some guys here should read more Ars Technica : they explain one important thing about the Athlon and his FP unit : these FP unit are specialized.
The FP unit of the G4 is alone, but is able to perform any operation, it's not the case of the Athlon even if the FP unit are fully pipelined (at the difference of the P4) the FP unit are specialized, they are not able to make all the operations. In certains case you can have 3 FP operation in a row, in other just one.
If you clone the second FP unit of a G4 you will have in most cases 2 FP operations per cycles. that will mean that the G4 with 2 fp unit who will be better at equal mhz than the Athlon.
PS ; for more didactic informations go to ars technica
I have heard that one machine will be available and the other two will not for at least a month or two. I have also heard from the same person but this cannot be said with a lot of confidence that there will not be a dual machine.
I have shared all I can without getting anyone in unnecessary trouble. From what I know (which may or may not happen) is G4's up to 1.4ghz are planned but possible that MOT can't deliver 1.4ghzs in quantity. New mobo with same processor, 333 DDR and new bus at 166. Scheduled release on the 13th, however having problems installing video cards and may not be ready by then. New case (possibly the one leaked has) air flow problems and vents were added. Same situation in January but with new mobo and faster G4s. This time next year IBM will take over in place of MOT with a POWER4-core scaled down desktop. Also, possibly an AMD x86 box that dual boots X and windows within a year or 2. These both are being worked on but not guarantees that the AMD box will be released for quite some time.
Most of this is available in some form or another on the net somewhere and I don't know too many specifics and wasn't told many either for obvious reasons. That's all i know and I can't ask anything. This is the first time I've gotten something juicy and just wanted to pass it along without getting flamed as I have no history of talking thru my ass </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, the story about IBM being the next chip supplier for Apple re-surfaces.
I'm seriously beginning to wonder.
Could Apple be in the process of porting OS X to the RS/6000? (Power-4 based RS/6000 workstations have been reported popping here and there)Is the RS/6000 being used (again) as a test bed for Apple?
Anyone who either works for IBM or has connections with them heard anything about a change in the AIX roadmap recently?
<Shaking Deep Mac furiously: "Speak you Fool! Show ME WHAT YOU SEE!!">
"Also, possibly an AMD x86 box that dual boots X and windows within a year or 2. These both are being worked on but not guarantees that the AMD box will be released for quite some time."
But...why a dual boot AMD box? What is the logic in selling Windows and Mac OS X?
Am I missing the obvious?
Unless the 32 bit x86 decoder on the Hammer chip is engineered...also with a PPC decoder.
You could run x86 and PPC.
But why? To see which OS you liked best?
To get Apple extra sales from x86 folks and 'defectors' from the Apple platform who need both?
ie you may give M$ a sale...but you're also giving...Apple a sale they may not otherwise have...interesting...
<strong>I have heard that one machine will be available and the other two will not for at least a month or two. I have also heard from the same person but this cannot be said with a lot of confidence that there will not be a dual machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does that suggest they don't need the dual gimmick? Will a single G4 on DDR outperform a dual considerably?
<strong>"Also, possibly an AMD x86 box that dual boots X and windows within a year or 2. These both are being worked on but not guarantees that the AMD box will be released for quite some time."
But...why a dual boot AMD box? What is the logic in selling Windows and Mac OS X?
Am I missing the obvious?
Unless the 32 bit x86 decoder on the Hammer chip is engineered...also with a PPC decoder.
You could run x86 and PPC.
But why? To see which OS you liked best?
To get Apple extra sales from x86 folks and 'defectors' from the Apple platform who need both?
ie you may give M$ a sale...but you're also giving...Apple a sale they may not otherwise have...interesting...
Concerning the AMD box, from what I know, is that a lot of companies would only buy Apple machines with x86 processors in them. Also, the ability to run windows inside X like classic opens a lot of possibilities or 'options' as Steve put it. They have the finder running on a x86 box already. This would be the ultimate 'switch' campaign.
I have no idea what chip, wasn't told any specifics. The new case had some issues where it didn't cool as well as current QS's and thus was redesigned to add vents, so the leaked photos may be them. Apple has been working on a new mobo but has had issues with it, it should be ready 5-6 months which would mean a Janurary release. But I'm under the impression it would just be a faster G4 not the next gen stuff like the power4 core scaled down due out this time next year hopefully.
