I would still like virtual desktops in Jaguar though. I know there is a few little apps that kind'a do it, but It would be nice to have a group of applications running with a cluttered desktop space, and with the use of a key command my desktop picture slides off screen, and a new one comes in, or just a clear one, and I could have a fresh working inviornment.
Another thing to think about and one that I'm sure developers, UNIX developers, are noticing is that since OS X is *the* unit leader in terms of shipping volume AND installed base, having a UNIX app (whatever UNIX app) and *not* having it on OS X would be silly.
Imagine all the new and potential revenue for these companies and developers. Let's face it, Autodesk is posting losses and plans to do so in the future. You can blame it on the economy to a large extent, but I think an oft overlooked reason is simply that people and corporations simply haven't a need to upgrade what they already have. After all, what's the justification?
Just look at how Intel is revving the clocks and still companies are finding it hard to sell these systems to anyone. So, not only would developing for the worlds #1 UNIX OS be beneficial to Apple and the Mac community, but it will also help companies tap into a new source of revenue simply because now corporations have a reason (an option at least) to migrate away from the parasitic infection that's Micro$oft. These developers can be selling completely new versions instead of "upgrades" to existing customers. Anyway, it starts to look really promising...
BTW, Autodesk is rumored to be making a comeback to the Mac. What's funny is that there is a $50 million+ *base* potential for them to do so. Parametric Technologies as well. That's not even adding in the revenue gained from training and support (if companies choose to opt for that). Again, more revenue they didn't have before.
BTW, the Autodesk info can be found on my friend Anthony's site:
<a href="http://www.architosh.com"; target="_blank">www.architosh.com</a> (just look, you'll find it ;-)
Apple *already* has the OS that utilizes both the PPC and AltiVec quite well. There are PLENTY of apps already in place that have been utilizing these technologies for a while now and the brand is well-known. For developers, It is cheaper to make it work on OSX than other UNIXXEN, and OS X already has a larger installed base.
--
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm .... "G5", killer Unix OS, user base, Microsoft repellant ... etc etc
I often think a merger with a slightly bigger company could help safe guard Apple's future and put more weight behind what they are trying to do. IBM could be such a partner. It'd be ironic to be sure.
Ed M. Maya is a perfect eg of what you're talking about. 25% of their business is now Mac.
What co. wouldn't want to raise revenue by 25%? That's alot of money.
Lots of Unix app makers may want a piece of the apple pie action. Apple biggest Unix vendor. Loads more apps for Mac. Loads more profits for App makers.
Heh. Autodesk may begin rethinking their non-Mac policy starting with Max?
Actually, this isn't true. Linux's penetration into the server space is actually on the decline -- at least temporarily -- and its desktop installations aren't even on the radar -- Apple came in with Mac OS X, and almost overnight surprassed Linux in terms of installed seats.
Linux for geeks and sysadmins to run on their servers is one thing; running it on the desktop is something it has failed miserably at, and rightly so: it sucks as a desktop OS. Do you honestly believe that there is a larger market for servers than there is for desktop computers? What would they be serving to, if that were the case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you but certainly the iHome springs to mind when it comes to more widespread use of servers. The more homes that switch to an iHome design (it will happen eventually) the more servers will become commonplace and have an increased marketshare.
Edit: For anybody not familiar with the iHome project there are a number around the place. It was a project done by Cisco Systems using current technology to show how well integrated and easy a house could be.
This is the same document that people were talking about a couple of weeks ago. It says that Motorola is moving the production of G4's to an overseas facility, and it lists a series of chips that are going to be produced there. People were wondering, if the G4's are going to be produced overseas, what new chip is going to be produced in Austin. Someone else also noticed that one of the chips was running at 1167 MHz, and was wondering if this meant that the chip had a 167 MHz bus (since 167x7 = 1167 and 133 doesn't go into 1167 evenly).
Well, clearly Motorola was producing chips with a 167 MHz bus. What no one else seemed to notice was that Motorola also listed a chip at 1100 MHz (the part number is XPC7455RX1100PC). Here is my question:
What is the speed of the bus on this 1100 MHz G4?
133x8 = 1067
133x8.5 = 1133
167x6.5 = 1083
167x7 = 1167
And no, Motorola doesn't round off that much on their part numbers.
So here are the four possible answers I could come up with:
(1) This multiplier stuff is not that rigid.
