<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>
Scenario:
Mac machine running Windows and OSX.
Big developers such as Adobe, Microsoft realise they can save massive amounts of money by dropping OSX support. Easy to justify to management because Mac users can technically still run their software.
The Mac platform loses native apps. Mac users spend more and more time using the Windows OS and eventually reboot to Windows.
Result:
No more need for OSX. Eventually no reason to use Mac at all. Eventually no Apple.
They have onboard ethernet, PCI and DDR controllers.
However, they have very little grunt (relative to the G4).
The 8540 has a single int unit, the 8560 has an int and an float unit.
A G5 for Macs would probably scrap onboard ethernet and PCI in favour of more grunt, such as a 2nd float and a vector unit. Which would no longer be a comm CPU, but a high-end embedded CPU. A 75xx CPU. And the 7500 was supposedly cancelled by Motorola after they refused to incorperate ApplePI into the design.
Big developers such as Adobe, Microsoft realise they can save massive amounts of money by dropping OSX support. Easy to justify to management because Mac users can technically still run their software.
The Mac platform loses native apps. Mac users spend more and more time using the Windows OS and eventually reboot to Windows.
Result:
No more need for OSX. Eventually no reason to use Mac at all. Eventually no Apple.
Conclusion:
Your friend is wrong or an idiot. Or both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, your conclusion is in question because your result is less then accurate. If Apple were to dual boot (I heard the same thing that Apple would have dual boot machines, an AMD machine and a power4 core. like Steve said, 'options') how many machines would be bought/sold? How long would it take for the majority of these machines AND the new OS to take over a majority of mac users? There is roughly 25 million mac users, I don't think Apple can sell 25 million dual booting machines in a quick amount of time. If Apple were to do such a thing it would be in order to run X and windows, because people want X. Why would the ability to run windows (VPC) suddenly kill Apple? The future is Unix/OSX but the ability to run windows (like 9/classic) would help for a smooth transition into X-dom.
<strong>Why would the ability to run windows (VPC) suddenly kill Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If developers didn't have to write native X apps, they wouldn't.
We'd be stuck with crappy wintel apps, getting rid of the superior Aqua interface.
Let Microsoft build XP for Power Macs if they want (like they did with NT), as with Linux. But Apple should only ship with the one OS installed. Plug in, turn on, start working.
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]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Kinda what I've been suggesting in other threads, think it was the "Riddles" one.
When considering the posted roadmaps of IBM and Motorola (especially Moto):
Moto wants to concentrate on embedded processors, which compliment laptops and the consumer products.
IBM appears to want to make "in-roads" back into the Desktop/Low-End-Server area (as well as make embedded processors).
All of this plays into Apple's "hand" rather nicely. Moto supplies the consumer and laptop products. IBM supplies Apple's Pro lineup (as well as an acting backup to Moto, should they come across another G4/500MHz fiasco). IBM would also offer competition to Moto in the embedded market and ensure that they don't get complacent.
All of this plays into Apple's "hand" rather nicely. Moto supplies the consumer and laptop products. IBM supplies Apple's Pro lineup (as well as an acting backup to Moto, should they come across another G4/500MHz fiasco). IBM would also offer competition to Moto in the embedded market and ensure that they don't get complacent.
Apple is best served by competition between Moto and IBM in the desktop arena like in the early days of the Power PC. For this to happen, then IBM needs to bring back the Common Reference Platform, and sell them as an alternative Linex computer. The Mother boards should be able to use any Book E compliant chip, so Moto can make processors for the market as well.
I mean, there is small differences between platforms (Mac v Amiga v Briq v whatever), but from what I've heard small enough to be tolerable (from a developer/user perspective).