Concerning the AMD box, from what I know, is that a lot of companies would only buy Apple machines with x86 processors in them. Also, the ability to run windows inside X like classic opens a lot of possibilities or 'options' as Steve put it. They have the finder running on a x86 box already. This would be the ultimate 'switch' campaign.
I have no idea what chip, wasn't told any specifics. The new case had some issues where it didn't cool as well as current QS's and thus was redesigned to add vents, so the leaked photos may be them. Apple has been working on a new mobo but has had issues with it, it should be ready 5-6 months which would mean a Janurary release. But I'm under the impression it would just be a faster G4 not the next gen stuff like the power4 core scaled down due out this time next year hopefully.</strong>[/QUOTE
On the surface the idea of running Windows inside of another host operating system sounds compelling, the problem is it's been tried before and the plan backfired.
Within OS/2 version 2.0 - 4.x you could run DOS and Win16 applications within OS/2 quickly and effeciantly. Alot of developers at the time used OS/2 to write Win16 applications because of the stability the OS/2 underpinnings provided.
But, instead of improving OS/2's marketshare, it created another problem entirely for developers. Why write native OS/2 applications when it runs Windows applications so well? For consumers there was a similiar sentiment. Why spend extra money on a native OS/2 app when this Windows app runs so well? The rest as we know is history, aside from some highly specialized markets OS/2 has been largely forgotten.
I fear if Apple tried a similar approach with OS X, the results would be the same IMHO.
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Commander Max ]</p>
Well I'm not totally clear if the windows emulation is on the same box as the dual boot or if that's just another plan of theirs. I don't think it's a bad idea. Think of how many windows only companies they pic up. My interpretation is x86 line to pick up existing windows only companies and a power4 core for current pro mac users. Not sure how they'd market it and it's a year or two off but the finder is running on an x86 box so they are working on it. Maybe it's just another 'option' for Steve but lately he does seem gun-ho about getting some of the windows market share.
I fear if Apple tried a similar approach with OS X, the results would be the same IMHO.
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Commander Max ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
... unless the Native Mac version apps had hugely compelling options that interacted with the Mac OS in a way that Windows could barely even hope to emulate, I think history proves the rule on this one.
For now, as great as OSX is over XP, it's services and other Mac only interactive features just aren't enough to overcome this hurdle (vs the ease of programmers just coding for Windows), at least not quite yet.
<strong>Did anybody see the report at Macrumors about the new powermac. That story was pulled so fast, the pictures must have been real!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I saw it. Trouble is, somebody in AI noted that the other casing had the exact same reflections and lines in the clear plastic case as does a picture from Apple.com/pr. I checked it out and this guy (or gal) was right.
Canadian Motorola rep' says 'G5' for desktop isn't even on the Motorola radar! So no 'G5' from Motorola.
The article in total made very interesting reading for me.
Y'know...bringin' up the whole X86 vs XPPC debate!
The 'G5' we get is probably the 7500. A .13 G4 at 2 gig on Rapid Io? The Rio mobo' itself marking it a 'G5'.
But After that? Well, the 8xxx series from Moto's seems to suggest no G5 for desktop. The Canadian moto' guy seemed to say as much. ie he wasn't aware of it.
Do the 7470 or 7500 show up on Moto's CPU pdf?
IBM it seems. But it looks to me Apple may be moving away from the whole 'G' idea. 'G6' from IBM? Or 64bit 'G5'? A new chip...better to come up with a whole new naming convention.
There was an interesting mock up of the vent Mac on macblumours. A mock up of the photo published. Looked okay. Airbrushed quite realistically in the 'cease and desist' style of photo.
Guy on Arseytechnica ('Armpit', I think his name is... ) sez 7470 Macs..., 'nothing special' about them. The ones to watch for will be the G4 ('G5') 7500 which needs loads of cooling. Hence the 'massive' heatsink. Due Jan' 2003.
So...Moto' are gradually leaving the platform? 7500 will be the last Moto chip to come...and gradually migrate down the food chain of Macs?
For the next year or so...Moto' will keep supplying the desktop CPUs they have already developed upto and including the 7500.