(2) Motorola has gotten the MPX bus up to 200 MHz (200x5.5 = 1100).
(3) Motorola is using some other kind of 200 MHz bus (maybe something similar to the 200 MHz 60x bus that IBM is using on the Sahara).
(4) This chip uses RapidIO.
Now, Motorola has publicly stated that they might take the MPX bus up to 167 MHz, but the next step was RapidIO. Since these public statements have been accurate so far (the 167 MHz MPX bus is here, DDR buses are no where to be seen), then I'm wondering if this could mean that Motorola has actually succeeded in producing test G4's with RapidIO.
<strong>IBM has several lines of machines that desperately need a new processor -- their desktop workstations, low-end servers, AS/400 business servers, and very large scale SMP projects (which need a lower power chip than the POWER4). Many of these are currently using ancient 604e processors and are hugely under powered. This alone is a good reason for IBM to develop such a processor. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I've seen this argument come up a few times. It doesn't wash with me. IBM's low-end servers use a 604e running at 250-375MHz. There is PLENTY of room for IBM to grow those servers without developing a whole new processor. Why don't they? Their own G3's go up to 1GHz -- with Apple being the only customer (soon, soon). I'm sure if IBM were motivated, they could have cranked up the G3 past 1GHz by now. So rather than go from a 375MHz to 1GHz, triple the CPU performance, and milk their design as much as possible, they decide they need to develop a whole new processor instead. That just doesn't make any kind of sense.
I've seen this argument come up a few times. It doesn't wash with me. IBM's low-end servers use a 604e running at 250-375MHz. There is PLENTY of room for IBM to grow those servers without developing a whole new processor. Why don't they? Their own G3's go up to 1GHz -- with Apple being the only customer (soon, soon). I'm sure if IBM were motivated, they could have cranked up the G3 past 1GHz by now. So rather than go from a 375MHz to 1GHz, triple the CPU performance, and milk their design as much as possible, they decide they need to develop a whole new processor instead. That just doesn't make any kind of sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe the G3's FPU isn't as good as a 604e's. I don't know enough about servers to know whether that would be a consideration or not, though...
The G3's FPU can't be too bad. The 700MHz iBook can keep up with the latest 667MHz TiBook in many FPU-bound programs. Bryce 3D and Quake are two examples.
And no, Motorola doesn't round off that much on their part numbers.
So here are the four possible answers I could come up with:
(1) This multiplier stuff is not that rigid.
(2) Motorola has gotten the MPX bus up to 200 MHz (200x5.5 = 1100).
(3) Motorola is using some other kind of 200 MHz bus (maybe something similar to the 200 MHz 60x bus that IBM is using on the Sahara).
(4) This chip uses RapidIO.
Now, Motorola has publicly stated that they might take the MPX bus up to 167 MHz, but the next step was RapidIO. Since these public statements have been accurate so far (the 167 MHz MPX bus is here, DDR buses are no where to be seen), then I'm wondering if this could mean that Motorola has actually succeeded in producing test G4's with RapidIO.
You forgot hte most simple explanation. This chip will probably sit on a 100 MHz MPX Bus. After all the G4 is not only for Macs but also other gear where a 800MB/s bus might suffice.
<strong>The G3's FPU can't be too bad. The 700MHz iBook can keep up with the latest 667MHz TiBook in many FPU-bound programs. Bryce 3D and Quake are two examples.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G3 FPU is slower for Double Precision code. This difference won't be huge but it's there nonetheless.
<strong>I've seen this argument come up a few times. It doesn't wash with me. IBM's low-end servers use a 604e running at 250-375MHz. There is PLENTY of room for IBM to grow those servers without developing a whole new processor. Why don't they? Their own G3's go up to 1GHz -- with Apple being the only customer (soon, soon). I'm sure if IBM were motivated, they could have cranked up the G3 past 1GHz by now. So rather than go from a 375MHz to 1GHz, triple the CPU performance, and milk their design as much as possible, they decide they need to develop a whole new processor instead. That just doesn't make any kind of sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well one reason is that the G3 doesn't support SMP in a usable fashion whereas this was a key feature of the 604(e). The 604's FPU was twice as fast at double precision which is often used in scientific calculations. And third, going to a G3 would be a stop-gap on the way to the desktop processor they have already clearly stated they are developing. Months ago they said that the POWER5 would be aimed at the desktop & workstation markets. I don't know if the chip being discussed in October is a POWER5 or something else, but the fast that they are targeting the POWER5 at the desktop says something.
