<strong>Intellectual property is the tool used by big business to enslave individuals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's the usual excuse of people who think there is no work included when it comes to have an idea and excetute it. You develop it, I'll use it for free. Big business pay big bucks to bright people to come up with "stuff" and if they want money for that it's their right.
"x86 is the least interesting rumor, though, as it really means nothing than recompiling Mac OS X and deploying on existing hardware."
That must be one of the most persistent myths on the Apple boards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough, I wasn't really clear.
What I mean is that Mac OS X on x86 won't bring any new CPUs or any new architecture to the game. It would presumably bring unique Apple-branded x86 hardware that Mac OS X (and Windows) could run on.
It's still existing hardware to me because I strongly doubt that it would be anything more than trivially different architecture-wise than what Dell, HP, etc. sell. It'd make 'Future Hardware' even more of a forum for looking at what the other PC companies sell and speculating when Apple will ship something similar.
Last paragraph states that Power4-II servers should be out sometime in October of 2002...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Power4-II is basically a 0.13 die-shrink of the Power4, probably running at 1.6GHz. It is a beast and should retake the SPEC crown(s), but it is not GPuL processor.
<strong>I think NMR is a little off on the date. Based on info I've heard, MWSF seems a little more likely. There have been many changes to the internal roadmap for Apple. Very early marketing materials showed that Gigawire was supposed to make a debut in the current machines. But that changed after a couple of months. Due to circumstantial info, I will speculate that the POWERmac project is going along much faster than previously estimated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't read what NMR said but I've been told next summer we get the power4 core from IBM. In Jan we will get the last G4 with new mobo from what I've also been told. So one more bumpr from the G4 before we get the G5 or power4 whatever from what I know.
The Power4-II is basically a 0.13 die-shrink of the Power4, probably running at 1.6GHz. It is a beast and should retake the SPEC crown(s), but it is not GPuL processor.
michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know it's not GP-UL but look at the expected date of release. It coincides with the MDF and I would not be surprised to see IBM announce this chip at the Forum. And it also shows IBM is ready to migrate the POWER4 to the 130nm process. The 750FX was first, now the POWER4, perhaps soon a PowerPC4?
<strong>Outsider. Can the current G4 Dispatch AND Complete 4 intructions? How much do you estimate the additional 8/5 Superscalar features of GP-UL will have on this procs performance?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and No. 3 instructions can be dispatched to the issue queues at a time so the other can be a branch instruction. So it's 3 normal and 1 branch. That is under optimised circumstances. And it's the POWER4 that has a 5 dispatch limit.... the new POWER4 dirivative can possibly improve on that. 6 would be awesome especially on multithreaded applications.
Yes and No. 3 instructions can be dispatched to the issue queues at a time so the other can be a branch instruction. So it's 3 normal and 1 branch. That is under optimised circumstances. And it's the POWER4 that has a 5 dispatch limit.... the new POWER4 dirivative can possibly improve on that. 6 would be awesome especially on multithreaded applications.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh yesssss. 6 would be quite nice. I assume that Compilers would be needed to update the current apps to take advantage of the extra capabilities of the GP-UL.
[[[Why would IBM spend 5-6 Billion to buy a Unix variant OS when they already have one? That's a lot of cash to buy a company with a minority market share position.]]]
Well, IBM probably wouldn't buy Apple, but to clear up a couple of things.... OS X is ALREADY the #1 shipping UNIX in terms of sheer volume. Second, it's ALREADY the UI leader BY FAR and it hasn't been out long AND continues to make strides at an ever quickening pace. It's only a matter of time before it's the UNIX by which all other UNIX/UNIX-based OSs are judged.
[[[And in most cases a 32-bit application will run SLOWER on a 64-bit box.]]]
Not on PPC 32/64 bit CPUs. As I understand it, these CPUs will simply use the appropriate mode.
"PPC ISA was designed to transition seamlessly from 32bit to 64bit. Since IBM made the decision awhile back (I think with Power3) to merge PowerPC and the server Power lines, this makes things simple for Apple to use Power4 (or a power4 derivative, in this case). For IBM to have PPC compliance implies IBM designed for both 32bit and 64bit modes. Apple should be able to start using this part easily by just starting with only using the 32-bit mode. " -<end snip>
<strong>[[[Why would IBM spend 5-6 Billion to buy a Unix variant OS when they already have one? That's a lot of cash to buy a company with a minority market share position.]]]