The 7500 hands the batton over to IBM for the Summer? 2003?
Comments
The FP unit of the G4 is alone, but is able to perform any operation, it's not the case of the Athlon even if the FP unit are fully pipelined (at the difference of the P4) the FP unit are specialized, they are not able to make all the operations. In certains case you can have 3 FP operation in a row, in other just one.
If you clone the second FP unit of a G4 you will have in most cases 2 FP operations per cycles. that will mean that the G4 with 2 fp unit who will be better at equal mhz than the Athlon.
PS ; for more didactic informations go to ars technica
<strong>
I have shared all I can without getting anyone in unnecessary trouble. From what I know (which may or may not happen) is G4's up to 1.4ghz are planned but possible that MOT can't deliver 1.4ghzs in quantity. New mobo with same processor, 333 DDR and new bus at 166. Scheduled release on the 13th, however having problems installing video cards and may not be ready by then. New case (possibly the one leaked has) air flow problems and vents were added. Same situation in January but with new mobo and faster G4s. This time next year IBM will take over in place of MOT with a POWER4-core scaled down desktop. Also, possibly an AMD x86 box that dual boots X and windows within a year or 2. These both are being worked on but not guarantees that the AMD box will be released for quite some time.
Most of this is available in some form or another on the net somewhere and I don't know too many specifics and wasn't told many either for obvious reasons. That's all i know and I can't ask anything. This is the first time I've gotten something juicy and just wanted to pass it along without getting flamed as I have no history of talking thru my ass
Again, the story about IBM being the next chip supplier for Apple re-surfaces.
I'm seriously beginning to wonder.
Could Apple be in the process of porting OS X to the RS/6000? (Power-4 based RS/6000 workstations have been reported popping here and there)Is the RS/6000 being used (again) as a test bed for Apple?
Anyone who either works for IBM or has connections with them heard anything about a change in the AIX roadmap recently?
<Shaking Deep Mac furiously: "Speak you Fool! Show ME WHAT YOU SEE!!">
And there Deep Mac sits, dumb and silent...
But...why a dual boot AMD box? What is the logic in selling Windows and Mac OS X?
Am I missing the obvious?
Unless the 32 bit x86 decoder on the Hammer chip is engineered...also with a PPC decoder.
You could run x86 and PPC.
But why? To see which OS you liked best?
To get Apple extra sales from x86 folks and 'defectors' from the Apple platform who need both?
ie you may give M$ a sale...but you're also giving...Apple a sale they may not otherwise have...interesting...
Thoughts...?
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
"Same situation in January but with new mobo and faster G4s. "
Kid Red. But which one on Rio come early next year... The 7470? OR the 7500?!
Will the 7470 be .13? Or .18 hence the massive cooling? OR...will the 7500 be the .13?
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>I have heard that one machine will be available and the other two will not for at least a month or two. I have also heard from the same person but this cannot be said with a lot of confidence that there will not be a dual machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Does that suggest they don't need the dual gimmick? Will a single G4 on DDR outperform a dual considerably?
This is quite exciting!
<strong>"Also, possibly an AMD x86 box that dual boots X and windows within a year or 2. These both are being worked on but not guarantees that the AMD box will be released for quite some time."
But...why a dual boot AMD box? What is the logic in selling Windows and Mac OS X?
Am I missing the obvious?
Unless the 32 bit x86 decoder on the Hammer chip is engineered...also with a PPC decoder.
You could run x86 and PPC.
But why? To see which OS you liked best?
To get Apple extra sales from x86 folks and 'defectors' from the Apple platform who need both?
ie you may give M$ a sale...but you're also giving...Apple a sale they may not otherwise have...interesting...
Thoughts...?
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
"Same situation in January but with new mobo and faster G4s. "
Kid Red. But which one on Rio come early next year... The 7470? OR the 7500?!
Will the 7470 be .13? Or .18 hence the massive cooling? OR...will the 7500 be the .13?
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Concerning the AMD box, from what I know, is that a lot of companies would only buy Apple machines with x86 processors in them. Also, the ability to run windows inside X like classic opens a lot of possibilities or 'options' as Steve put it. They have the finder running on a x86 box already. This would be the ultimate 'switch' campaign.