As for MacOS X performance, I think Jaguar proves that Apple is serious about it. They won't stop here, either... I think we'll see any remaining performance gap between MacOS X and Linux shrink rapidly. And Apple is starting to be aggressive about advanced technologies -- I'm really impressed by what I see in their OpenGL documentation for Jaguar. Many advanced hardware features have been exposed, they are really thinking about hardware performance, and some of their new development tools hold a lot of promise (I reserve judgement until I have a chance to actually use them myself). You are never going to see this kind of thing on Linux (if only because of legal IP issues), which will exclude Linux from most markets of any appreciable size... especially as 3D graphics hardware becomes more powerful and is used in renderfarms rather than relying on the CPU.
Apple's performance enhancement efforts will soon (if not already) be focussed on the filesharing / server side of things -- the existance of the Xserve shows that they want a piece of this market. They can do it too, as demonstrated by the remarkable improvement in their OS networking performance a couple of years ago when they finally spent a bit of effort on it.
Interesting read. The implications for the next next generation or so of GPUs is intriguing.
Given the increasing role of the gpu.
Graphic cards to do 3d rendering? As a CPU co processor?
Given that current x86 chips can barely feed the Radeon 9700...aren't we going to need a Powerlite CPU to help the Mac feed the GPU?
Or might Hyper/Rio help in this respect?
The thought of an IBM chip with an N30 or 9700...drool...
The perception of current machines as 'stop gap'. Thought. New cards work on Agp x8? Firewire 2 should be ready to do early next year. Surely a San Fran' refresh is called for?
I believe IBM is pulling out all stops to do a fantastic job on the new G5 for Apple. IBM would really like to stomp all over Intel in the performance race, and Apple gives IBM a chance to showcase their technology. What is IBM's motivation? They wants customers for their new chip plant, and what better way to demonstrate their prowess?
Motorola better watch out. IBM could start making a G4 type processor if Motorola does not shape up soon. Oh, regarding AltiVec, I hear it is the best SIMD Engine out there. This is from someone who writes software for both the Mac and Wintel computers. Also, to agree with Ed M. I believe, someone posted a while back that a patent search revealed IBM, Apple and Motorola were all on the original AltiVec design patents.
Comments
Apple is the Unix provider right now.
Nobody should underestimate that in Apple's comeback kid campaign. It will prove invaluable.
We'll have to wait over the next few years to see how much significance it has for the Unix community inc' Linux.
All eyes will be on IBM at the Microprocessor Forum.
Apple watchers, creatives, switchers.
I'm ready to lay down my money for the true next generation heir to the throne.
Lemon Bon Bon
[quote] OSX delivers today on what LINUX has been promising for 10 years.<hr></blockquote>
so very,very true. no linux guy in the world can deny this unless he flat out is living in denial.
That would be the bomb!
Wait a sec? Isn't this a hardware forum?
Imagine all the new and potential revenue for these companies and developers. Let's face it, Autodesk is posting losses and plans to do so in the future. You can blame it on the economy to a large extent, but I think an oft overlooked reason is simply that people and corporations simply haven't a need to upgrade what they already have. After all, what's the justification?
Just look at how Intel is revving the clocks and still companies are finding it hard to sell these systems to anyone. So, not only would developing for the worlds #1 UNIX OS be beneficial to Apple and the Mac community, but it will also help companies tap into a new source of revenue simply because now corporations have a reason (an option at least) to migrate away from the parasitic infection that's Micro$oft. These developers can be selling completely new versions instead of "upgrades" to existing customers. Anyway, it starts to look really promising...
--
Ed
BTW, the Autodesk info can be found on my friend Anthony's site:
<a href="http://www.architosh.com"; target="_blank">www.architosh.com</a> (just look, you'll find it ;-)
--
Ed M.
<strong>...
Apple *already* has the OS that utilizes both the PPC and AltiVec quite well. There are PLENTY of apps already in place that have been utilizing these technologies for a while now and the brand is well-known. For developers, It is cheaper to make it work on OSX than other UNIXXEN, and OS X already has a larger installed base.
--
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm .... "G5", killer Unix OS, user base, Microsoft repellant ... etc etc
Could IBM buy Apple?
Would they want to?
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Ed M. Maya is a perfect eg of what you're talking about. 25% of their business is now Mac.