Apple is best served by competition between Moto and IBM in the desktop arena like in the early days of the Power PC. For this to happen, then IBM needs to bring back the Common Reference Platform, and sell them as an alternative Linex computer. The Mother boards should be able to use any Book E compliant chip, so Moto can make processors for the market as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you'll have that when the new chip comes out. Although it won't be CHRP. CHRP is dead. As already stated, IBM has sunk tons on $$ into Linux, and the way is 'paved' for them to sell desktop boxes with the new chip and their version of Linux. Moto can play as well, but like my 'sig' says . . . they have to make the 'choice', and currently, they have made it very clear. Moto doesn't care about Apple, and Moto wants to concentrate on embedded processors. Although embedded CAN be used in "workstation" class machines. Most companies interested in "corporate survival" will go with a higher performance chip.
Still, there will be competition in the embedded market, and IBM has the incentive to produce high end desktop chips, because of their 'other' goals.
I think you'll have that when the new chip comes out. Although it won't be CHRP. CHRP is dead. As already stated, IBM has sunk tons on $$ into Linux, and the way is 'paved' for them to sell desktop boxes with the new chip and their version of Linux. Moto can play as well, but like my 'sig' says . . . they have to make the 'choice', and currently, they have made it very clear. Moto doesn't care about Apple, and Moto wants to concentrate on embedded processors. Although embedded CAN be used in "workstation" class machines. Most companies interested in "corporate survival" will go with a higher performance chip.
Still, there will be competition in the embedded market, and IBM has the incentive to produce high end desktop chips, because of their 'other' goals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If IBM can be successfull at marketing a PPC Linex box, and Moto sees the potential from profit in making chips for this market as well, then they will jump back in. Embeded chips are nice, but desktop's are where the glamor is, and that helps in the marketing of the embeded chips as well....
If IBM can be successfull at marketing a PPC Linex box, and Moto sees the potential from profit in making chips for this market as well, then they will jump back in. Embeded chips are nice, but desktop's are where the glamor is, and that helps in the marketing of the embeded chips as well....</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true but I don't know is motorola has much left to be jumping any where. On the other hand IBM does. If these rumors are true about IBM making this chip for Apple we will have a bright future. It seems to be that this rumor has become close to fact. Looking at all the info that is out there I am beginning to truly believe all of this.
\tI mean who else would a PPC altivec chip before besides apple...can you think of any other company that will really be a market for this chip? I sure can't! This alone is convincing that this chip is indeed for apple. \tThe only thing that I am worried about is timing. When will we actually see this chip? most people do not think we will see it at MWSF in january. MWSF is about 4 months away and the current top of the line systems don't ship for about 3 weeks. It just seems way to soon for another update that soon.
\tNormally I would say that apple will not necessarily introduce the G5 at a MW. But considering the free advertising they would get on a much needed update I imagine they would introduce at a MW.
\tMan I am really hoping that IBM has actually made this chip for apple and that we will see it soon. I would love to hear what Steve says to the Moto-bastards when they switch to IBM. YEA!!!!!
mmmm, im not so sure the G3 is ready to die just yet. Remember, it is an IBM chip, AND it costs next to nothing...
Here's what im thinking:
IBM makes the new GPUL processors for the PowerMac/book line.
Apple can then raise the FSB of the iBook to its full 200Mhz. IBM puts a little more R&D into the chip. shrinks it down to .9nm and kicks up the L2 cache to 1MB on die....
ill bet it would be similar to a G4's performance....
[[[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.]]]
The ones that will go 64-bit will... That means Photoshop and any video or 3D applications as well. These apps EAT RAM like it was nothing. The 4Gig limit is upon us more or less, so it will happen. Then there is the whole perception thing. I suspect that Apple cold jump on the 64-bit bandwagon before the rest of the competition. We'll see.
[[[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. ]]]
Agreed, but I suspect Apple will do a better job migrating to 64-bit than their competition. Users will be demanding more and depending on what type of app, 64-bit might just be the ticket. As mentioned earlier... Video editing 3D modeling/animation and I speak with Chris Cox from Adobe often enough to know that he believes 64-bit for Photoshop would be a wonderful thing ;-)
How about Final Cut, Shake, and all the high end Video compositing and professional Audio Apps Apple has recently purchased and will should be re-released around the time the POWER macs will show their might. :cool:
Not to mention WebObjects, Oracle and Sybase, etc.