I have no idea what chip, wasn't told any specifics. The new case had some issues where it didn't cool as well as current QS's and thus was redesigned to add vents, so the leaked photos may be them. Apple has been working on a new mobo but has had issues with it, it should be ready 5-6 months which would mean a Janurary release. But I'm under the impression it would just be a faster G4 not the next gen stuff like the power4 core scaled down due out this time next year hopefully.
<strong>
Concerning the AMD box, from what I know, is that a lot of companies would only buy Apple machines with x86 processors in them. Also, the ability to run windows inside X like classic opens a lot of possibilities or 'options' as Steve put it. They have the finder running on a x86 box already. This would be the ultimate 'switch' campaign.
I have no idea what chip, wasn't told any specifics. The new case had some issues where it didn't cool as well as current QS's and thus was redesigned to add vents, so the leaked photos may be them. Apple has been working on a new mobo but has had issues with it, it should be ready 5-6 months which would mean a Janurary release. But I'm under the impression it would just be a faster G4 not the next gen stuff like the power4 core scaled down due out this time next year hopefully.</strong>[/QUOTE
On the surface the idea of running Windows inside of another host operating system sounds compelling, the problem is it's been tried before and the plan backfired.
Within OS/2 version 2.0 - 4.x you could run DOS and Win16 applications within OS/2 quickly and effeciantly. Alot of developers at the time used OS/2 to write Win16 applications because of the stability the OS/2 underpinnings provided.
But, instead of improving OS/2's marketshare, it created another problem entirely for developers. Why write native OS/2 applications when it runs Windows applications so well? For consumers there was a similiar sentiment. Why spend extra money on a native OS/2 app when this Windows app runs so well? The rest as we know is history, aside from some highly specialized markets OS/2 has been largely forgotten.
I fear if Apple tried a similar approach with OS X, the results would be the same IMHO.
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Commander Max ]</p>
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by KidRed:
[qb]
I fear if Apple tried a similar approach with OS X, the results would be the same IMHO.
[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: Commander Max ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
... unless the Native Mac version apps had hugely compelling options that interacted with the Mac OS in a way that Windows could barely even hope to emulate, I think history proves the rule on this one.
For now, as great as OSX is over XP, it's services and other Mac only interactive features just aren't enough to overcome this hurdle (vs the ease of programmers just coding for Windows), at least not quite yet.
<strong>Did anybody see the report at Macrumors about the new powermac. That story was pulled so fast, the pictures must have been real!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I saw it. Trouble is, somebody in AI noted that the other casing had the exact same reflections and lines in the clear plastic case as does a picture from Apple.com/pr. I checked it out and this guy (or gal) was right.
<a href="http://macbuyersguide.com/reviews/editorial-mac_on_intel.html"; target="_blank">http://macbuyersguide.com/reviews/editorial-mac_on_intel.html</a>;
Canadian Motorola rep' says 'G5' for desktop isn't even on the Motorola radar! So no 'G5' from Motorola.
The article in total made very interesting reading for me.
Y'know...bringin' up the whole X86 vs XPPC debate!
The 'G5' we get is probably the 7500. A .13 G4 at 2 gig on Rapid Io? The Rio mobo' itself marking it a 'G5'.
But After that? Well, the 8xxx series from Moto's seems to suggest no G5 for desktop. The Canadian moto' guy seemed to say as much. ie he wasn't aware of it.
Do the 7470 or 7500 show up on Moto's CPU pdf?
IBM it seems. But it looks to me Apple may be moving away from the whole 'G' idea. 'G6' from IBM? Or 64bit 'G5'? A new chip...better to come up with a whole new naming convention.
There was an interesting mock up of the vent Mac on macblumours. A mock up of the photo published. Looked okay. Airbrushed quite realistically in the 'cease and desist' style of photo.
Guy on Arseytechnica ('Armpit', I think his name is...
So...Moto' are gradually leaving the platform? 7500 will be the last Moto chip to come...and gradually migrate down the food chain of Macs?
For the next year or so...Moto' will keep supplying the desktop CPUs they have already developed upto and including the 7500.
The 7500 hands the batton over to IBM for the Summer? 2003?
Hmmm.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="confused.gif" border="0">