One thing that confuses me is that I've read from multiple sources that state the majority of apps won't benefit from 64 bit-ness and some would actually be slower then their 32 bit-ness previous version.
If all that's true, then why the big hoopla at the WWDC when only a few high end apps would benefit from the re-code? How many developers actually attending would 64 bit tech speak actually be relevant to? Why does Apple need to show a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit 970 if only a handful of attendees would actually be taking their apps to 64 bits?
i was listening to "your mac life" audio show and he said the same thing as well as 2 other painfully obvious mistakes about the speed of a 970 machine.
one listener called in to correct one of them. they guy really needs to do some homework before spouting out such basic mistakes.
i was listening to "your mac life" audio show and he said the same thing as well as 2 other painfully obvious mistakes about the speed of a 970 machine.
one listener called in to correct one of them. they guy really needs to do some homework before spouting out such basic mistakes.
Shawn King mentioning rumors in the show. That must mean it's *confirmed* then
One thing that confuses me is that I've read from multiple sources that state the majority of apps won't benefit from 64 bit-ness and some would actually be slower then their 32 bit-ness previous version.
Right. That's where the 970's other advantages come in. If this was a 64-bit 7455, I'd be wondering right alongside you.
Quote:
If all that's true, then why the big hoopla at the WWDC when only a few high end apps would benefit from the re-code?
The few high-end apps happen to be crucial to Apple's strategy. The rest will probably benefit from, say, the ability of individual applications to address much more than 2GB of virtual memory (which might spur Apple to add support for more than 2GB of real RAM).
The few high-end apps happen to be crucial to Apple's strategy.
Very true. Apple wouldn't be there otherwise. I was once told that 64-bit didn't necessarily mean 'twice as fast', just that more data...and/or larger data could be worked on.
One thing that confuses me is that I've read from multiple sources that state the majority of apps won't benefit from 64 bit-ness and some would actually be slower then their 32 bit-ness previous version.
If all that's true, then why the big hoopla at the WWDC when only a few high end apps would benefit from the re-code? How many developers actually attending would 64 bit tech speak actually be relevant to? Why does Apple need to show a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit 970 if only a handful of attendees would actually be taking their apps to 64 bits?
As Amorph pointed out, 64-bit computing is much more than just the ability to process 64-bit integers. Memory, for example. In a couple of years from now--and especially if OS X continues to be so RAM-hungry--I can easily see that workstation-level computing, even on a Mac, might need to natively address more than 4 GB of RAM. And of course, even if no applications will be ported to 64 bits, they will still be able to access a much larger amount of memory per thread (or is it per process? I could never quite find out the difference between the two, so please forgive me if what I said isn't quite right...) than now. Also, who knows what kind of possibilities will 64-bit desktop computing open up? It might be that the 64-bit desktop killer app is to be developed yet! You can never have too much RAM, or too much MHz, or too many bits!
A more advanced computing platfrom--even if right now it doesn't seem revolutionary--is just a tool to build the future. It might unlock doors that until now we didn't even know existed--let alone that they were locked!
More specifically, I'd like to ask a question to Amorph/Programmer/Moki (or anyone else who's as competent): I remember Carmack talking about a 64 bit color space in a .plan update last year. Even if the human eye can only see a very limited number of hues (IIRC around 4 millions of colors), he basically said that all those extra bits would allow for more extensive use of texture transparencies and things like that. Not immediately perceivable to the human eye, but improving the overall image quality. My question is: to fully use a 64 bit color space, does the CPU need to be able to process 64 bit integers? Or does the GPU need to? Or both? Or none of the above? Somebody please shed some light on this issue...
I can easily see that workstation-level computing, even on a Mac, might need to natively address more than 4 GB of RAM.
Well. Even a simple 3d scene of a street can cripple 1 gig of Ram, 1.6xp Athlon cpu. With jerky updates on an ATI 8500.
Poser 4 renders of the Victoria model with high resolution textures and bump maps can weight down a system. They recommend 500-700 megs of ram now...just for one realistic model. Want to render an animation with radiosity? ZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzz...