In a marketing point of vue, moving to the 64 bit will be impressive, imagine this little discussion between a PC guy and a mac guy :
PC guy : my computer is clocked at 3 ghz
Mac guy : mine is just 1,8 ghz, but it's a 64 bit processor :cool:
Speaking of IBM , i think that IBM is the only one company that did custom chip from one of his customer with the gekko chip at the contrary of Mot who never make a specialised chip for Apple
"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. "
I think 'Mac' on 'X' really saved Apple more than anything else for the long term. It gives them a powerful foothold against Windows and gives them a feed into the dramatic Linux uptake.
I think Apple need to really go after this.
Maybe X-serve shows they maybe.
Now, whatever next, Bodhi? Maybe cheap dual PPC/AMD boot sub £500 machines for education only? And because it's a 'low end' x86 box only, it won't eat into Apple's sales at the mid and high end. What you gonna pick? A POWERMac G5 (8 way superscalar...) or a dual boot G4 800mhz gig/1.6 xp? I know which one I would buy. Plus, Apple may pick up more sales from x86 people who want to try Mac without the risk and Apple folks who might want a cheap gaming box. Maybe it gives lots of Linux x86 heads a greater reason to try 'the real thing' if they have 'Windows' apps they need.
Dell are giving Apple a thumping in education. Price is the bottom line. And the eMac aint cheap enough. What does Apple do?
Cheap PPC/x86 box. For those schools who are being forced between Mac and PC. They can have both. Better this than Apple having no share at all. Schools at least get chance to say 'Look, we get ease of use, iapps, great multimedia, compatibility with x86 apps etc...' Maybe even a Trojan horse to x86 only camps...
The irony of 9 replaced and an x86 'classic' VPC environ? (The performance of which should be fine for most of the apps we use in school...)
Relevance to G5 thread? The rumours suggest that Apple is pretty confident with regarding its workstation strategy...leaving only education. If Apple do x86 emulation...I wonder what M$ will do...
Hmmm. I think I should have posted this in the other thread...
<strong>If Apple do x86 emulation...I wonder what M$ will do...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, lets say Apple installs windows (or gives the option of installing windows) on the same hard drive as X, running it like Classic.
/windows
/applications (windows)
Microsoft sells more copies of Windows. Microsoft still doesn't care because of the small market share, which is all they think about. Especially considering it would kill the Mac with most users able to run Wintel applications, so why should developers of products write for Mac?
Sure pro-apps would stick around (for performance). But what happends when consumers leave the Mac after there is no UI advantage because Windows apps are used?
Windows NT ran on Macs fine. MS could do it again if they wanted to.
Currently, Altivec is 128 bit wide, right? On a 32 bit processor. So would a 64 bit processor mean a 512 bit width for Altivec at the same speeds as the current implementation, or (as I suspect) does the Altivec "width" have nothing to do with the processor width?
<strong>Anybody know what 64 bit-ness means for Altivec?
Currently, Altivec is 128 bit wide, right? On a 32 bit processor. So would a 64 bit processor mean a 512 bit width for Altivec at the same speeds as the current implementation, or (as I suspect) does the Altivec "width" have nothing to do with the processor width?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a current G4 you have a 32bit int unit, 64bit float unit, 128bit SIMD unit, 36bit addressing, 64bit data paths to the bus, 256bit paths to the cache, etc. As you can see it's a big hodge podge of different bits. The general concensus is that if the integer unit and memory addressing is 64bit, it's a 64bit processor.
Comments
<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>
Scenario:
Mac machine running Windows and OSX.
Big developers such as Adobe, Microsoft realise they can save massive amounts of money by dropping OSX support. Easy to justify to management because Mac users can technically still run their software.
The Mac platform loses native apps. Mac users spend more and more time using the Windows OS and eventually reboot to Windows.
