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.
Did I hear "sinking ship" ???? I think it's about time Apple leaves motanic behind and enters the IBM life-boat
Did I hear "sinking ship" ???? I think it's about time Apple leaves motanic behind and enters the IBM life-boat
Motanic?
They aint getting out of Mac-dom alive without a resounding kicking.
I'm talking frenzied mob in a gravely car-park. A real elbows and knees job. Just in time for IBM to tread a boot into their nether regions... Back the Hum-Vee over into reverse...and forwards...then reverse...then FORWARDS...then reverse...show them what RPM is...and then explain mega-hurtz...real...nice and slow...in 1st gear of course...
They aint getting out of Mac-dom alive without a resounding kicking.
I'm talking frenzied mob in a gravely car-park. A real elbows and knees job. Just in time for IBM to tread a boot into their nether regions... Back the Hum-Vee over into reverse...and forwards...then reverse...then FORWARDS...then reverse...show them what RPM is...and then explain mega-hurtz...real...nice and slow...in 1st gear of course...
They aint getting out of Mac-dom alive without a resounding kicking.
I'm talking frenzied mob in a gravely car-park. A real elbows and knees job. Just in time for IBM to tread a boot into their nether regions... Back the Hum-Vee over into reverse...and forwards...then reverse...then FORWARDS...then reverse...show them what RPM is...and then explain mega-hurtz...real...nice and slow...in 1st gear of course...
Lemon Bon Bon
LBB, I never knew that you could quite be so spiteful... I mean, what did Motorola ever do to you??
Can you imagine how utterly enraged everyone in Apple hardware design (pushing aside the obvious, Mr. Jobs) must be with Motorola? To be in such an advantageous position less than ten years ago, the king of power computing (no pun or trademark intended), "roasting" the Intel slug, and now it's come to the best being at 1.42 GHz while the competition races ahead toward 3 GHz.
It's one of those feelings that makes you grit your teeth and want to pulverize the imbecile engineers at that place, oh, and every single PC-head that's ever made a snide remark about "oh, you use a mac?!"
Actually, that image is kind of fading, as having a Mac (at least where I am) has become sort of a status symbol, like driving a Mercedes or Bimmer. Makes me feel all proud inside...
Although it doesn't make up for all the negatives, there admittedly has been one positive that has come with the whole Motorola situation...
Since Apple could not rely on throwing a significantly faster processor at their machines every few months (like the Wintel world), they have had to milk the highest speeds possible through software optimization.
I have no doubt that OS X, as complex as it may be, is an amazingly "clean" piece of code. Even without Quartz Extreme and Altivec optimizations built throughout, the fact that OS X runs decently on ANY G3/G4 Mac with at least 256 MB of RAM (including 233 MHz Bondi Blue iMacs) is a testament to the skill of those who work for Apple.
So when you take that optimized OS and throw it onto serious hardware with the processor speed and bus speeds of the PPC 970, it's really gonna fly. Far more so than if it was first written on much faster processors where you didn't need to work so hard to make it reasonably quick on machines far less than 1 GHz.
So on this issue, and this issue alone, I say: Thanks, Motorola. You'll have helped make the switch to IBM processors even better!
which might spur Apple to add support for more than 2GB of real RAM.
IIRC haven't G4 towers been able to have 4 gigs of RAM for years? I haven't seen a 1 gig RAM chip but they're out there, on Dealram, although expensive.
Although it doesn't make up for all the negatives, there admittedly has been one positive that has come with the whole Motorola situation...
Since Apple could not rely on throwing a significantly faster processor at their machines every few months (like the Wintel world), they have had to milk the highest speeds possible through software optimization.
I have no doubt that OS X, as complex as it may be, is an amazingly "clean" piece of code. Even without Quartz Extreme and Altivec optimizations built throughout, the fact that OS X runs decently on ANY G3/G4 Mac with at least 256 MB of RAM (including 233 MHz Bondi Blue iMacs) is a testament to the skill of those who work for Apple.
So when you take that optimized OS and throw it onto serious hardware with the processor speed and bus speeds of the PPC 970, it's really gonna fly. Far more so than if it was first written on much faster processors where you didn't need to work so hard to make it reasonably quick on machines far less than 1 GHz.
So on this issue, and this issue alone, I say: Thanks, Motorola. You'll have helped make the switch to IBM processors even better!
-- Ensoniq
I think there is a fair level of truth to this all. Apple would have thought when OSX first hit 2 years ago that by now time wise they would have been a fair (alot!) bit futher down the processor speed path and all the little sexy effects etc that have slowed us down a bit would never have happened with a speedier chip.. Next gen OSX 970 powered systems are gonna rock ... must save money somehow for new 970 based Mac...