What co. wouldn't want to raise revenue by 25%? That's alot of money.
Lots of Unix app makers may want a piece of the apple pie action. Apple biggest Unix vendor. Loads more apps for Mac. Loads more profits for App makers.
Heh. Autodesk may begin rethinking their non-Mac policy starting with Max?
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>
Actually, this isn't true. Linux's penetration into the server space is actually on the decline -- at least temporarily -- and its desktop installations aren't even on the radar -- Apple came in with Mac OS X, and almost overnight surprassed Linux in terms of installed seats.
Linux for geeks and sysadmins to run on their servers is one thing; running it on the desktop is something it has failed miserably at, and rightly so: it sucks as a desktop OS. Do you honestly believe that there is a larger market for servers than there is for desktop computers? What would they be serving to, if that were the case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you but certainly the iHome springs to mind when it comes to more widespread use of servers. The more homes that switch to an iHome design (it will happen eventually) the more servers will become commonplace and have an increased marketshare.
Edit: For anybody not familiar with the iHome project there are a number around the place. It was a project done by Cisco Systems using current technology to show how well integrated and easy a house could be.
[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PCN7637.htm"; target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PCN7637.htm</a>;
This is the same document that people were talking about a couple of weeks ago. It says that Motorola is moving the production of G4's to an overseas facility, and it lists a series of chips that are going to be produced there. People were wondering, if the G4's are going to be produced overseas, what new chip is going to be produced in Austin. Someone else also noticed that one of the chips was running at 1167 MHz, and was wondering if this meant that the chip had a 167 MHz bus (since 167x7 = 1167 and 133 doesn't go into 1167 evenly).
Well, clearly Motorola was producing chips with a 167 MHz bus. What no one else seemed to notice was that Motorola also listed a chip at 1100 MHz (the part number is XPC7455RX1100PC). Here is my question:
What is the speed of the bus on this 1100 MHz G4?
133x8 = 1067
133x8.5 = 1133
167x6.5 = 1083
167x7 = 1167
And no, Motorola doesn't round off that much on their part numbers.
So here are the four possible answers I could come up with:
(1) This multiplier stuff is not that rigid.
(2) Motorola has gotten the MPX bus up to 200 MHz (200x5.5 = 1100).
(3) Motorola is using some other kind of 200 MHz bus (maybe something similar to the 200 MHz 60x bus that IBM is using on the Sahara).
(4) This chip uses RapidIO.
Now, Motorola has publicly stated that they might take the MPX bus up to 167 MHz, but the next step was RapidIO. Since these public statements have been accurate so far (the 167 MHz MPX bus is here, DDR buses are no where to be seen), then I'm wondering if this could mean that Motorola has actually succeeded in producing test G4's with RapidIO.
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: cecil ]</p>
<strong>IBM has several lines of machines that desperately need a new processor -- their desktop workstations, low-end servers, AS/400 business servers, and very large scale SMP projects (which need a lower power chip than the POWER4). Many of these are currently using ancient 604e processors and are hugely under powered. This alone is a good reason for IBM to develop such a processor. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I've seen this argument come up a few times. It doesn't wash with me. IBM's low-end servers use a 604e running at 250-375MHz. There is PLENTY of room for IBM to grow those servers without developing a whole new processor. Why don't they? Their own G3's go up to 1GHz -- with Apple being the only customer (soon, soon). I'm sure if IBM were motivated, they could have cranked up the G3 past 1GHz by now. So rather than go from a 375MHz to 1GHz, triple the CPU performance, and milk their design as much as possible, they decide they need to develop a whole new processor instead. That just doesn't make any kind of sense.
<strong>
I've seen this argument come up a few times. It doesn't wash with me. IBM's low-end servers use a 604e running at 250-375MHz. There is PLENTY of room for IBM to grow those servers without developing a whole new processor. Why don't they? Their own G3's go up to 1GHz -- with Apple being the only customer (soon, soon). I'm sure if IBM were motivated, they could have cranked up the G3 past 1GHz by now. So rather than go from a 375MHz to 1GHz, triple the CPU performance, and milk their design as much as possible, they decide they need to develop a whole new processor instead. That just doesn't make any kind of sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe the G3's FPU isn't as good as a 604e's. I don't know enough about servers to know whether that would be a consideration or not, though...
<strong>
What is the speed of the bus on this 1100 MHz G4?