Result:
No more need for OSX. Eventually no reason to use Mac at all. Eventually no Apple.
Conclusion:
Your friend is wrong or an idiot. Or both.
They have onboard ethernet, PCI and DDR controllers.
However, they have very little grunt (relative to the G4).
The 8540 has a single int unit, the 8560 has an int and an float unit.
A G5 for Macs would probably scrap onboard ethernet and PCI in favour of more grunt, such as a 2nd float and a vector unit. Which would no longer be a comm CPU, but a high-end embedded CPU. A 75xx CPU. And the 7500 was supposedly cancelled by Motorola after they refused to incorperate ApplePI into the design.
Barto
[ 09-16-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>
Scenario:
Mac machine running Windows and OSX.
Big developers such as Adobe, Microsoft realise they can save massive amounts of money by dropping OSX support. Easy to justify to management because Mac users can technically still run their software.
The Mac platform loses native apps. Mac users spend more and more time using the Windows OS and eventually reboot to Windows.
Result:
No more need for OSX. Eventually no reason to use Mac at all. Eventually no Apple.
Conclusion:
Your friend is wrong or an idiot. Or both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, your conclusion is in question because your result is less then accurate. If Apple were to dual boot (I heard the same thing that Apple would have dual boot machines, an AMD machine and a power4 core. like Steve said, 'options') how many machines would be bought/sold? How long would it take for the majority of these machines AND the new OS to take over a majority of mac users? There is roughly 25 million mac users, I don't think Apple can sell 25 million dual booting machines in a quick amount of time. If Apple were to do such a thing it would be in order to run X and windows, because people want X. Why would the ability to run windows (VPC) suddenly kill Apple? The future is Unix/OSX but the ability to run windows (like 9/classic) would help for a smooth transition into X-dom.
<strong>Why would the ability to run windows (VPC) suddenly kill Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If developers didn't have to write native X apps, they wouldn't.
We'd be stuck with crappy wintel apps, getting rid of the superior Aqua interface.
Let Microsoft build XP for Power Macs if they want (like they did with NT), as with Linux. But Apple should only ship with the one OS installed. Plug in, turn on, start working.
Barto
<strong><snip>
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]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Kinda what I've been suggesting in other threads, think it was the "Riddles" one.
When considering the posted roadmaps of IBM and Motorola (especially Moto):
Moto wants to concentrate on embedded processors, which compliment laptops and the consumer products.
IBM appears to want to make "in-roads" back into the Desktop/Low-End-Server area (as well as make embedded processors).
All of this plays into Apple's "hand" rather nicely. Moto supplies the consumer and laptop products. IBM supplies Apple's Pro lineup (as well as an acting backup to Moto, should they come across another G4/500MHz fiasco). IBM would also offer competition to Moto in the embedded market and ensure that they don't get complacent.
edit: spelling
[ 09-16-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</p>
<strong>
All of this plays into Apple's "hand" rather nicely. Moto supplies the consumer and laptop products. IBM supplies Apple's Pro lineup (as well as an acting backup to Moto, should they come across another G4/500MHz fiasco). IBM would also offer competition to Moto in the embedded market and ensure that they don't get complacent.
[ 09-16-2002: Message edited by: MacJedai ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is best served by competition between Moto and IBM in the desktop arena like in the early days of the Power PC. For this to happen, then IBM needs to bring back the Common Reference Platform, and sell them as an alternative Linex computer. The Mother boards should be able to use any Book E compliant chip, so Moto can make processors for the market as well.
I mean, there is small differences between platforms (Mac v Amiga v Briq v whatever), but from what I've heard small enough to be tolerable (from a developer/user perspective).