Well, IBM probably wouldn't buy Apple, but to clear up a couple of things.... OS X is ALREADY the #1 shipping UNIX in terms of sheer volume. Second, it's ALREADY the UI leader BY FAR and it hasn't been out long AND continues to make strides at an ever quickening pace. It's only a matter of time before it's the UNIX by which all other UNIX/UNIX-based OSs are judged.
--
Ed</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM just formed a deal with Red Hat to use it on it's servers. I think they are moving to all *nix on their servers if not all ready. It was just a big deal for Red Hat as now they can make some cash. Not sure why Apple couldn't make a deal with IBM..
Yeah, that's the usual excuse of people who think there is no work included when it comes to have an idea and excetute it. You develop it, I'll use it for free. Big business pay big bucks to bright people to come up with "stuff" and if they want money for that it's their right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not talking about paying for software. I pay up for 90% of my software.
I'm talking about the destruction of capitalism that has taken place. That is, the fact that you just can't start a hi-tech business anymore, you need huge amounts of money to be charged and charge others licensing fees. Licensing fees on sweeping software and genetic patents.
Also, copyright lasts 70 years in most of the world. 70 years!? Who the f*** is gonna care when material enters the public domain if it's 70 years old!?
Capitalism is about technology. Technology which has now been locked up for only big business to use in business.
It's a simple power-grab which has happened. It has gone even further with the US's DMCA, Australia's DACA, and now Europe has similar legislation on the table. Laws REQUIRED by WIPO, an organisation which appears to only have the interests of big business at heart.
There needs to be a balance between "incentive" for business and the availablilty of ideas (now known as "Intellectual Property" apparently) if innovation is to continue. There is no balance anymore.
Also, IP law is now prosecuted in criminal courts. That is, you can be sent to prison even though no destruction, violence or theft has occured. There is a possible monetary loss to business, so it should be limited to civil actions, and then only when an actual monetary loss has occured, or if you start up a business re-selling unlicenced material.
My friend who is a West Coast Director affiliated with Apple has heard that Apple will release dual boot machines whereas Windows would run like Classic runs today...inside OS X but a little more integrated than Virtual PC.
<strong>Does the Power4 lite mean the end of the G3? It looked from the link as if the Sidewinder would be the end of the road?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sidewinder is definatly not the end of the road.
Especially considering its successor, Sahara (750FX) is used in 700MHz iBooks
After Sahara, there doesn't seem to be any new G3s though. IBM seems to be transitioning to embedded G5s, like Motorola is. Then Power derived PowerPCs can be used in desktops/entry level servers.
But where does that leave Apple? Motorola doesn't give a damn about the G4, with their best plants producing G5s. The more things change...
<strong>My friend who is a West Coast Director affiliated with Apple has heard that Apple will release dual boot machines whereas Windows would run like Classic runs today...inside OS X but a little more integrated than Virtual PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rhapsody was going to include this ability.
When Apple scrapped Rhapsody in favour of the less-amitious but more compatible Mac OS X, so was Windows.
It could come back, but I don't see why with the success of native Mac OS X applications.
[QB][[[An even more interesting question is, would Apple come out with machines that are 64 bit capable, but released with a 32 bit OS? Then later on, when OS X was 64 bit ready, the people who purchased the "64 bit ready" machines would get a "free upgrade". ]]]
I suspect that Apple has thought the problem through. That said, we're likely going to have a 32-bit/64-bit hybrid platform for a while until all the kinks are worked out. It's likely that the new system (and OS whenever it arrives) will be 64-bit *clean*
The advantage to that is that since it's PPC, it will run all the 32-bit apps NATIVELY i.e., no emulation. This will buy a lot of time for developers to migrate and time for the compiler and other tools to mature.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You're suffering from a bad assumption here -- 32-bit apps are not going to go away. The OS isn't even really a "hybrid", it just supports both 32-bit and 64-bit address spaces. The only thing the user is likely to see is a few applications that say something like "64-bit required" much like some say "Velocity Engine required" today. There will be no transition to 64-bit because that implies that 32-bit apps are somehow bad or disadvantaged and will go away over time. When these systems are ubitquitous developers will still be able to make a decision between using a larger address space and using a smaller but more efficient one. I know that most software I write is going to be 32-bit and I don't want to pay the cost in performance of having a larger address space. As has been said many times very few apps need more than 4 gigabytes of addressable space!