IIRC haven't G4 towers been able to have 4 gigs of RAM for years? I haven't seen a 1 gig RAM chip but they're out there, on Dealram, although expensive.
Nope, the Apple chipset is restricted to 2 GB of RAM. You can put more in but it won't recognize it. I'm not sure if MacOS X is limited to 2 GB on 32-bit systems or not (like Windows is). We may find out eventually if a future G3 has an on-chip memory controller and Apple uses it. I doubt we'll see any new Apple memory controllers for 32-bit chips though.
IIRC haven't G4 towers been able to have 4 gigs of RAM for years? I haven't seen a 1 gig RAM chip but they're out there, on Dealram, although expensive.
There's been no reason for Apple to support more than 2GB until very recently, since OS 9 can't see more than 1.5GB...
May 30 1992, Adobe president rescued from kidnappers
Charles Geschke, president of Adobe Systems, was rescued after kidnappers held him hostage for four days.
Geschke's generous philanthropy had attracted the attention of two would-be kidnappers in Silicon Valley. The two abducted Geschke at gunpoint in broad daylight, blindfolded him with duct tape, and kept him chained and handcuffed in a rented house. The FBI nabbed one of the kidnappers during a ransom drop and rescued Geschke on May 30, 1992.
Ironically, a neighbor of Geschke's had noticed a man, who later proved to be one of the kidnappers, rifling through Geschke's mail several days earlier. She had written down the license plate number; however, not knowing Geschke was missing, she never gave the number to the police until after Geschke had been returned.
Okay, Help me out here. Earlier posts stated that the lower end 970's will not be any faster than the current high-end Mac at running 32 bit apps.
I am not a techie. I have been waiting for the new 970 Mac to run my audio workstation/soft sampler apps which are very CPU intensive.
Will the new 970's truly be little to no improvement with my current apps over an existing new Mac? Would I see no improvement until all of my needed apps are re-written for 64 bits? If so, I should buy a 1.42 Mac when prices drop and sell it in 2 years when I have music software that will run on a 64 bit Mac.
Will the new 970's truly be little to no improvement with my current apps over an existing new Mac? Would I see no improvement until all of my needed apps are re-written for 64 bits? If so, I should buy a 1.42 Mac when prices drop and sell it in 2 years when I have music software that will run on a 64 bit Mac.
You will see a lot of improvement even with 32 bit apps as the 970 can handle natively and is much more powerful than the G4. For many apps a rewrite to 64 bit is not going to make any difference at all, or just a modest one. If I were you, I would have waited to see what Apple comes up with around WWDC and decide then. It's hard to say right now what will be the best choice, but I hope that the new powermacs will justify my wait at least. I would suppose that the new "low-end" powermacs will beat the "old" dual 1.43 ghz and at a much lower price presumably. And so comes panther that maybe has improvements especially for the 64 bit processors, and that will make things even faster. So my advice is wait and see.
I've been advising clients without an immediate need for a Mac to hold off until late summer/fall after the 970s arrive. Remember that there will be manufacturing bugs in the initial units (there always are with virtually all computers). Unless you are playing or are willing to risk having to send the machine off to get fixed, wait for a month or two before buying a newly-designed Mac.
Note: these defects may be tiny and may never have an effect on your machine's usefullness, such as when Mirrored Drive Macs shipped and the instruction manual neglected to tell users that the hard drive plate was held in by a screw that had to be removed before you could add another hard drive. Minor documentation error there, no real effect on the usefullness of the machine.
Or you could get a Mac whose power supply fan sounds like a jet engine, as also happened on the MDD Macs.
That said, I'll be buying the best new Mac I can afford so that I can show off it's speed and power to potential switchers in my business. I can fix the machines and have others to keep business going.
Okay, Help me out here. Earlier posts stated that the lower end 970's will not be any faster than the current high-end Mac at running 32 bit apps.
They probably said that the fact that the 970 is a 64-bit processor won't make it any faster at running 32-bit apps. A hypothetical 32-bit version of the 970 should still blow the doors off the G4.
Quote:
Will the new 970's truly be little to no improvement with my current apps over an existing new Mac? Would I see no improvement until all of my needed apps are re-written for 64 bits? If so, I should buy a 1.42 Mac when prices drop and sell it in 2 years when I have music software that will run on a 64 bit Mac.
All indications are that the 970s will roast the current G4s, with your applications as they currently are.
Comments
Originally posted by jccbin
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.
Did I hear "sinking ship" ???? I think it's about time Apple leaves motanic behind and enters the IBM life-boat
Did I hear "sinking ship" ???? I think it's about time Apple leaves motanic behind and enters the IBM life-boat
Motanic?