133x8 = 1067
133x8.5 = 1133
167x6.5 = 1083
167x7 = 1167
And no, Motorola doesn't round off that much on their part numbers.
So here are the four possible answers I could come up with:
(1) This multiplier stuff is not that rigid.
(2) Motorola has gotten the MPX bus up to 200 MHz (200x5.5 = 1100).
(3) Motorola is using some other kind of 200 MHz bus (maybe something similar to the 200 MHz 60x bus that IBM is using on the Sahara).
(4) This chip uses RapidIO.
Now, Motorola has publicly stated that they might take the MPX bus up to 167 MHz, but the next step was RapidIO. Since these public statements have been accurate so far (the 167 MHz MPX bus is here, DDR buses are no where to be seen), then I'm wondering if this could mean that Motorola has actually succeeded in producing test G4's with RapidIO.
[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: cecil ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You forgot hte most simple explanation. This chip will probably sit on a 100 MHz MPX Bus. After all the G4 is not only for Macs but also other gear where a 800MB/s bus might suffice.
<strong>The G3's FPU can't be too bad. The 700MHz iBook can keep up with the latest 667MHz TiBook in many FPU-bound programs. Bryce 3D and Quake are two examples.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The G3 FPU is slower for Double Precision code. This difference won't be huge but it's there nonetheless.
<strong>I've seen this argument come up a few times. It doesn't wash with me. IBM's low-end servers use a 604e running at 250-375MHz. There is PLENTY of room for IBM to grow those servers without developing a whole new processor. Why don't they? Their own G3's go up to 1GHz -- with Apple being the only customer (soon, soon). I'm sure if IBM were motivated, they could have cranked up the G3 past 1GHz by now. So rather than go from a 375MHz to 1GHz, triple the CPU performance, and milk their design as much as possible, they decide they need to develop a whole new processor instead. That just doesn't make any kind of sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well one reason is that the G3 doesn't support SMP in a usable fashion whereas this was a key feature of the 604(e). The 604's FPU was twice as fast at double precision which is often used in scientific calculations. And third, going to a G3 would be a stop-gap on the way to the desktop processor they have already clearly stated they are developing. Months ago they said that the POWER5 would be aimed at the desktop & workstation markets. I don't know if the chip being discussed in October is a POWER5 or something else, but the fast that they are targeting the POWER5 at the desktop says something.
As for MacOS X performance, I think Jaguar proves that Apple is serious about it. They won't stop here, either... I think we'll see any remaining performance gap between MacOS X and Linux shrink rapidly. And Apple is starting to be aggressive about advanced technologies -- I'm really impressed by what I see in their OpenGL documentation for Jaguar. Many advanced hardware features have been exposed, they are really thinking about hardware performance, and some of their new development tools hold a lot of promise (I reserve judgement until I have a chance to actually use them myself). You are never going to see this kind of thing on Linux (if only because of legal IP issues), which will exclude Linux from most markets of any appreciable size... especially as 3D graphics hardware becomes more powerful and is used in renderfarms rather than relying on the CPU.
Apple's performance enhancement efforts will soon (if not already) be focussed on the filesharing / server side of things -- the existance of the Xserve shows that they want a piece of this market. They can do it too, as demonstrated by the remarkable improvement in their OS networking performance a couple of years ago when they finally spent a bit of effort on it.
11x 100 MHz MPX bus = 1100 MHz G4.
Interesting read. The implications for the next next generation or so of GPUs is intriguing.
Given the increasing role of the gpu.
Graphic cards to do 3d rendering? As a CPU co processor?
Given that current x86 chips can barely feed the Radeon 9700...aren't we going to need a Powerlite CPU to help the Mac feed the GPU?
Or might Hyper/Rio help in this respect?
The thought of an IBM chip with an N30 or 9700...drool...
The perception of current machines as 'stop gap'. Thought. New cards work on Agp x8? Firewire 2 should be ready to do early next year. Surely a San Fran' refresh is called for?
Oct'...tell us more...
Lemon Bon Bon
Motorola better watch out. IBM could start making a G4 type processor if Motorola does not shape up soon. Oh, regarding AltiVec, I hear it is the best SIMD Engine out there. This is from someone who writes software for both the Mac and Wintel computers. Also, to agree with Ed M. I believe, someone posted a while back that a patent search revealed IBM, Apple and Motorola were all on the original AltiVec design patents.