Barto
<strong>
Apple is best served by competition between Moto and IBM in the desktop arena like in the early days of the Power PC. For this to happen, then IBM needs to bring back the Common Reference Platform, and sell them as an alternative Linex computer. The Mother boards should be able to use any Book E compliant chip, so Moto can make processors for the market as well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you'll have that when the new chip comes out. Although it won't be CHRP. CHRP is dead. As already stated, IBM has sunk tons on $$ into Linux, and the way is 'paved' for them to sell desktop boxes with the new chip and their version of Linux. Moto can play as well, but like my 'sig' says . . . they have to make the 'choice', and currently, they have made it very clear. Moto doesn't care about Apple, and Moto wants to concentrate on embedded processors. Although embedded CAN be used in "workstation" class machines. Most companies interested in "corporate survival" will go with a higher performance chip.
Still, there will be competition in the embedded market, and IBM has the incentive to produce high end desktop chips, because of their 'other' goals.
<strong>
I think you'll have that when the new chip comes out. Although it won't be CHRP. CHRP is dead. As already stated, IBM has sunk tons on $$ into Linux, and the way is 'paved' for them to sell desktop boxes with the new chip and their version of Linux. Moto can play as well, but like my 'sig' says . . . they have to make the 'choice', and currently, they have made it very clear. Moto doesn't care about Apple, and Moto wants to concentrate on embedded processors. Although embedded CAN be used in "workstation" class machines. Most companies interested in "corporate survival" will go with a higher performance chip.
Still, there will be competition in the embedded market, and IBM has the incentive to produce high end desktop chips, because of their 'other' goals.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If IBM can be successfull at marketing a PPC Linex box, and Moto sees the potential from profit in making chips for this market as well, then they will jump back in. Embeded chips are nice, but desktop's are where the glamor is, and that helps in the marketing of the embeded chips as well....
<strong>
If IBM can be successfull at marketing a PPC Linex box, and Moto sees the potential from profit in making chips for this market as well, then they will jump back in. Embeded chips are nice, but desktop's are where the glamor is, and that helps in the marketing of the embeded chips as well....</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is true but I don't know is motorola has much left to be jumping any where. On the other hand IBM does. If these rumors are true about IBM making this chip for Apple we will have a bright future. It seems to be that this rumor has become close to fact. Looking at all the info that is out there I am beginning to truly believe all of this.
\tI mean who else would a PPC altivec chip before besides apple...can you think of any other company that will really be a market for this chip? I sure can't! This alone is convincing that this chip is indeed for apple. \tThe only thing that I am worried about is timing. When will we actually see this chip? most people do not think we will see it at MWSF in january. MWSF is about 4 months away and the current top of the line systems don't ship for about 3 weeks. It just seems way to soon for another update that soon.
\tNormally I would say that apple will not necessarily introduce the G5 at a MW. But considering the free advertising they would get on a much needed update I imagine they would introduce at a MW.
\tMan I am really hoping that IBM has actually made this chip for apple and that we will see it soon. I would love to hear what Steve says to the Moto-bastards when they switch to IBM. YEA!!!!!
Here's what im thinking:
IBM makes the new GPUL processors for the PowerMac/book line.
Apple can then raise the FSB of the iBook to its full 200Mhz. IBM puts a little more R&D into the chip. shrinks it down to .9nm and kicks up the L2 cache to 1MB on die....
ill bet it would be similar to a G4's performance....
i dunno just random thoughts....
but i don't think the 750 is dead, JUST yet...
The ones that will go 64-bit will... That means Photoshop and any video or 3D applications as well. These apps EAT RAM like it was nothing. The 4Gig limit is upon us more or less, so it will happen. Then there is the whole perception thing. I suspect that Apple cold jump on the 64-bit bandwagon before the rest of the competition. We'll see.