They aint getting out of Mac-dom alive without a resounding kicking.
I'm talking frenzied mob in a gravely car-park. A real elbows and knees job. Just in time for IBM to tread a boot into their nether regions... Back the Hum-Vee over into reverse...and forwards...then reverse...then FORWARDS...then reverse...show them what RPM is...and then explain mega-hurtz...real...nice and slow...in 1st gear of course...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Motanic?
They aint getting out of Mac-dom alive without a resounding kicking.
I'm talking frenzied mob in a gravely car-park. A real elbows and knees job. Just in time for IBM to tread a boot into their nether regions... Back the Hum-Vee over into reverse...and forwards...then reverse...then FORWARDS...then reverse...show them what RPM is...and then explain mega-hurtz...real...nice and slow...in 1st gear of course...
Lemon Bon Bon
Then they should get medieval on Moto's ass.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
They aint getting out of Mac-dom alive without a resounding kicking.
I'm talking frenzied mob in a gravely car-park. A real elbows and knees job. Just in time for IBM to tread a boot into their nether regions... Back the Hum-Vee over into reverse...and forwards...then reverse...then FORWARDS...then reverse...show them what RPM is...and then explain mega-hurtz...real...nice and slow...in 1st gear of course...
Lemon Bon Bon
LBB, I never knew that you could quite be so spiteful... I mean, what did Motorola ever do to you??
It's one of those feelings that makes you grit your teeth and want to pulverize the imbecile engineers at that place, oh, and every single PC-head that's ever made a snide remark about "oh, you use a mac?!"
Actually, that image is kind of fading, as having a Mac (at least where I am) has become sort of a status symbol, like driving a Mercedes or Bimmer. Makes me feel all proud inside...
Since Apple could not rely on throwing a significantly faster processor at their machines every few months (like the Wintel world), they have had to milk the highest speeds possible through software optimization.
I have no doubt that OS X, as complex as it may be, is an amazingly "clean" piece of code. Even without Quartz Extreme and Altivec optimizations built throughout, the fact that OS X runs decently on ANY G3/G4 Mac with at least 256 MB of RAM (including 233 MHz Bondi Blue iMacs) is a testament to the skill of those who work for Apple.
So when you take that optimized OS and throw it onto serious hardware with the processor speed and bus speeds of the PPC 970, it's really gonna fly. Far more so than if it was first written on much faster processors where you didn't need to work so hard to make it reasonably quick on machines far less than 1 GHz.
So on this issue, and this issue alone, I say: Thanks, Motorola. You'll have helped make the switch to IBM processors even better!
-- Ensoniq
which might spur Apple to add support for more than 2GB of real RAM.
IIRC haven't G4 towers been able to have 4 gigs of RAM for years? I haven't seen a 1 gig RAM chip but they're out there, on Dealram, although expensive.
Originally posted by Ensoniq
Although it doesn't make up for all the negatives, there admittedly has been one positive that has come with the whole Motorola situation...
Since Apple could not rely on throwing a significantly faster processor at their machines every few months (like the Wintel world), they have had to milk the highest speeds possible through software optimization.
I have no doubt that OS X, as complex as it may be, is an amazingly "clean" piece of code. Even without Quartz Extreme and Altivec optimizations built throughout, the fact that OS X runs decently on ANY G3/G4 Mac with at least 256 MB of RAM (including 233 MHz Bondi Blue iMacs) is a testament to the skill of those who work for Apple.
So when you take that optimized OS and throw it onto serious hardware with the processor speed and bus speeds of the PPC 970, it's really gonna fly. Far more so than if it was first written on much faster processors where you didn't need to work so hard to make it reasonably quick on machines far less than 1 GHz.
So on this issue, and this issue alone, I say: Thanks, Motorola. You'll have helped make the switch to IBM processors even better!
-- Ensoniq
I think there is a fair level of truth to this all. Apple would have thought when OSX first hit 2 years ago that by now time wise they would have been a fair (alot!) bit futher down the processor speed path and all the little sexy effects etc that have slowed us down a bit would never have happened with a speedier chip.. Next gen OSX 970 powered systems are gonna rock
Originally posted by Aquatic
IIRC haven't G4 towers been able to have 4 gigs of RAM for years? I haven't seen a 1 gig RAM chip but they're out there, on Dealram, although expensive.
Nope, the Apple chipset is restricted to 2 GB of RAM. You can put more in but it won't recognize it. I'm not sure if MacOS X is limited to 2 GB on 32-bit systems or not (like Windows is). We may find out eventually if a future G3 has an on-chip memory controller and Apple uses it. I doubt we'll see any new Apple memory controllers for 32-bit chips though.
Originally posted by Aquatic
IIRC haven't G4 towers been able to have 4 gigs of RAM for years? I haven't seen a 1 gig RAM chip but they're out there, on Dealram, although expensive.
There's been no reason for Apple to support more than 2GB until very recently, since OS 9 can't see more than 1.5GB...
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Then they should get medieval on Moto's ass.
Mmmmm, Swords . . . I like swords . . . up close and personal.
(fast forwarding) Lightsabers, anyone? (end fast forward)
Still, single source CPUs kinda bothers me . . . AMD maybe?
Food for thought.
But Moto should definitely be sliced-diced and canned for the waste dump.
May 30 1992, Adobe president rescued from kidnappers
Charles Geschke, president of Adobe Systems, was rescued after kidnappers held him hostage for four days.
Geschke's generous philanthropy had attracted the attention of two would-be kidnappers in Silicon Valley. The two abducted Geschke at gunpoint in broad daylight, blindfolded him with duct tape, and kept him chained and handcuffed in a rented house. The FBI nabbed one of the kidnappers during a ransom drop and rescued Geschke on May 30, 1992.
Ironically, a neighbor of Geschke's had noticed a man, who later proved to be one of the kidnappers, rifling through Geschke's mail several days earlier. She had written down the license plate number; however, not knowing Geschke was missing, she never gave the number to the police until after Geschke had been returned.
Originally posted by MacJedai
Still, single source CPUs kinda bothers me . . . AMD maybe?
Single source is fine when it's IBM.
I am not a techie. I have been waiting for the new 970 Mac to run my audio workstation/soft sampler apps which are very CPU intensive.
Will the new 970's truly be little to no improvement with my current apps over an existing new Mac? Would I see no improvement until all of my needed apps are re-written for 64 bits? If so, I should buy a 1.42 Mac when prices drop and sell it in 2 years when I have music software that will run on a 64 bit Mac.
Originally posted by NShirkey
Okay, Help me out here. Earlier posts stated that the lower end 970's will not be any faster than the current high-end Mac at running 32 bit apps.
Who said that? They are wrong.
Originally posted by NShirkey
Will the new 970's truly be little to no improvement with my current apps over an existing new Mac? Would I see no improvement until all of my needed apps are re-written for 64 bits? If so, I should buy a 1.42 Mac when prices drop and sell it in 2 years when I have music software that will run on a 64 bit Mac.
You will see a lot of improvement even with 32 bit apps as the 970 can handle natively and is much more powerful than the G4. For many apps a rewrite to 64 bit is not going to make any difference at all, or just a modest one. If I were you, I would have waited to see what Apple comes up with around WWDC and decide then. It's hard to say right now what will be the best choice, but I hope that the new powermacs will justify my wait at least. I would suppose that the new "low-end" powermacs will beat the "old" dual 1.43 ghz and at a much lower price presumably. And so comes panther that maybe has improvements especially for the 64 bit processors, and that will make things even faster. So my advice is wait and see.
netro
I've been advising clients without an immediate need for a Mac to hold off until late summer/fall after the 970s arrive. Remember that there will be manufacturing bugs in the initial units (there always are with virtually all computers). Unless you are playing or are willing to risk having to send the machine off to get fixed, wait for a month or two before buying a newly-designed Mac.
Note: these defects may be tiny and may never have an effect on your machine's usefullness, such as when Mirrored Drive Macs shipped and the instruction manual neglected to tell users that the hard drive plate was held in by a screw that had to be removed before you could add another hard drive. Minor documentation error there, no real effect on the usefullness of the machine.
Or you could get a Mac whose power supply fan sounds like a jet engine, as also happened on the MDD Macs.
That said, I'll be buying the best new Mac I can afford so that I can show off it's speed and power to potential switchers in my business. I can fix the machines and have others to keep business going.
Originally posted by NShirkey
Okay, Help me out here. Earlier posts stated that the lower end 970's will not be any faster than the current high-end Mac at running 32 bit apps.
They probably said that the fact that the 970 is a 64-bit processor won't make it any faster at running 32-bit apps. A hypothetical 32-bit version of the 970 should still blow the doors off the G4.
Will the new 970's truly be little to no improvement with my current apps over an existing new Mac? Would I see no improvement until all of my needed apps are re-written for 64 bits? If so, I should buy a 1.42 Mac when prices drop and sell it in 2 years when I have music software that will run on a 64 bit Mac.
All indications are that the 970s will roast the current G4s, with your applications as they currently are.