32-bit PowerPC's aren't limited to 4 GB of RAM, by the way. Instead each address space is limited to 4 GB of RAM. The G4 can address 16 GB of physical memory, its just a matter of Apple supporting this in their chipset and OS.
Is it possible that an embedded G5 replaces the current G3? That is, a 64 bit CPU something like Moto's 8450 which is not immediately more powerful than the current G4. Smaller process, faster FSB, 64bit, but not really a better performer than the G4, just a clean way of getting a more modern I/O complement and similar performance (though no longer choked by the FSB).
For the Powermac, a POWER4 derived G5 (G6?) brings 64 bitness and modern I/O and FSB along with really big throughput numbers, dual cores, and serious number crunching.
From what some of you have described it seems unneccessary to have an all 64bit line-up as the apps could be efficiently deliverd to both environments simultaneously. Still getting all products on a new design clearly intended to have longer legs might be a good thing along with any degree of simplification in delivering all apps exclusively to a 64 bit environment.
I dunno?
A G5 powermac courtesy of IBM and G5lite consumer/portable macs courtesy of Motorola ???
Possible? Probably just stupid. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
<strong>Intellectual property is the tool used by big business to enslave individuals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's the usual excuse of people who think there is no work included when it comes to have an idea and excetute it. You develop it, I'll use it for free. Big business pay big bucks to bright people to come up with "stuff" and if they want money for that it's their right.
<strong>johnsonwax:
"x86 is the least interesting rumor, though, as it really means nothing than recompiling Mac OS X and deploying on existing hardware."
That must be one of the most persistent myths on the Apple boards...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair enough, I wasn't really clear.
What I mean is that Mac OS X on x86 won't bring any new CPUs or any new architecture to the game. It would presumably bring unique Apple-branded x86 hardware that Mac OS X (and Windows) could run on.
It's still existing hardware to me because I strongly doubt that it would be anything more than trivially different architecture-wise than what Dell, HP, etc. sell. It'd make 'Future Hardware' even more of a forum for looking at what the other PC companies sell and speculating when Apple will ship something similar.
And *that* isn't very interesting.
<strong><a href="http://www.plasma-online.de/index.html?content=http://www.plasma-online.de/english/identify/picture/ibm_cpu.html" target="_blank">http://www.plasma-online.de/index.html?content=http://www.plasma-online.de/english/identify/picture/ibm_cpu.html</a>
Look at the very last entry on the whole page.
<a href="http://www.midrangeserver.com/tfh/tfh030402-story02.html"; target="_blank">http://www.midrangeserver.com/tfh/tfh030402-story02.html</a>;
Last paragraph states that Power4-II servers should be out sometime in October of 2002...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Power4-II is basically a 0.13 die-shrink of the Power4, probably running at 1.6GHz. It is a beast and should retake the SPEC crown(s), but it is not GPuL processor.
michael
<strong>I think NMR is a little off on the date. Based on info I've heard, MWSF seems a little more likely. There have been many changes to the internal roadmap for Apple. Very early marketing materials showed that Gigawire was supposed to make a debut in the current machines. But that changed after a couple of months. Due to circumstantial info, I will speculate that the POWERmac project is going along much faster than previously estimated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't read what NMR said but I've been told next summer we get the power4 core from IBM. In Jan we will get the last G4 with new mobo from what I've also been told. So one more bumpr from the G4 before we get the G5 or power4 whatever from what I know.
That says Power 'B' not Power 4 'II'.
2 gig, not '1.6'?
Looks like the one we're after?
Or maybe this list will be updated after Oct 15th.