[[[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. ]]]
Agreed, but I suspect Apple will do a better job migrating to 64-bit than their competition. Users will be demanding more and depending on what type of app, 64-bit might just be the ticket. As mentioned earlier... Video editing 3D modeling/animation and I speak with Chris Cox from Adobe often enough to know that he believes 64-bit for Photoshop would be a wonderful thing ;-)
--
Ed
Hello! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
How about Final Cut, Shake, and all the high end Video compositing and professional Audio Apps Apple has recently purchased and will should be re-released around the time the POWER macs will show their might. :cool:
Not to mention WebObjects, Oracle and Sybase, etc.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
PC guy : my computer is clocked at 3 ghz
Mac guy : mine is just 1,8 ghz, but it's a 64 bit processor :cool:
Speaking of IBM , i think that IBM is the only one company that did custom chip from one of his customer with the gekko chip at the contrary of Mot who never make a specialised chip for Apple
I think 'Mac' on 'X' really saved Apple more than anything else for the long term. It gives them a powerful foothold against Windows and gives them a feed into the dramatic Linux uptake.
I think Apple need to really go after this.
Maybe X-serve shows they maybe.
Now, whatever next, Bodhi? Maybe cheap dual PPC/AMD boot sub £500 machines for education only? And because it's a 'low end' x86 box only, it won't eat into Apple's sales at the mid and high end. What you gonna pick? A POWERMac G5 (8 way superscalar...) or a dual boot G4 800mhz gig/1.6 xp? I know which one I would buy. Plus, Apple may pick up more sales from x86 people who want to try Mac without the risk and Apple folks who might want a cheap gaming box. Maybe it gives lots of Linux x86 heads a greater reason to try 'the real thing' if they have 'Windows' apps they need.
Dell are giving Apple a thumping in education. Price is the bottom line. And the eMac aint cheap enough. What does Apple do?
Cheap PPC/x86 box. For those schools who are being forced between Mac and PC. They can have both. Better this than Apple having no share at all. Schools at least get chance to say 'Look, we get ease of use, iapps, great multimedia, compatibility with x86 apps etc...' Maybe even a Trojan horse to x86 only camps...
The irony of 9 replaced and an x86 'classic' VPC environ? (The performance of which should be fine for most of the apps we use in school...)
Relevance to G5 thread? The rumours suggest that Apple is pretty confident with regarding its workstation strategy...leaving only education. If Apple do x86 emulation...I wonder what M$ will do...
Hmmm. I think I should have posted this in the other thread...
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
<strong>If Apple do x86 emulation...I wonder what M$ will do...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, lets say Apple installs windows (or gives the option of installing windows) on the same hard drive as X, running it like Classic.
/windows
/applications (windows)
Microsoft sells more copies of Windows. Microsoft still doesn't care because of the small market share, which is all they think about. Especially considering it would kill the Mac with most users able to run Wintel applications, so why should developers of products write for Mac?
Sure pro-apps would stick around (for performance). But what happends when consumers leave the Mac after there is no UI advantage because Windows apps are used?
Windows NT ran on Macs fine. MS could do it again if they wanted to.
Barto
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
10 raised to 9th power:
10^9 = 10x10x10 x10x10x10x 10x10x10
[quote]I assume that Compilers would be needed to update the current apps to take advantage of the extra capabilities of the GP-UL.<hr></blockquote>
Current programs will run but may need recompiling for greater efficiency.
Currently, Altivec is 128 bit wide, right? On a 32 bit processor. So would a 64 bit processor mean a 512 bit width for Altivec at the same speeds as the current implementation, or (as I suspect) does the Altivec "width" have nothing to do with the processor width?
<strong>Anybody know what 64 bit-ness means for Altivec?
Currently, Altivec is 128 bit wide, right? On a 32 bit processor. So would a 64 bit processor mean a 512 bit width for Altivec at the same speeds as the current implementation, or (as I suspect) does the Altivec "width" have nothing to do with the processor width?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In a current G4 you have a 32bit int unit, 64bit float unit, 128bit SIMD unit, 36bit addressing, 64bit data paths to the bus, 256bit paths to the cache, etc. As you can see it's a big hodge podge of different bits. The general concensus is that if the integer unit and memory addressing is 64bit, it's a 64bit processor.
STOO
Thanks for the 10 to 9 explanation... its not like it could take much mor eto just write "10 to the 9th power" yeeesh.