would need a case with that sort of cooling capacity?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mondo Cooling? Why, because it has 4 holes drilled in the case? A purported 7 lb. heat sink, how much does the dual gig heat sink weigh?
Perhaps you can tell us?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Mondo Cooling? Why, because it has 4 holes drilled in the case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No - because the metal interior has been mega-perforated, an obvious first step if one wants extreme ventilation.
Or did you not notice the resemblance between the case interior and a sieve? Maximum airflow!
Whether we see the recently-leaked case or no, Dawg is absolutely right: it is AT LEAST an experiment in extreme - even radical - ventilation; my guess (worst-case) is that this is (the fruit of) an effort to apply Cube-style cooling tech to a non-Cube form factor.
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Capt. Obvious ]</p>
<strong>
May I remind you that the altivec has 32 128b registers, not 1?
[Added:] The altivec can do operations on all its' registers at once, that is the point with it and what makes it differ from the ordinary register bank. It is a SIMD unit, "single instruction multiple data".
Or do you mean that the new cpus will be 32 times as fast (not calculating with the possible gain of doing something else while running the altivec unit)?
Saying that the altivec is a work around is just plain false. It is as saying as an floating point unit is a work around. They speed up certain kinds of programs by utilizing silicon for certain operations.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not to mention that the AltiVec unit has a whole bunch of operations which the integer unit simply doesn't have, and that would have to be emulated by a sequence of instructions per data element (not just one). Add with saturate, shifting 128 bit values, etc.
<strong>I think it's coming. Apple is going to come! One giant climax to change the face of computing. The Powermac G5 is going to eat Pentium 4s for breakfast, AMD Clawhammers for lunch....and for dinner, it's going to go hungry because there's nothing left for it to eat!! It's going to be the BEAST of all CPUs, the one that even Apple has trouble cooling.
Anyone got a better explanation for all that insane cooling capacity of the new towers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think its completely impossible, but I'm also not expecting it. We don't know that the prototype machine pictured will reach production in the near future. We don't know that it isn't a significantly overclocked advanced G4 with much higher heat output than previous G4s. We don't even know that its not just a prototype that has over-inflated cooling capacity just as a precaution because they hadn't yet worked out the real cooling requirements.
I wouldn't go to town expecting to come home with a G5 at any point this year... but I also wouldn't put any money down on the G5 not showing up this year. We just don't know for sure.
<strong>
Whether we see the recently-leaked case or no, Dawg is absolutely right: it is AT LEAST an experiment in extreme - even radical - ventilation; my guess (worst-case) is that this is (the fruit of) an effort to apply Cube-style cooling tech to a non-Cube form factor.
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Capt. Obvious ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
... knowest ye not of the fan? It was indeed nobler by it's exclusion in previous cube's mortal coil.
But soft!
Whither the place in thy purest convection's philosophy of the super-sized mo-fo in this one?
Nay ... the case, in form and thought, is not "worst", nor holds it dreams of convection pure.
The chip is the thing, from which wind-blown forms spring.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: OverToasty ]</p>
[[[The new processor could emulate altivec with 2 interger units...]]]
I'm not so sure.... Hop on over to distributed.net and check out the results of the Power4 vs the dual G4's. You might be surprised. Emulation is not an option IMHO. If Moto. and Apple spring a new 64-bit chip on us it will be able to run all 32-bit apps *natively*. And in case we need a refresher about why the industry is slowly moving to 64-bit, I cut a piece out of a previous post that talks precisely about such a move and pasted it here (works great for quick replies ;-)
I'm sure many of you remember it, but for those who haven't seen it....
[[[In many cases migrating to 64-bit could actually be *slower*. Why? It's fairly simple if you take the time to look at it and understand what's really going on. It isn't so obvious to people who have fallen for the "number's game" that Intel (with processors) and Micro$oft (with version numbers) have mastered in their Marketing campaigns. Here is where all the assumptions (by less informed people) started to arise:
During the transition from 16 to 32 bits applications and systems *did* gain speed. This was because many of the 16 bit machines often had to work with 32 bit numbers. A range from 0 to 65535 was simply not enough for common data. Therefore, in that case there is a *significant* difference between processing two 16 bit chunks or a single 32 bit chunk. However, here is the kicker (and something many people don't realize)... There are very few common applications that really need more than 32 bit wide data, or more than 32 bits of address space. Period. So in these cases, moving an app to 64-bit code would be a huge waste of time with little return and in many cases, it would even hurt performance. What this means is that there are *very few* kludges currently at work which process several chunks of 32 bit data. This, in turn, means that going to 64 bit will only speed up *those* very few kludges, while all pointer variables everywhere will consume double as much memory! In Apples case, having a single 64-bit CPU solution that can execute 32-bit code natively is a much smarter approach since it will give the developers of the *common* apps ample time to migrate their 32-bit apps to 64-bit. There isn't going to be a performance difference after migrating those apps to 64-bit anyway. So why the push toward 64-bit? We'll look at why Apple is moving to 64-bit. It probably isn't entirely for the reasons you might expect. More on that later...
As for the developers who cold use the extra horsepower. Guess what? The 64-bit CPU that is running 32-bit code natively is right there, just as happy to run 64-bit code. This means that developers will have vastly more flexibility when coding their apps. The key areas of the big "number-cruncher" apps can be moved to 64-bit, where 64-bit addressing would be an enormous boost. Here is how a trusted friend and PPC/AltiVec programmer explains it:
He expanded on this comment taken from a Darwin development board:
<snip> PPC uses a 16 bit offset from a register to determine the load/store address. The instructions don't change, nor do their operands when you go from 32 to 64 bit. Only the data in the registers differs, which would be controlled by whether you loaded a pointer using a load word or load double word. .... cont. <end snip>
Reply:
[[[Yes, the instruction format is identical. Yet there is a price for going to 64 bit: immediate values (constants embedded in machine instructions) are 16 bits wide. Filling a 32 bit register takes two instructions; filling a 64 bit register with an arbitrary bit pattern requires five instructions (synthesize two 32 bit values in four instructions, then combine them with a fifth).]]] - (Anonymous source)
By now you should understand why going from 32-bit to 64-bit doesn't automatically translate into more performance. Likewise, I'm sure you will see the added flexibility and advantages developers will have when coding for a a 64-bit processor that can run 32-bit code natively as well as true 64-bit code. And do keep in mind that OSX-64 will likely be able to run 32-bit apps natively as well. This is vastly different that Intel's approach in ITANIC which relies on emulation and M$'s approach with Win-64 doesn't seem to be any better. Anyway, 64 bit addressing won't help those few apps directly unless you've got gobs of RAM. Possibly 2Gig or greater. Now, The real reason for Apple moving to 64-bit...
Hmmm.. It sort of goes along this line of reasoning: In the very near future there will be desktops with more than 4Gig of RAM, so we will need to address that. That is to say going to 64 bits today is more of a forward-looking move. There are a few applications in existence that really benefit from a 64 bit machine, but those are server-type, "big iron" stuff. For example, The AltaVista search engine used to run its database on an Alpha machine with 16 gigs of RAM. This basically allowed it to service most of the requests without ever going to disk.
However, the sheer size of the problems and datasets being processed keeps increasing steadily. Some people claim that "typical" applications occupy 1.0 to 1.5 more address bits per year. If you just look at the 'default' amount of memory in simple, entry-level PCs, you can draw similar conclusions; Just do the math. Current off-the-shelf offerings range from 128MB to 512MB. This means at the high end, only three doublings are left before we reach the 4GB limit of 32 bit machines. Therefore, more addressing is needed. 64-bit will provide that.
On the desktop, video processing could end up being *the* application that drives the transition to 64 bit, not because it would make a huge difference in speed, but because it is much more convenient to handle files above 4GB on a 64 bit machine. ]]]
I Hope people have a slightly better understanding of what moving to 64-bit means.
Now, on the issue of the Power4... That chip is a 120-125 watt chip! The only hope is that IBM somehow develops a Power5 with significantly less power requirements. And the more chips you add the hotter things will become... So I really don't think we'll see a Power4 in a desktop Mac anytime soon. And since the Power5, 6, and 7 are a ways off..You can see what I mean.
The 7-pound heat-sink...
It is possible that Apple utilizes the ENTIRE CASE as such a heatsink. surely an empty husk of a case would be roughly 7 lb. if it were made from aluminum. The idea with a heatsink is surface area. Just like a car radiator and baseboard heating in homes. Actually I'd kinda like the idea of the entire case becoming the means by which the computer is cooled. If they can maximize airflow across all the surfaces of the case, it could work... The idea of a 7-pound block of aluminum sitting somewhere inside the case is preposterous! the volume of the heatsink alone would be enormous. Just something to think about.
--
Ed M.
<strong>We just don't know for sure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for enlightening us on that fact!
However, I feel that with all of the high-end apps Apple has purchased recently, something BIG is in the mix. By big, I am thinking a new 64-bit chip. Jagwire uses GCC 3.1 and supports 64-bit executables, after all. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that Jobs announces Jagwire is 64-bit and, oh, by the way, so is the new PowerMac.
<strong>It is possible that Apple utilizes the ENTIRE CASE as such a heatsink.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? Is the skin on my hand going to burn off when I touch the case!?
I think moving to 64-bit is a necessity! True, some 32-bit apps will trip on their dicks and be slower, but who cares! Seriously. The rest of the world is going 64-bit soon and does Apple really want to be stuck with 32-bit G4+++++'s that can only achieve 1.x GHz? Hell no. I think Jobs finally has gotten the idea that the PowerMacs of the past were the FASTEST machines on Earth. Remember when they achieved 300MHz? They were the first to do it. And these machines screamed over Wintels. I think it's time to get back on top, or to quote JYD above, climax in the face, or something like that
<strong>
Thanks for enlightening us on that fact!
However, I feel that with all of the high-end apps Apple has purchased recently, something BIG is in the mix. By big, I am thinking a new 64-bit chip. Jagwire uses GCC 3.1 and supports 64-bit executables, after all. Wouldn't surprise me in the least that Jobs announces Jagwire is 64-bit and, oh, by the way, so is the new PowerMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like to keep people aware that these forums are pure speculation -- it seems like they forget sometimes and get awfully caught up in designing awesome theoretical Macs and really low prices which are going to ship in a week. Best to stay grounded.
I agree that there is a 64-bit Mac on the horizon, but I'm doubtful it'll show in '02 or that Jaguar includes 64-bit support. They've been busying making Jaguar fast, and adding full 64-bit support at the same time would detract from that. Not impossible, just improbable. Sure hope I'm wrong though.
<strong>"how much does the dual gig heat sink weigh?"
Perhaps you can tell us?
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
The weight of a heat sink is not what controls it's cooling efficiency, it's the surface area of the heat sink that controls its themodynamics. 7 lbs ain't gonna help
<strong>
......We don't even know that its not just a prototype that has over-inflated cooling capacity just as a precaution because they hadn't yet worked out the real cooling requirements.....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's would be a reasonable assumption .
<strong>
... knowest ye not of the fan? It was indeed nobler by it's exclusion in previous cube's mortal coil.
But soft!
Whither the place in thy purest convection's philosophy of the super-sized mo-fo in this one?
Nay ... the case, in form and thought, is not "worst", nor holds it dreams of convection pure.
The chip is the thing, from which wind-blown forms spring.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: OverToasty ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
holy smoke!
:eek:
<strong>
... knowest ye not of the fan? It was indeed nobler by it's exclusion in previous cube's mortal coil.
But soft!
Whither the place in thy purest convection's philosophy of the super-sized mo-fo in this one?
Nay ... the case, in form and thought, is not "worst", nor holds it dreams of convection pure.
The chip is the thing, from which wind-blown forms spring.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: OverToasty ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'll have whatever he's drinking. or should that be smoking...
So, let the cowards jump ship this year because of speed issues, they'll be doggy paddling to come back next year because Apple won't be relying on just one mobo from one company. Hey, I like options too
<strong>
I think moving to 64-bit is a necessity! True, some 32-bit apps will trip on their dicks and be slower, but who cares! Seriously. The rest of the world is going 64-bit soon and does Apple really want to be stuck with 32-bit G4+++++'s that can only achieve 1.x GHz?
As has been noted here before:
1. 32 bit apps won't be slower on a 64 bit ppc - there is just a bit that tells the processor how to handle the very few and simple cases it has to handle differently (Think Different? :-).
2. There are just a very few cases where a program would gain speed by being remade into a 64 bit program using more 64 bit data types. Most programs would just be slower, a computer that has to shuffle 64 bits where only 32 are needed will waste more resources.
I think the main reason to go 64 bit is to be able to have larger than 4G virtual address space (please correct me if I am wrong).