Yeah I'm starting the think that these GPUL Powermacs might be more akin to Powermac Plus computers at the Workstation level where people don't bat an eye about spending $5000 at a minimum.
This is really interesting does Moto really have their version of a G5 coming?
The problem with this would be we still need powerful AND affordable computers.
I am all but convinced it is a mere rehash of the Microprocessor Forum agenda, GCC release notes and rumor boards pontifications. EWeek is just another struggling and desperate part of the bankrupt ZD publishing ex-empire trying to weasel out a few more hits for ad revenue.
How's that for raining on the parade?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty good, you could change your handle to 'Monsoon'.
They say the truth hurts. I still wonder if this isn't some FUD distributed by some covert Apple Public Relations Group. The things that come to mind are: IBM can't legally release Vaporware (they have to have the thing darn close to producabilty); IBMs release of Sahara at last years MPF showed up in Apple H/W 1Q the following year.
<strong>Yeah I'm starting the think that these GPUL Powermacs might be more akin to Powermac Plus computers at the Workstation level where people don't bat an eye about spending $5000 at a minimum.
This is really interesting does Moto really have their version of a G5 coming?
The problem with this would be we still need powerful AND affordable computers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some thoughts: If Mot has a G5 coming, it will connect with RapidIO. No, I haven't *confirmed* that with my hundreds of sources within Mot SPS , but it's obvious enough from their current direction. RapidIO will allow for bandwidth and MP support that MaxBus only dreams of.
Mot's G5 will have the usual Mot hallmarks: Small, cool, inexpensive, excellent performance/watt. They just teamed up with several other companies on a cutting-edge fab, which gets around their current Achilles heel: production, not design.
So, I think you're on the right track. The PowerMacs might become bona fide workstations, and within that market $5K is a steal (again, go <a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/"; target="_blank">price an RS/6000</a> ). It does leave a huge gap within Apple's line, however. In another thread, there are obscure references to Trinity's return. Trinity is (among other things) the code name for the Cube, which Apple "put on ice." The Cube was compact and powerful, and so if IBM's G5 is going into big, well-ventilated workstation grade towers, Trinity is a perfect place to put Mot's.
Now, I do not think that the Cube will return essentially unchanged. Apple has gotten much better at stuffing computers into tiny spaces since it was shelved - witness the iMac LCD. Furthermore, the vertical slot-loading drive was a mistake (albeit a cool-looking one), as were the ports on the bottom. So if Trinity does return, it will be more horizontal (Dorsal mentioned a Cube-like, horizontally oriented case way back when). It might even also sprout a hardware expansion option or two. This svelte, powerful, quiet (iMac quiet, not totally silent), modestly expandable machine would fill in where the towers currently are.
If Apple includes a high-speed port on the !Cube, say 2Gbps Fiber Channel or next-gen FireWire (or next-gen FireWire over Fiber Channel...) it could easily and efficiently be attached to fast drive modules, PCI chassis, etc.
I've been thinking along these lines for a long time, but the problem has always been that there was never a way to clear a sufficient amount of room in power or price between the iMacs and the Towers. Now, perhaps, there will be.
<strong>Yeah I'm starting the think that these GPUL Powermacs might be more akin to Powermac Plus computers at the Workstation level where people don't bat an eye about spending $5000 at a minimum. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Possible, but that would fly in the face of the 4 quadrant product line as well as Apple's long established practice of selling the Power Mac Pro line as highend workstations to professionals. I would expect higher price points at the high end of the "Pro" line but not a marketing push to sell them as "workstations". Look at the high model today, it's well into the $5K range, pricewise.
[quote]<strong>This is really interesting does Moto really have their version of a G5 coming?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't count on it. Note that the Moto G5 prediction was buried at the end of the story. Also note that NONE of the sources were attributed to any company. That is, it was all according to "sources" and "observers" not "sources at IBM and Apple" or "sources at Motorola". So the sources are likely just "Mac the Knife" and others in the Mac reporting industry. They probably just called around to a few folks after reading the MacEdition report and summarized the guesstimates they heard. Very speculative.
<strong>"I still feel that these new IBM-powered Mac will be placed on top of PowerMac series and it's going to be VERY EXPENSIVE."
I'd sure like the IBM powered Mac to be placed on top(!)of me...
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does it have to be so expansive, one article said ttaht this chip will have the size of a Celeron. Considering that the cost of production of a chip is the prize of silicium and the prize of the R&D divided by the numbers of chips selled, it would not be so expansive.
Now, for the prize that IBM will sell this chip it's an another story, but i am sure that this point have been already discuted between Apple and IBM.
I doubt also that this chips will cost more than 1000 $, 500 $ will be a good bet : the prize of the high end P4.
<strong>The Cube was compact and powerful, and so if IBM's G5 is going into big, well-ventilated workstation grade towers, Trinity is a perfect place to put Mot's.
Now, I do not think that the Cube will return essentially unchanged.
This svelte, powerful, quiet (iMac quiet, not totally silent), modestly expandable machine would fill in where the towers currently are.
If Apple includes a high-speed port on the !Cube, say 2Gbps Fiber Channel or next-gen FireWire (or next-gen FireWire over Fiber Channel...) it could easily and efficiently be attached to fast drive modules, PCI chassis, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I like the thinking. Jobs may have said that the Cube is a mistake that will never be repeated, but the only real mistakes were the lack of expandability and the price. A PCI slot and room for a full-height graphics card are all you really need, along with a nice fat hard drive.
Just enough expandability for people who have dedicated applications that rely on hardware add-ons, and more than enough oomph for gamers (where video performance is more important than processing power).
Wasn't there once some talk about the Trinity concept itself involving an expansion module of some sort?
[quote] Possible, but that would fly in the face of the 4 quadrant product line as well as Apple's long established practice of selling the Power Mac Pro line as highend workstations to professionals. I would expect higher price points at the high end of the "Pro" line but not a marketing push to sell them as "workstations". Look at the high model today, it's well into the $5K range, pricewise. <hr></blockquote>
Yes but the Quadrant Idea stemmed from Steve simplifying things until Apple returned to profitability. It was never promised to be a infinite structure. I think the Pro's who need this power would just "ante up" I mean I've seen people buy new computers and immediately stuff a $4000 Blue Ice board in that computer. Apple's gotta be thinking that THEY would love to reap the margins on that extra $4k
[quote] Why does it have to be so expansive, one article said ttaht this chip will have the size of a Celeron. Considering that the cost of production of a chip is the prize of silicium and the prize of the R&D divided by the numbers of chips selled, it would not be so expansive. <hr></blockquote>
Because they'll be dual cores...perhaps even moving to Quad Core. Apple will milk a performance jump like this for whatever it's worth and my money is on them creating a TRUE Workstation.
Amorph,
Love the idea of Fibre Channel connectivity. Hmmm makes you wonder because Apple's using FC in the Xserve RAID. Would this be fast enough for Clustering. Somehow I don't think we've heard that last of Project Wolf.
Answer this one question, k? Does your company's software run on the NeXT Gen systems with some tweaking or no tweaking at all? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Hell if I know; if I had access to one of those machines, I would be under NDA, and I sure as hell wouldn't be posting here about it.
[QB] A PCI slot and room for a full-height graphics card are all you really need, along with a nice fat hard drive.[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You're absolutely right. Tell you what. You run off and figure out how to stick all that in a computer the size of the Cube (without a fan mind you) and come back when you've got it sussed. The rest of us will still be here when you get back (next year or three).
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Tomb of the Unknown ]</p>
Next year if the PowerMac gets a POWER4 derived CPU, they still need options for the PowerBook, i/eMac, and iBook. This is where an 85XX derived processor comes in that includes Altivec. Then when the POWER4 derived goes to 90nm it will fit in the PowerBook snugly and filter down from there.
I don't see Apple developing a three-tiered strategy on the desktop, nor do I believe one is needed (excluding all discussion of the educational iMac market). The Pro machines are PRO machines. If you introduce an UberPro machine, you tacitly acknowledge that your previous line of top end machines were... well... crappy. What are they... toys? game computers? There is no defined middle market. There are lots of smaller marginal markets that together don't mean very much.
The current powermacs are indeed a bit behind the so called "pro" market (I personally believe that a lot of the deficiency is perceptual, but there is a tangible performance deficit right now too). The next generation machine built off of this GULP or GP-UL will be ahead of the curve, where Apple needs to be to grow market share. We may see more headroom across the pro line--more of a step in performance between price points, and maybe even a widening of those price points. But no third line.
As for the RS-6000 workstation series, I thought that IBM was learning what Sun already knows. The workstation market is owned by cheaper, yet hardened, x86 chip-based machines. There are advantages to server class hardware, but those advantages have nothing to do with performace and everything to do with turnkey solutions and reliability. Apple has xServe for that market, so the powermac will remain the powermac.
I'll go for anything as long as the don't name the new GPUL boxes "PowerMac Pro" or "PowerMac Xtreme".
I would expect a Good, Better, Best, Ultimate configurations. "Good" would be G4 dualies at $1599 and the rest would go from there. In 12 - 18 months all would be GPUL based.
<strong>I don't see Apple developing a three-tiered strategy on the desktop, nor do I believe one is needed (excluding all discussion of the educational iMac market). The Pro machines are PRO machines. If you introduce an UberPro machine, you tacitly acknowledge that your previous line of top end machines were... well... crappy. What are they... toys? game computers? There is no defined middle market. There are lots of smaller marginal markets that together don't mean very much.
The current powermacs are indeed a bit behind the so called "pro" market (I personally believe that a lot of the deficiency is perceptual, but there is a tangible performance deficit right now too). The next generation machine built off of this GULP or GP-UL will be ahead of the curve, where Apple needs to be to grow market share. We may see more headroom across the pro line--more of a step in performance between price points, and maybe even a widening of those price points. But no third line.
As for the RS-6000 workstation series, I thought that IBM was learning what Sun already knows. The workstation market is owned by cheaper, yet hardened, x86 chip-based machines. There are advantages to server class hardware, but those advantages have nothing to do with performace and everything to do with turnkey solutions and reliability. Apple has xServe for that market, so the powermac will remain the powermac.
I agree compleatly with your first statement, PowerMacs are Pro computers, you also make a good point about workstations loosing ground to high end desktop (tower) computers. I do think that Apple has the room for a higher end computer than they currently market, possibly a Quad. However, they might be better served by releasing a relatively inexpensive, scalable "RenderFarm" rack mount box sort of like the Xserve but upgradable with configurations of 2-16 processors, a simple CD for loading software and the smallest HD they can get (40 GB should be fine for the system requirements, the anything else it would get from the network's RAID.
Hell if I know; if I had access to one of those machines, I would be under NDA, and I sure as hell wouldn't be posting here about it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I don't see Apple developing a three-tiered strategy on the desktop, nor do I believe one is needed (excluding all discussion of the educational iMac market). The Pro machines are PRO machines. If you introduce an UberPro machine, you tacitly acknowledge that your previous line of top end machines were... well... crappy. What are they... toys? game computers? There is no defined middle market. There are lots of smaller marginal markets that together don't mean very much.
The current powermacs are indeed a bit behind the so called "pro" market (I personally believe that a lot of the deficiency is perceptual, but there is a tangible performance deficit right now too). The next generation machine built off of this GULP or GP-UL will be ahead of the curve, where Apple needs to be to grow market share. We may see more headroom across the pro line--more of a step in performance between price points, and maybe even a widening of those price points. But no third line.
As for the RS-6000 workstation series, I thought that IBM was learning what Sun already knows. The workstation market is owned by cheaper, yet hardened, x86 chip-based machines. There are advantages to server class hardware, but those advantages have nothing to do with performace and everything to do with turnkey solutions and reliability. Apple has xServe for that market, so the powermac will remain the powermac.
I agree 100% with this statement. Apple will not release a workstation class machine. If Motorola has made a G5 (PPC85xx) it will go into the current PowerMacs for a year or so until the IBM GPUL comes out. Then the Moto G5 will be put into the consumer line. And the GPUL or what I suspect to be called the G6 will go into the Powermac line.
\tIt has been hard to make total sense of this IBM chip and when it will come out ect. Or whether the G5 will come from Moto or IBM. I think in a years time we will see G5 consumer and G6 proline. This way Apple will be totally caught up to the PC side in a years time.
Comments
This is really interesting does Moto really have their version of a G5 coming?
The problem with this would be we still need powerful AND affordable computers.
<strong>Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that depends on who you get your info from.
[quote] Maybe, just maybe
IBM = multicore GPuL late late summer or fall 2003
Motorola = single core G5 early 2003 <hr></blockquote>
I've been saying that for a while now. New G4 (G5) from moto with new mobo in jan and the power4 core in Sept or so just as this years releases.
<strong><snip>
I am all but convinced it is a mere rehash of the Microprocessor Forum agenda, GCC release notes and rumor boards pontifications. EWeek is just another struggling and desperate part of the bankrupt ZD publishing ex-empire trying to weasel out a few more hits for ad revenue.
How's that for raining on the parade?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pretty good, you could change your handle to 'Monsoon'.
They say the truth hurts. I still wonder if this isn't some FUD distributed by some covert Apple Public Relations Group. The things that come to mind are: IBM can't legally release Vaporware (they have to have the thing darn close to producabilty); IBMs release of Sahara at last years MPF showed up in Apple H/W 1Q the following year.
<strong>Yeah I'm starting the think that these GPUL Powermacs might be more akin to Powermac Plus computers at the Workstation level where people don't bat an eye about spending $5000 at a minimum.
This is really interesting does Moto really have their version of a G5 coming?
The problem with this would be we still need powerful AND affordable computers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some thoughts: If Mot has a G5 coming, it will connect with RapidIO. No, I haven't *confirmed* that with my hundreds of sources within Mot SPS
Mot's G5 will have the usual Mot hallmarks: Small, cool, inexpensive, excellent performance/watt. They just teamed up with several other companies on a cutting-edge fab, which gets around their current Achilles heel: production, not design.
Mot's G5 will not compete with IBM's. IBM is building a mid-to-high-end workstation processor (go <a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/"; target="_blank">price an RS/6000</a>). Mot never has, never will.
So, I think you're on the right track. The PowerMacs might become bona fide workstations, and within that market $5K is a steal (again, go <a href="http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/workstations/"; target="_blank">price an RS/6000</a>
Now, I do not think that the Cube will return essentially unchanged. Apple has gotten much better at stuffing computers into tiny spaces since it was shelved - witness the iMac LCD. Furthermore, the vertical slot-loading drive was a mistake (albeit a cool-looking one), as were the ports on the bottom. So if Trinity does return, it will be more horizontal (Dorsal mentioned a Cube-like, horizontally oriented case way back when). It might even also sprout a hardware expansion option or two. This svelte, powerful, quiet (iMac quiet, not totally silent), modestly expandable machine would fill in where the towers currently are.
If Apple includes a high-speed port on the !Cube, say 2Gbps Fiber Channel or next-gen FireWire (or next-gen FireWire over Fiber Channel...) it could easily and efficiently be attached to fast drive modules, PCI chassis, etc.
I've been thinking along these lines for a long time, but the problem has always been that there was never a way to clear a sufficient amount of room in power or price between the iMacs and the Towers. Now, perhaps, there will be.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>Yeah I'm starting the think that these GPUL Powermacs might be more akin to Powermac Plus computers at the Workstation level where people don't bat an eye about spending $5000 at a minimum. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Possible, but that would fly in the face of the 4 quadrant product line as well as Apple's long established practice of selling the Power Mac Pro line as highend workstations to professionals. I would expect higher price points at the high end of the "Pro" line but not a marketing push to sell them as "workstations". Look at the high model today, it's well into the $5K range, pricewise.
[quote]<strong>This is really interesting does Moto really have their version of a G5 coming?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't count on it. Note that the Moto G5 prediction was buried at the end of the story. Also note that NONE of the sources were attributed to any company. That is, it was all according to "sources" and "observers" not "sources at IBM and Apple" or "sources at Motorola". So the sources are likely just "Mac the Knife" and others in the Mac reporting industry. They probably just called around to a few folks after reading the MacEdition report and summarized the guesstimates they heard. Very speculative.
<strong>"I still feel that these new IBM-powered Mac will be placed on top of PowerMac series and it's going to be VERY EXPENSIVE."
I'd sure like the IBM powered Mac to be placed on top(!)of me...
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why does it have to be so expansive, one article said ttaht this chip will have the size of a Celeron. Considering that the cost of production of a chip is the prize of silicium and the prize of the R&D divided by the numbers of chips selled, it would not be so expansive.
Now, for the prize that IBM will sell this chip it's an another story, but i am sure that this point have been already discuted between Apple and IBM.
I doubt also that this chips will cost more than 1000 $, 500 $ will be a good bet : the prize of the high end P4.
<strong>The Cube was compact and powerful, and so if IBM's G5 is going into big, well-ventilated workstation grade towers, Trinity is a perfect place to put Mot's.
Now, I do not think that the Cube will return essentially unchanged.
This svelte, powerful, quiet (iMac quiet, not totally silent), modestly expandable machine would fill in where the towers currently are.
If Apple includes a high-speed port on the !Cube, say 2Gbps Fiber Channel or next-gen FireWire (or next-gen FireWire over Fiber Channel...) it could easily and efficiently be attached to fast drive modules, PCI chassis, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, I like the thinking. Jobs may have said that the Cube is a mistake that will never be repeated, but the only real mistakes were the lack of expandability and the price. A PCI slot and room for a full-height graphics card are all you really need, along with a nice fat hard drive.
Just enough expandability for people who have dedicated applications that rely on hardware add-ons, and more than enough oomph for gamers (where video performance is more important than processing power).
Wasn't there once some talk about the Trinity concept itself involving an expansion module of some sort?
Yes but the Quadrant Idea stemmed from Steve simplifying things until Apple returned to profitability. It was never promised to be a infinite structure. I think the Pro's who need this power would just "ante up" I mean I've seen people buy new computers and immediately stuff a $4000 Blue Ice board in that computer. Apple's gotta be thinking that THEY would love to reap the margins on that extra $4k
[quote] Why does it have to be so expansive, one article said ttaht this chip will have the size of a Celeron. Considering that the cost of production of a chip is the prize of silicium and the prize of the R&D divided by the numbers of chips selled, it would not be so expansive. <hr></blockquote>
Because they'll be dual cores...perhaps even moving to Quad Core. Apple will milk a performance jump like this for whatever it's worth and my money is on them creating a TRUE Workstation.
Amorph,
Love the idea of Fibre Channel connectivity. Hmmm makes you wonder because Apple's using FC in the Xserve RAID. Would this be fast enough for Clustering. Somehow I don't think we've heard that last of Project Wolf.
<strong>Hey Moki:
Answer this one question, k? Does your company's software run on the NeXT Gen systems with some tweaking or no tweaking at all?
Hell if I know; if I had access to one of those machines, I would be under NDA, and I sure as hell wouldn't be posting here about it.
[QB] A PCI slot and room for a full-height graphics card are all you really need, along with a nice fat hard drive.[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You're absolutely right. Tell you what. You run off and figure out how to stick all that in a computer the size of the Cube (without a fan mind you) and come back when you've got it sussed. The rest of us will still be here when you get back (next year or three).
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Tomb of the Unknown ]</p>
The current powermacs are indeed a bit behind the so called "pro" market (I personally believe that a lot of the deficiency is perceptual, but there is a tangible performance deficit right now too). The next generation machine built off of this GULP or GP-UL will be ahead of the curve, where Apple needs to be to grow market share. We may see more headroom across the pro line--more of a step in performance between price points, and maybe even a widening of those price points. But no third line.
As for the RS-6000 workstation series, I thought that IBM was learning what Sun already knows. The workstation market is owned by cheaper, yet hardened, x86 chip-based machines. There are advantages to server class hardware, but those advantages have nothing to do with performace and everything to do with turnkey solutions and reliability. Apple has xServe for that market, so the powermac will remain the powermac.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
I would expect a Good, Better, Best, Ultimate configurations. "Good" would be G4 dualies at $1599 and the rest would go from there. In 12 - 18 months all would be GPUL based.
<strong>I don't see Apple developing a three-tiered strategy on the desktop, nor do I believe one is needed (excluding all discussion of the educational iMac market). The Pro machines are PRO machines. If you introduce an UberPro machine, you tacitly acknowledge that your previous line of top end machines were... well... crappy. What are they... toys? game computers? There is no defined middle market. There are lots of smaller marginal markets that together don't mean very much.
The current powermacs are indeed a bit behind the so called "pro" market (I personally believe that a lot of the deficiency is perceptual, but there is a tangible performance deficit right now too). The next generation machine built off of this GULP or GP-UL will be ahead of the curve, where Apple needs to be to grow market share. We may see more headroom across the pro line--more of a step in performance between price points, and maybe even a widening of those price points. But no third line.
As for the RS-6000 workstation series, I thought that IBM was learning what Sun already knows. The workstation market is owned by cheaper, yet hardened, x86 chip-based machines. There are advantages to server class hardware, but those advantages have nothing to do with performace and everything to do with turnkey solutions and reliability. Apple has xServe for that market, so the powermac will remain the powermac.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree compleatly with your first statement, PowerMacs are Pro computers, you also make a good point about workstations loosing ground to high end desktop (tower) computers. I do think that Apple has the room for a higher end computer than they currently market, possibly a Quad. However, they might be better served by releasing a relatively inexpensive, scalable "RenderFarm" rack mount box sort of like the Xserve but upgradable with configurations of 2-16 processors, a simple CD for loading software and the smallest HD they can get (40 GB should be fine for the system requirements, the anything else it would get from the network's RAID.
<strong>
Hell if I know; if I had access to one of those machines, I would be under NDA, and I sure as hell wouldn't be posting here about it.
wink wink nudge nudge say no more
<strong>I don't see Apple developing a three-tiered strategy on the desktop, nor do I believe one is needed (excluding all discussion of the educational iMac market). The Pro machines are PRO machines. If you introduce an UberPro machine, you tacitly acknowledge that your previous line of top end machines were... well... crappy. What are they... toys? game computers? There is no defined middle market. There are lots of smaller marginal markets that together don't mean very much.
The current powermacs are indeed a bit behind the so called "pro" market (I personally believe that a lot of the deficiency is perceptual, but there is a tangible performance deficit right now too). The next generation machine built off of this GULP or GP-UL will be ahead of the curve, where Apple needs to be to grow market share. We may see more headroom across the pro line--more of a step in performance between price points, and maybe even a widening of those price points. But no third line.
As for the RS-6000 workstation series, I thought that IBM was learning what Sun already knows. The workstation market is owned by cheaper, yet hardened, x86 chip-based machines. There are advantages to server class hardware, but those advantages have nothing to do with performace and everything to do with turnkey solutions and reliability. Apple has xServe for that market, so the powermac will remain the powermac.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree 100% with this statement. Apple will not release a workstation class machine. If Motorola has made a G5 (PPC85xx) it will go into the current PowerMacs for a year or so until the IBM GPUL comes out. Then the Moto G5 will be put into the consumer line. And the GPUL or what I suspect to be called the G6 will go into the Powermac line.
\tIt has been hard to make total sense of this IBM chip and when it will come out ect. Or whether the G5 will come from Moto or IBM. I think in a years time we will see G5 consumer and G6 proline. This way Apple will be totally caught up to the PC side in a years time.
\tMake sense?
Low- consumer/home machines
Mid- Photoshop/Quark/2D workstations
High- 3D/development/Science/simulation/video workstations
Apple has Low and Mid covered. And high end is currently being serviced by their Mid range systems.
<strong>G4s won't be used in PowerMacs after mid-2003. I would bet a lot on that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you believe the eweek article, they won't be used in PowerMacs early in 2003.
I just don't know how much I believe any time frames that this article mentions. Motorola has been so slow in developing cpu's for Apple.