Nice links Outsider.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
The Power4-II is basically a 0.13 die-shrink of the Power4, probably running at 1.6GHz. It is a beast and should retake the SPEC crown(s), but it is not GPuL processor.
michael</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know it's not GP-UL but look at the expected date of release. It coincides with the MDF and I would not be surprised to see IBM announce this chip at the Forum. And it also shows IBM is ready to migrate the POWER4 to the 130nm process. The 750FX was first, now the POWER4, perhaps soon a PowerPC4?
<strong>Outsider. Can the current G4 Dispatch AND Complete 4 intructions? How much do you estimate the additional 8/5 Superscalar features of GP-UL will have on this procs performance?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and No. 3 instructions can be dispatched to the issue queues at a time so the other can be a branch instruction. So it's 3 normal and 1 branch. That is under optimised circumstances. And it's the POWER4 that has a 5 dispatch limit.... the new POWER4 dirivative can possibly improve on that. 6 would be awesome especially on multithreaded applications.
<strong>
Yes and No. 3 instructions can be dispatched to the issue queues at a time so the other can be a branch instruction. So it's 3 normal and 1 branch. That is under optimised circumstances. And it's the POWER4 that has a 5 dispatch limit.... the new POWER4 dirivative can possibly improve on that. 6 would be awesome especially on multithreaded applications.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh yesssss. 6 would be quite nice. I assume that Compilers would be needed to update the current apps to take advantage of the extra capabilities of the GP-UL.
Especially if Apple discontinues the Crt iMac G3 and the iBook to move to G4.
Mind you, Apple's guys did say the iBook would be G3 for a while...
Lemon Bon Bon
Does that mean G4s will finally be in iBooks as well and PowerMacs will have the G5/GPUL?
Another question... from what is known, can a G5/GPUL be cool enough to put in a PowerBook?
Well, IBM probably wouldn't buy Apple, but to clear up a couple of things.... OS X is ALREADY the #1 shipping UNIX in terms of sheer volume. Second, it's ALREADY the UI leader BY FAR and it hasn't been out long AND continues to make strides at an ever quickening pace. It's only a matter of time before it's the UNIX by which all other UNIX/UNIX-based OSs are judged.
--
Ed
Not on PPC 32/64 bit CPUs. As I understand it, these CPUs will simply use the appropriate mode.
"PPC ISA was designed to transition seamlessly from 32bit to 64bit. Since IBM made the decision awhile back (I think with Power3) to merge PowerPC and the server Power lines, this makes things simple for Apple to use Power4 (or a power4 derivative, in this case). For IBM to have PPC compliance implies IBM designed for both 32bit and 64bit modes. Apple should be able to start using this part easily by just starting with only using the 32-bit mode. " -<end snip>
--
Ed
<strong>[[[Why would IBM spend 5-6 Billion to buy a Unix variant OS when they already have one? That's a lot of cash to buy a company with a minority market share position.]]]
Well, IBM probably wouldn't buy Apple, but to clear up a couple of things.... OS X is ALREADY the #1 shipping UNIX in terms of sheer volume. Second, it's ALREADY the UI leader BY FAR and it hasn't been out long AND continues to make strides at an ever quickening pace. It's only a matter of time before it's the UNIX by which all other UNIX/UNIX-based OSs are judged.
--
Ed</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM just formed a deal with Red Hat to use it on it's servers. I think they are moving to all *nix on their servers if not all ready. It was just a big deal for Red Hat as now they can make some cash. Not sure why Apple couldn't make a deal with IBM..
<strong>
Yeah, that's the usual excuse of people who think there is no work included when it comes to have an idea and excetute it. You develop it, I'll use it for free. Big business pay big bucks to bright people to come up with "stuff" and if they want money for that it's their right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not talking about paying for software. I pay up for 90% of my software.
I'm talking about the destruction of capitalism that has taken place. That is, the fact that you just can't start a hi-tech business anymore, you need huge amounts of money to be charged and charge others licensing fees. Licensing fees on sweeping software and genetic patents.
Also, copyright lasts 70 years in most of the world. 70 years!? Who the f*** is gonna care when material enters the public domain if it's 70 years old!?