In the scheme of things...in terms of 3D...though the PCs have it in terms of Lightwave rendering times...we're far from immediate response in terms of 3D apps helping out rendering...to the point that the cpu may just facilitate the scene setup in a few years time leaving the grunt work to the graphic card! Maybe when/if(?) the next gen' graphic cards have full programmability...and that is incorporated into apps like Lightwave...and Cinema 4D (hello Leonis!) then maybe we'll have moved on another level or so... There's talk of immediate rendering of particles in Maya with a Geforce 4 Ti...(seems to support some real time capabilities in Maya or vice versa) though I haven't seen that in action yet. But if it's happening now then in a couple of years...Nvidia cards and a 980 quad workstation on 20 gigs of ram should be able to do some truly wonderous things in terms of 3D. Should be good for web browsing too...
There is a need for more bits...superior colour, more ram...faster cpus...faster throughput. Truth to be told. Todays fastest 'power'Macs or PCs just aint that fast in reality for things like 3D. Not by a long chalk. Awkward irritating renders for this...and that...a sky...a figure...a scene...compositing...to get around scene limits.
I'm eager to see what a dual 970 1.8 gigger with 4 gigs of ram...and an Ati 9800 can do. Should be much faster at 3D than my old 604e Powermac clone was running Raydream 4 (Yaay....Twinky Cakes...)
We need to go from 3 lanes to 6 lane or even 9 lane traffic...with supercar cpu performance instead of the current 'pick up truck' speeds.
I'm sure 64 bit colour will add more finesse...in subtle ways...hard to discern. Take the latest computer graphics. Look very realistic...until you stare out the window. There's a big difference. They still look like paintings compared to the real thing.
Here are the details on Apple's most recent machine updates (excluding the eMac which was updated in May and won't be updated again anytime soon):
The last PowerBook 15" update was in November 2002 - WWDC will be 8 months.
(The prior update was April 2002 - 7 months.)
The 12" and 17" PowerBooks were released in January 2003 - WWDC will be 6 months.
(Brand new...no prior update.)
The last PowerMac update was in January 2003 - WWDC will be 6 months
(The prior update was August 2002 - 5 months.)
The last Xserve update was in February 2003 - WWDC will be 5 months.
(The first release was May 2002 - 9 months.)
The last iMac update was in February 2003 - WWDC will be 5 months.
(The prior update was in July 2002 - 7 months.)
The last iBook update was in March 2003. - WWDC will be 4 months.
(The prior update was in November 2002 - 4 months.)
The stats above clearly indicate that Apple has in the past updated machines as quickly as 4 months later. With WWDC bringing every single machine to the 5-8 months old mark, it is NOT unreasonable to believe each and every machine is due for an update based on Apple's prior update schedule.
Does this mean PPC 970 machines across the board? Not necessarily. But I'd be surprised to not see the PPC 970 used across the board by year end, with the possible exception of iBooks and eMacs using IBM's new G3 + Altivec variant.
Just a gut instinct, but I think Motorola will be a distant memory by 2004.
[QUOTE]The stats above clearly indicate that Apple has in the past updated machines as quickly as 4 months later. With WWDC bringing every single machine to the 5-8 months old mark, it is NOT unreasonable to believe each and every machine is due for an update based on Apple's prior update schedule.
Does this mean PPC 970 machines across the board? Not necessarily. But I'd be surprised to not see the PPC 970 used across the board by year end, with the possible exception of iBooks and eMacs using IBM's new G3 + Altivec variant.
Just a gut instinct, but I think Motorola will be a distant memory by 2004.QUOTE]
An insightful post.
Many of us found it 'odd' that Apple chose Jan' to blitz/update all there product lines. It seemed to be a frenzy of activity. All around the same time...almost as if some strategy or alignment was taking place...almost setting us up for a similar move later on in the year. The implications? A mere teasing G4 bump here or there?
And here we are...almost half a year later from all that. And the 'whole' line needs another refresh.
I personally wouldn't rule out another 'block' move by Apple onto 970 cpus for the Pro line...
...and G3SIMD processors for the consumer line by the end of 2003.
It makes sense to me. If they can do that...I can see Apple selling above a million machines per quarter for the first time in quite a while. That would be alot of cash for IBM and Apple. It would be worth it. The sooner they move to it...and build some real momentum...we'd all benefit. It was mooted that 2003 latter half would be the beginning of the light at the end of the tunnel for PPC.
I don't know when the 970s will be announced, by I'd put up a heap of money that says they'll ship immediately after they're announced.
I hope so, but the 970 Power Macs will be introduced to developers at WWDC regardless of when they are available to customers. Developers need to know what 64-bit hardware they will be making and updating applications for. I also agree with Programmer that it will be at WWDC not before. Why else does Apple say we should come and see the future of the Mac platform? The Mac platform is both hardware and operating system.
Oh my God Lemon....I can't believe you spend your entire life ONLY building 3D streets
I will show you that said street when I get my current teaching contract out the way (I'm too beat to play with Lightwave when I get home from being beaten up on by 30 kids...)
Hey...building 3D streets is fun... (sounds of tumble weeds whistling by the 'insider boards...) No really...
Ahem.
And I'm an E.L.O fan. Anybody around here wanna make something of it...huh? HUH?
The stats above clearly indicate that Apple has in the past updated machines as quickly as 4 months later. With WWDC bringing every single machine to the 5-8 months old mark, it is NOT unreasonable to believe each and every machine is due for an update based on Apple's prior update schedule.
I'd be surprised (but pleasantly surprised) if Apple were to update their entire line of systems at WWDC. What seems feasible at this time are the PM's and possibly, possibly the XServes. I'm guessing the rest of the models will be updated in later events (MWNY, etc.). Then again, you don't want to lose sales for the rest of their lineup due to this tactic, so it's hard to say.
Quote:
Does this mean PPC 970 machines across the board? Not necessarily. But I'd be surprised to not see the PPC 970 used across the board by year end, with the possible exception of iBooks and eMacs using IBM's new G3 + Altivec variant.
I actually believe that it would not be a good idea for Apple to implement the PPC 970s into all of their machines due to price. I'm not sure if Apple will be noticeably raising the prices on the models with the new 970s, but if they do, they should implement a cheaper chip into models such as the iBook, eMac, just as you said.
Quote:
Just a gut instinct, but I think Motorola will be a distant memory by 2004.
I actually believe that it would not be a good idea for Apple to implement the PPC 970s into all of their machines due to price. I'm not sure if Apple will be noticeably raising the prices on the models with the new 970s, but if they do, they should implement a cheaper chip into models such as the iBook, eMac, just as you said.
I don't think Apple will increase prices of their hardware even it the 970 should enter more than the powermac line right now (which im sure it will not do). One of the reasons we may not have seen any price-cuts of the iMac line this year may be that Apple is thinking ahead, and know that the 970 iMac will be more expensive to produce than the current one (just guessing here, since we don't know how the 970 will be priced). If they reduced the prices now, and increased them again when the 970 iMac is released, a lot of people would critizise Apple for it. Now they can introduce the 970 in the iMac line and maybe reduce the price a little. But I think a decently configured 64 bit iMac at the current price points would make a lot of people consider it that in the past have seen it as too limited and underspecced for the price. A line with single 1.4 ghz at the bottom and 1.6 at the top with 256 and 512 mb ram and bigger harddrive, FW800, APeXt and BT at the current prices would be somewhat more tempting than the current line I would think
Motorola is facing a nasty lawsuit from shareholders. IT seems that MOT kept nearly a billion dollars in loans off the SEC reports regarding an ailing Turkish phone system.
In effect, this could cut Motorola's income by more than a billion dollars over the time period in question.
FOr more info visit the Motley Fool's discussions of Motorola (www.fool.com).
Add this to MOTs other numerous problems and methinks I smell another Enron.
I don't think Apple will increase prices of their hardware even it the 970 should enter more than the powermac line right now (which im sure it will not do). One of the reasons we may not have seen any price-cuts of the iMac line this year may be that Apple is thinking ahead, and know that the 970 iMac will be more expensive to produce than the current one (just guessing here, since we don't know how the 970 will be priced).
Comments
g
If all that's true, then why the big hoopla at the WWDC when only a few high end apps would benefit from the re-code? How many developers actually attending would 64 bit tech speak actually be relevant to? Why does Apple need to show a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit 970 if only a handful of attendees would actually be taking their apps to 64 bits?
a) apple will probably show final cut beta with 64bit support as a test case
b) 64bit gets apple even deeper into the scientific markets (growth)
c) 64bit anything is really going to piss off sun and intel
d) the whole my OS is "64bit' and yours is only 32bit can only help apple, even though its megahertz type myth thing for now.
e) panther is more than 64 bitness in its breadth
The megahertz myth was true until Intel got chips more than 50% faster than the G4 in combination with better motherboard architectures.
If people are silly enough to buy "more megahertz means faster" now, there's no reason they won't buy "64 is twice as fast as 32."
It's not true, but since when have consumers bought the truth?
Originally posted by jccbin
If people are silly enough to buy "more megahertz means faster" now, there's no reason they won't buy "64 is twice as fast as 32."
So very true. In fact, I have already seen this stated in articles a few times already. No need to tell them otherwise though
one listener called in to correct one of them. they guy really needs to do some homework before spouting out such basic mistakes.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
i was listening to "your mac life" audio show and he said the same thing as well as 2 other painfully obvious mistakes about the speed of a 970 machine.
one listener called in to correct one of them. they guy really needs to do some homework before spouting out such basic mistakes.
Originally posted by KidRed
One thing that confuses me is that I've read from multiple sources that state the majority of apps won't benefit from 64 bit-ness and some would actually be slower then their 32 bit-ness previous version.
Right. That's where the 970's other advantages come in. If this was a 64-bit 7455, I'd be wondering right alongside you.
If all that's true, then why the big hoopla at the WWDC when only a few high end apps would benefit from the re-code?
The few high-end apps happen to be crucial to Apple's strategy. The rest will probably benefit from, say, the ability of individual applications to address much more than 2GB of virtual memory (which might spur Apple to add support for more than 2GB of real RAM).
The few high-end apps happen to be crucial to Apple's strategy.
Very true. Apple wouldn't be there otherwise. I was once told that 64-bit didn't necessarily mean 'twice as fast', just that more data...and/or larger data could be worked on.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by KidRed
One thing that confuses me is that I've read from multiple sources that state the majority of apps won't benefit from 64 bit-ness and some would actually be slower then their 32 bit-ness previous version.
If all that's true, then why the big hoopla at the WWDC when only a few high end apps would benefit from the re-code? How many developers actually attending would 64 bit tech speak actually be relevant to? Why does Apple need to show a 64 bit OS running on a 64 bit 970 if only a handful of attendees would actually be taking their apps to 64 bits?
As Amorph pointed out, 64-bit computing is much more than just the ability to process 64-bit integers. Memory, for example. In a couple of years from now--and especially if OS X continues to be so RAM-hungry--I can easily see that workstation-level computing, even on a Mac, might need to natively address more than 4 GB of RAM. And of course, even if no applications will be ported to 64 bits, they will still be able to access a much larger amount of memory per thread (or is it per process? I could never quite find out the difference between the two, so please forgive me if what I said isn't quite right...) than now. Also, who knows what kind of possibilities will 64-bit desktop computing open up? It might be that the 64-bit desktop killer app is to be developed yet! You can never have too much RAM, or too much MHz, or too many bits!
A more advanced computing platfrom--even if right now it doesn't seem revolutionary--is just a tool to build the future. It might unlock doors that until now we didn't even know existed--let alone that they were locked!
More specifically, I'd like to ask a question to Amorph/Programmer/Moki (or anyone else who's as competent): I remember Carmack talking about a 64 bit color space in a .plan update last year. Even if the human eye can only see a very limited number of hues (IIRC around 4 millions of colors), he basically said that all those extra bits would allow for more extensive use of texture transparencies and things like that. Not immediately perceivable to the human eye, but improving the overall image quality. My question is: to fully use a 64 bit color space, does the CPU need to be able to process 64 bit integers? Or does the GPU need to? Or both? Or none of the above?
Thanks in advance,
ZoSo
I can easily see that workstation-level computing, even on a Mac, might need to natively address more than 4 GB of RAM.
Well. Even a simple 3d scene of a street can cripple 1 gig of Ram, 1.6xp Athlon cpu. With jerky updates on an ATI 8500.
Poser 4 renders of the Victoria model with high resolution textures and bump maps can weight down a system. They recommend 500-700 megs of ram now...just for one realistic model. Want to render an animation with radiosity? ZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzz...
In the scheme of things...in terms of 3D...though the PCs have it in terms of Lightwave rendering times...we're far from immediate response in terms of 3D apps helping out rendering...to the point that the cpu may just facilitate the scene setup in a few years time leaving the grunt work to the graphic card! Maybe when/if(?) the next gen' graphic cards have full programmability...and that is incorporated into apps like Lightwave...and Cinema 4D (hello Leonis!) then maybe we'll have moved on another level or so... There's talk of immediate rendering of particles in Maya with a Geforce 4 Ti...(seems to support some real time capabilities in Maya or vice versa) though I haven't seen that in action yet. But if it's happening now then in a couple of years...Nvidia cards and a 980 quad workstation on 20 gigs of ram should be able to do some truly wonderous things in terms of 3D. Should be good for web browsing too...
There is a need for more bits...superior colour, more ram...faster cpus...faster throughput. Truth to be told. Todays fastest 'power'Macs or PCs just aint that fast in reality for things like 3D. Not by a long chalk. Awkward irritating renders for this...and that...a sky...a figure...a scene...compositing...to get around scene limits.
I'm eager to see what a dual 970 1.8 gigger with 4 gigs of ram...and an Ati 9800 can do. Should be much faster at 3D than my old 604e Powermac clone was running Raydream 4 (Yaay....Twinky Cakes...)
We need to go from 3 lanes to 6 lane or even 9 lane traffic...with supercar cpu performance instead of the current 'pick up truck' speeds.
I'm sure 64 bit colour will add more finesse...in subtle ways...hard to discern. Take the latest computer graphics. Look very realistic...until you stare out the window. There's a big difference. They still look like paintings compared to the real thing.
My 2 pence.
Lemon Bon Bon
The last PowerBook 15" update was in November 2002 - WWDC will be 8 months.
(The prior update was April 2002 - 7 months.)
The 12" and 17" PowerBooks were released in January 2003 - WWDC will be 6 months.
(Brand new...no prior update.)
The last PowerMac update was in January 2003 - WWDC will be 6 months
(The prior update was August 2002 - 5 months.)
The last Xserve update was in February 2003 - WWDC will be 5 months.
(The first release was May 2002 - 9 months.)
The last iMac update was in February 2003 - WWDC will be 5 months.
(The prior update was in July 2002 - 7 months.)
The last iBook update was in March 2003. - WWDC will be 4 months.
(The prior update was in November 2002 - 4 months.)
The stats above clearly indicate that Apple has in the past updated machines as quickly as 4 months later. With WWDC bringing every single machine to the 5-8 months old mark, it is NOT unreasonable to believe each and every machine is due for an update based on Apple's prior update schedule.
Does this mean PPC 970 machines across the board? Not necessarily. But I'd be surprised to not see the PPC 970 used across the board by year end, with the possible exception of iBooks and eMacs using IBM's new G3 + Altivec variant.
Just a gut instinct, but I think Motorola will be a distant memory by 2004.
-- Ensoniq
Does this mean PPC 970 machines across the board? Not necessarily. But I'd be surprised to not see the PPC 970 used across the board by year end, with the possible exception of iBooks and eMacs using IBM's new G3 + Altivec variant.
Just a gut instinct, but I think Motorola will be a distant memory by 2004.QUOTE]
An insightful post.
Many of us found it 'odd' that Apple chose Jan' to blitz/update all there product lines. It seemed to be a frenzy of activity. All around the same time...almost as if some strategy or alignment was taking place...almost setting us up for a similar move later on in the year. The implications? A mere teasing G4 bump here or there?
And here we are...almost half a year later from all that. And the 'whole' line needs another refresh.
I personally wouldn't rule out another 'block' move by Apple onto 970 cpus for the Pro line...
...and G3SIMD processors for the consumer line by the end of 2003.
It makes sense to me. If they can do that...I can see Apple selling above a million machines per quarter for the first time in quite a while. That would be alot of cash for IBM and Apple. It would be worth it. The sooner they move to it...and build some real momentum...we'd all benefit. It was mooted that 2003 latter half would be the beginning of the light at the end of the tunnel for PPC.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Ompus
I don't know when the 970s will be announced, by I'd put up a heap of money that says they'll ship immediately after they're announced.
I hope so, but the 970 Power Macs will be introduced to developers at WWDC regardless of when they are available to customers. Developers need to know what 64-bit hardware they will be making and updating applications for. I also agree with Programmer that it will be at WWDC not before. Why else does Apple say we should come and see the future of the Mac platform? The Mac platform is both hardware and operating system.
Oh my God Lemon....I can't believe you spend your entire life ONLY building 3D streets
I will show you that said street when I get my current teaching contract out the way (I'm too beat to play with Lightwave when I get home from being beaten up on by 30 kids...)
Hey...building 3D streets is fun... (sounds of tumble weeds whistling by the 'insider boards...) No really...
Ahem.
And I'm an E.L.O fan. Anybody around here wanna make something of it...huh? HUH?
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Ensoniq
The stats above clearly indicate that Apple has in the past updated machines as quickly as 4 months later. With WWDC bringing every single machine to the 5-8 months old mark, it is NOT unreasonable to believe each and every machine is due for an update based on Apple's prior update schedule.
I'd be surprised (but pleasantly surprised) if Apple were to update their entire line of systems at WWDC. What seems feasible at this time are the PM's and possibly, possibly the XServes. I'm guessing the rest of the models will be updated in later events (MWNY, etc.). Then again, you don't want to lose sales for the rest of their lineup due to this tactic, so it's hard to say.
Does this mean PPC 970 machines across the board? Not necessarily. But I'd be surprised to not see the PPC 970 used across the board by year end, with the possible exception of iBooks and eMacs using IBM's new G3 + Altivec variant.
I actually believe that it would not be a good idea for Apple to implement the PPC 970s into all of their machines due to price. I'm not sure if Apple will be noticeably raising the prices on the models with the new 970s, but if they do, they should implement a cheaper chip into models such as the iBook, eMac, just as you said.
Just a gut instinct, but I think Motorola will be a distant memory by 2004.
As do I. 8)
Originally posted by SoopaDrive
I actually believe that it would not be a good idea for Apple to implement the PPC 970s into all of their machines due to price. I'm not sure if Apple will be noticeably raising the prices on the models with the new 970s, but if they do, they should implement a cheaper chip into models such as the iBook, eMac, just as you said.
I don't think Apple will increase prices of their hardware even it the 970 should enter more than the powermac line right now (which im sure it will not do). One of the reasons we may not have seen any price-cuts of the iMac line this year may be that Apple is thinking ahead, and know that the 970 iMac will be more expensive to produce than the current one (just guessing here, since we don't know how the 970 will be priced). If they reduced the prices now, and increased them again when the 970 iMac is released, a lot of people would critizise Apple for it. Now they can introduce the 970 in the iMac line and maybe reduce the price a little. But I think a decently configured 64 bit iMac at the current price points would make a lot of people consider it that in the past have seen it as too limited and underspecced for the price. A line with single 1.4 ghz at the bottom and 1.6 at the top with 256 and 512 mb ram and bigger harddrive, FW800, APeXt and BT at the current prices would be somewhat more tempting than the current line I would think
Motorola is facing a nasty lawsuit from shareholders. IT seems that MOT kept nearly a billion dollars in loans off the SEC reports regarding an ailing Turkish phone system.
In effect, this could cut Motorola's income by more than a billion dollars over the time period in question.
FOr more info visit the Motley Fool's discussions of Motorola (www.fool.com).
Add this to MOTs other numerous problems and methinks I smell another Enron.
Originally posted by NETROMac
I don't think Apple will increase prices of their hardware even it the 970 should enter more than the powermac line right now (which im sure it will not do). One of the reasons we may not have seen any price-cuts of the iMac line this year may be that Apple is thinking ahead, and know that the 970 iMac will be more expensive to produce than the current one (just guessing here, since we don't know how the 970 will be priced).
I agree 100%!