Capitalism is about technology. Technology which has now been locked up for only big business to use in business.
It's a simple power-grab which has happened. It has gone even further with the US's DMCA, Australia's DACA, and now Europe has similar legislation on the table. Laws REQUIRED by WIPO, an organisation which appears to only have the interests of big business at heart.
There needs to be a balance between "incentive" for business and the availablilty of ideas (now known as "Intellectual Property" apparently) if innovation is to continue. There is no balance anymore.
Also, IP law is now prosecuted in criminal courts. That is, you can be sent to prison even though no destruction, violence or theft has occured. There is a possible monetary loss to business, so it should be limited to civil actions, and then only when an actual monetary loss has occured, or if you start up a business re-selling unlicenced material.
Barto
BTW Thanks for replying to my sig :cool:
<strong>Does the Power4 lite mean the end of the G3? It looked from the link as if the Sidewinder would be the end of the road?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sidewinder is definatly not the end of the road.
Especially considering its successor, Sahara (750FX) is used in 700MHz iBooks
After Sahara, there doesn't seem to be any new G3s though. IBM seems to be transitioning to embedded G5s, like Motorola is. Then Power derived PowerPCs can be used in desktops/entry level servers.
But where does that leave Apple? Motorola doesn't give a damn about the G4, with their best plants producing G5s. The more things change...
Barto
<strong>My friend who is a West Coast Director affiliated with Apple has heard that Apple will release dual boot machines whereas Windows would run like Classic runs today...inside OS X but a little more integrated than Virtual PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rhapsody was going to include this ability.
When Apple scrapped Rhapsody in favour of the less-amitious but more compatible Mac OS X, so was Windows.
It could come back, but I don't see why with the success of native Mac OS X applications.
Barto
[QB][[[An even more interesting question is, would Apple come out with machines that are 64 bit capable, but released with a 32 bit OS? Then later on, when OS X was 64 bit ready, the people who purchased the "64 bit ready" machines would get a "free upgrade". ]]]
I suspect that Apple has thought the problem through. That said, we're likely going to have a 32-bit/64-bit hybrid platform for a while until all the kinks are worked out. It's likely that the new system (and OS whenever it arrives) will be 64-bit *clean*
The advantage to that is that since it's PPC, it will run all the 32-bit apps NATIVELY i.e., no emulation. This will buy a lot of time for developers to migrate and time for the compiler and other tools to mature.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You're suffering from a bad assumption here -- 32-bit apps are not going to go away. The OS isn't even really a "hybrid", it just supports both 32-bit and 64-bit address spaces. The only thing the user is likely to see is a few applications that say something like "64-bit required" much like some say "Velocity Engine required" today. There will be no transition to 64-bit because that implies that 32-bit apps are somehow bad or disadvantaged and will go away over time. When these systems are ubitquitous developers will still be able to make a decision between using a larger address space and using a smaller but more efficient one. I know that most software I write is going to be 32-bit and I don't want to pay the cost in performance of having a larger address space. As has been said many times very few apps need more than 4 gigabytes of addressable space!
32-bit PowerPC's aren't limited to 4 GB of RAM, by the way. Instead each address space is limited to 4 GB of RAM. The G4 can address 16 GB of physical memory, its just a matter of Apple supporting this in their chipset and OS.
Is it possible that an embedded G5 replaces the current G3? That is, a 64 bit CPU something like Moto's 8450 which is not immediately more powerful than the current G4. Smaller process, faster FSB, 64bit, but not really a better performer than the G4, just a clean way of getting a more modern I/O complement and similar performance (though no longer choked by the FSB).
For the Powermac, a POWER4 derived G5 (G6?) brings 64 bitness and modern I/O and FSB along with really big throughput numbers, dual cores, and serious number crunching.
From what some of you have described it seems unneccessary to have an all 64bit line-up as the apps could be efficiently deliverd to both environments simultaneously. Still getting all products on a new design clearly intended to have longer legs might be a good thing along with any degree of simplification in delivering all apps exclusively to a 64 bit environment.
I dunno?
A G5 powermac courtesy of IBM and G5lite consumer/portable macs courtesy of Motorola ???
Possible? Probably just stupid. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />