The potential problem with Mac's bearing 970's is not with IBM getting the chip out, it's whether Apple has the design competence to create the companion chip and motherboard that the 970 needs.
It's not a trivial undertaking and there are real questions about whether Apple will be capable of creating the technology to use the 970 effectively.
[Hoping for the October 2003, expecting March 2004]
If Apple was so technologically inept, you wouldn't be talking about them. That's because Apple would be irrelevent.
Apple r0x0r, they have been let down by Motorola. Sure, it was partly their fault not to forsee the G4 fiasco, but they probably had other things on their mind in 97/98. Like how to stay alive.
Trust us. There is no way Apple will not be 100% ready for the next Power Mac. This is most probably the #1 priority at Apple. The company's fate depends on it.
I'm serious. If Apple keeps using embedded chips, their market share will continue to erode in all but the home user market.
And when there is only the home user left, the application base will dry up. And when that happens, they will lose home user market, and Apple will be nothing more than QuickTime and investment.
-----------------
First, Apple is convincing their customers that they don't have to buy Wintel. They can buy Apple, because Apple gets rid of all the associated costs and professional setup. This is happening.
But that's only half the story.
Second, Apple needs kick-arse hardware to be better than Wintel. It doesn't matter whether it is a big mofo machine, clustering, or somewhere in between. As long as it is kick-ass for the creative market.
That is why Apple cares so much about the 970.
That is why Apple will get everything right this time.
And that is why the next Power Mac will be the turn of the tide.
[QB]The potential problem with Mac's bearing 970's is not with IBM getting the chip out, it's whether Apple has the design competence to create the companion chip and motherboard that the 970 needs.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You are right, it is complicated.
But that doesn't change the fact that the chipset is already done. As in finished. NOT in design stage. Those complications have been dealt with. (to be clear I have no idea how far Apple is with a MB, but I would think it would track with the chipset design.)
Why do people keep saying these things over and over. I still hear people saying how Apple can't use the 970 because its 64bit and every piece of existing SW will break.
Get over it. Apple will use the chip. I won't be 2004 (unless IBM's fabs burn to the ground in the next couple months). 32bit software will run. Apple won't recieve a pallet of chips one day and comment "oh crap, we better get started designing a MB and a chipset".
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
[qb]
You are right, it is complicated.
But that doesn't change the fact that the chipset is already done. As in finished. NOT in design stage. Those complications have been dealt with. (to be clear I have no idea how far Apple is with a MB, but I would think it would track with the chipset design.)
Why do people keep saying these things over and over. I still hear people saying how Apple can't use the 970 because its 64bit and every piece of existing SW will break.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree. Of course Apple is ready and capable. Think ApplePI, FireWire, MoBo chipsets etc. etc. It's not like they are still going to the Radioshack and sticking things together in a wooden box in Scully's garage (or was that Woz's).
Apple knows the specs, the interface, the bus' and everything else to build the boxes and have them ready by the time UPS pulls in with a delivery of 970s. I'm sure Ives is working on the box as we speak. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Apple knows the specs, the interface, the bus' and everything else to build the boxes and have them ready by the time UPS pulls in with a delivery of 970s. I'm sure Ives is working on the box as we speak. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY! It amazes me how many people here think that Apple is out of the loop on this one, and can't even begin to work on the new machines until IBM publicly announces the 970 is shipping in quantity.
Apple and IBM are partners in this chip, whether that is ever admitted publicly or not. They are so intimate with each other that I hope they are both using birth control.
There is no doubt that Apple has working 970 prototypes in their labs right now. They have everything they need to build the next kick-ass Apple system, and you can be certain that as soon as IBM is ready to publicly announce that the 970 is shpping in quantity, Apple will be there with the new machine. To think otherwise clearly indicates that you just don't "get" Apple at all.
[quote]But that doesn't change the fact that the chipset is already done. As in finished. NOT in design stage. Those complications have been dealt with. (to be clear I have no idea how far Apple is with a MB, but I would think it would track with the chipset design.)
<hr></blockquote>
Wow. Did you actually get that from an Apple contact? My contact only broadly hinted about chip troubles (not wanting to lose his job). But if you have (relatively) hard info, that's *great* news.
[quote] Why do people keep saying these things over and over.<hr></blockquote>
Um, 'cause that's what was hinted at from our friends at Apple? That and we don't want another round of "The World is Coming to an End" when expectations are dashed yet again :-).
[quote] I still hear people saying how Apple can't use the 970 because its 64bit and every piece of existing SW will break.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not worried about software, only hardware. I figure Apple will punt on 64 bits for a few years, given how little gain there is for them to invest the time to do it right.
I figure Apple will punt on 64 bits for a few years, given how little gain there is for them to invest the time to do it right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm almost positive that they'll roll out a 64-bit OS with the rollout of the 970, or shortly thereafter. Oracle and Sybase are either coming to OS X or already here. IBM is asking its customers if they want DB/2 on OS X. Apple is wooing UNIX workstation users, who are long since used to 64 bit platforms, and it has a strong presence in biotech, at NASA, and in Los Alamos.
Most of the traditional Apple markets might be a bit slow to move to 64 bit, since the number of educational CD-ROMs that need to access terabytes of virtual memory are few and far between. But don't forget the markets that Apple is moving into. Scientists, high-end video and 3D artists, and enterprise customers will cheerfully consume all the power that Apple can throw at them. I'm sure that some Photoshop users wouldn't mind having essentially unlimited VM, and more than 2GB real RAM, to play around in either. (Yes, I know that the current G4 can address more than 2GB RAM...).
I'm almost positive that they'll roll out a 64-bit OS with the rollout of the 970, or shortly thereafter. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...and at the very least, they'll want to _DEMO_ something that has OOOOOhhhh factor in it. I'm not (and I don't think Amorph is either) talking about a full rewrite where maximum OS goodness/optimizations are done to see speed improvements due to 64-bitness. Just that the OS will _work_, and allow an app to both access >4GB of RAM directly, _and_ allow integer math etc on 64 bit values.
That doesn't require a complete rewrite of Quicktime, or most anything really. The virtual memory pager and the hardware drivers (kexts) for the actual chips that are present would seem to be the big issues - and new kexts are written for every major new hardware anyway. (The 12" has a new 'Intrepid' chip in it.-> new kext needed.)
(It can't be said enough that) 64 bits don't help most consumer apps. However, Apple can certainly find things where having a 64-bit integer unit is (easily) a major enhancement. Add that to the extra FPU -> a dual 970 with a _minimally_ enhanced OS -> major improvements for _certain_ things. I think Apple can find those things If we don't get a Bake Off, I'll be shocked.
...and at the very least, they'll want to _DEMO_ something that has OOOOOhhhh factor in it. I'm not (and I don't think Amorph is either) talking about a full rewrite where maximum OS goodness/optimizations are done to see speed improvements due to 64-bitness. Just that the OS will _work_, and allow an app to both access >4GB of RAM directly, _and_ allow integer math etc on 64 bit values.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that will ever be done, actually. For all that people talk about how you need a G4 to run OS X, the overwhelming bulk of OS X is straight C, C++, and/or Objective-C. Depending on how long they've prepared for the transition to 64 bit, they could get OS X to 64 bits - and optimized, to the extent of the compiler's abilities, for the 970 - simply by recompiling with a few #defines set appropriately. Most UNIX apps won't need more than a re-Configure/make install at the utmost - not to run, because they should run fine compiled for 32 bit PPC; but to support the 970's 64 bit capabilities.
Not all of OS X has to move to 64 bit, either. QuickTime could (and probably will) remain 32 bit for a while, not least because of its hoary, cross-platform codebase. Since the 970 implements the PPC spec fully, allowing for seamless compatibility with 32-bit code, that's fine. All that needs to be 64 bit to make the jump worthwhile is the core of the OS, including Core Foundation.
The PowerPC is not x86. There is no crisis here, no big move full of uncertainties. The PowerPC was ready for 64 bit from its launch in the early '90s. This transition should be not only less painful than the IA-32 -> IA-64 transition, but less painful than the 68k -> PPC transition, because the ISA is unchanged. Apple is "moving" from PPC to PPC.
I agree. Of course Apple is ready and capable. Think ApplePI, FireWire, MoBo chipsets etc. etc. It's not like they are still going to the Radioshack and sticking things together in a wooden box in Scully's garage (or was that Woz's).
Whoa now...read up on your Apple history... that is Steve Job's garage
Anyway...this news all sounds very good...May will be here before we know it...I hope something, anything (even if it is only talk about developing 64 bit applications) comes up at WWDC...
I understand the new hardware (PowerPC 970..), will have minimal issues running the OS be it updated for 64-bit or if it remains the current 32-bit. :cool:
However if/when the OS is updated and compiled to run 64-bit, is there then an issue with older 32-bit legacy systems like my beige, Blue & White and Ti's ability to run this 64-bit OS? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
Is Apple going to need to provide two OS update packages, one 32-bit for backwards compatibility with older hardware and one 64-bit that can take full advantage of 64-bit CPUs? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
However if/when the OS is updated and compiled to run 64-bit, is there then an issue with older 32-bit legacy systems like my beige, Blue & White and Ti's ability to run this 64-bit OS? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sincerely doubt that.
At a bare minimum, the system installer can figure out what hardware it's installing onto, and choose the bits that it installs accordingly.
Remember that OS X is based on OpenStep, which ran on all kinds of completely different systems. The people in charge have years of experience making this kind of thing work.
The 970 itself will present less of a challenge, from a systems programming point of view, than the board it runs on, especially in MP setups, but applications and the end user should be blissfully ignorant of the complexities involved.
However if/when the OS is updated and compiled to run 64-bit, is there then an issue with older 32-bit legacy systems like my beige, Blue & White and Ti's ability to run this 64-bit OS? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
Is Apple going to need to provide two OS update packages, one 32-bit for backwards compatibility with older hardware and one 64-bit that can take full advantage of 64-bit CPUs? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
-tink</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Sun's been distributing Solaris install CDs that swtich between 32 and 64 bit-ness for years now.
I'm guessing Apple has been working on next generation systems built around the 970 processor for quite some time. Probably for much longer than most people outside Apple might expect...
Looking at the company's software strategy, all the indications are that Apple is looking well ahead of the current marketplace, with a clear plan and timeframe for bringing new products and technology to market.
Rendezvous, Bluetooth, NG Firewire, iLife, Keynote, Safari and other software innovations... these things should instill confidence that Apple is doing things right. I'm 100% certain that further productivity software is also on the way, so expect more than one application to accompany Keynote before the year is out.
Apple are clearly not shying away from confronting the problems in their complex relationship with Microsoft head on. Consider the rumors of x86 OS X and Marklar..... This is not a company sitting back, they're making some very bold and aggressive moves.
Apple must have done a lot of work with Motorolla on the G5. How much of this can be carried forward with the 970 is anybody's guess, but I don't think Apple has much breathing space. Still, it pays to be cautious when playing guessing games over delivery dates of unannounced products. Nvidia and the current Geforce FX fiasco show how finely balanced issues with new hardware can throw a project into serious trouble. I expect the motherboard and accompanying components of 970-based systems to be the biggest challenge facing Apple this year, not the delivery timeframe or yields of 970 silicon from IBM.
I would feel fairly confident in saying that significant work must be going on within Apple to bring a 64-bit ready version of Mac OS X to market. FreeBSD is already 64-bit clean, look at the ports to SPARC, Alpha and IA64 for evidence of this.... It would garner serious industry attention if Apple were able to bring a combined 64-bit hardware and software solution to market before the end of the year.
With AMD's 64-bit plans drifting back and Microsoft apparently in no particular rush to bring a 64-bit Windows to market, there exists an opportunity too good to miss.
[quote]"2003 will be the year of the portable."<hr></blockquote>
[quote]He wouldn't say that if he knew that this year would bring a processor to its desktop line that would threaten Intel.<hr></blockquote>
Well, absolutely every clue I can scrounge from Apple and elsewhere points to a 970 machine in the Jan - March 2004 timeframe, although it's all deduction, whisper and employee vague hints.
However, given the forcefulness of Transcendental Octothorpe statements that the 970 is coming, and soon, (which I'm willing to accept at face value, if he'll admit to having an Apple source), he'd better have a source inside Apple.
It's that or he's a MS double agent, sent here to utterly alienate the last of the Mac fanatics by raising hopes into the stratosphere (hopes that Apple has done their best to deny) and then watching all that enthusiasm become hatred and disdain for Apple when they fail to get a machine out for a deadline they never promised :-)
As mentioned in some of my other posts.. Apple is in a much better position to bring 64-bit computing to the mainstream and consumer desktop environment. There doesn't seem to be any commitment or focus I the Wintel world regarding 64-bit Winders....
- Which architecture will they support? AMD (X86-64) or Itanic (IA-64)?
This leads to other questions and uncertainties....
- There certainly won't be two versions because that would mean that software developers will be asked to code for two different architectures and I don't see that happening, so which (if any) will they choose?
- Drivers ... Another issue. Which architecture to support?
- IA-64 (Itanic) not meant for the desktop, so why bother writing common commercial apps for it?
- If Microsoft chooses to go X86-64 for Winders then I'd say Intel is behind the 8-ball, because they seem hell-bent on getting Itanic to work out at any cost.
- If Microsoft chooses IA-64, where does that leave AMD? Dead. But maybe not because IA-64 really isn't designed for the desktop environment, which will likely continue with 32-bit Winders...
- the old 32-bit codebase from legacy apps ... They will run like crap providing a crappy experience, not to mention that both AMD and Intel will be fighting the MHz myth themselves ;-)
- What about all the people who are committed to the 32-bit machines that they just bought ? ;-)
Oh and the BIG question...
How much *more* consumer-confusion is this going to generate in the Wintelon world?
The questions keep mounting.. too much uncertainty... It isn't like that with Apple and 64-bit. It's just a matter of "when"
Well, absolutely every clue I can scrounge from Apple and elsewhere points to a 970 machine in the Jan - March 2004 timeframe, although it's all deduction, whisper and employee vague hints.
However, given the forcefulness of Transcendental Octothorpe statements that the 970 is coming, and soon, (which I'm willing to accept at face value, if he'll admit to having an Apple source), he'd better have a source inside Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been a rumor-watcher for a while. And an Apple watcher since the Mac Plus days. Rumor's have a way of getting repeated and reiterated on various boards and sites, each referring to the other. Think about the recent utterly confident rumors about a tablet coming out at this MWSF. Result? Nothing whatsoever. Crack smoke from someone somewhere that got repeated, cross referenced, and accepted as holy writ.
Nothing against TransOct, but we have no way of verifying anything anyone says on these boards. Hell, the people who run these types of rumor sites are almost laughingstocks (some more than others) among most of us--and it's their *job* to dig up this stuff. Board posters have no accountability whatsoever. (For the record, the only "rumor" guy who I trust implicitly is Matthew Rothenburg, the original--the one and only--Mac the Knife.)
Powermac 970 at MWSF '04. If it comes out in the fall, we can all smile big, broad smiles. It won't come out this summer.
As for the "tricks up our sleeve" comment, think of it this way: the biggest trick of all would be managing to get another 10.5 months of life out of the G4! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Next year, he'll be able to point to how successful Apple's portables have been.* 75% of their units or whatever it will be by that time. Then he can repeat how he was right about "the year of the portable" thing. Then he can say but this year will be different: "the year Intel bites the dust (TM)" or however they decide to market it. Then he rolls out a single 1.8 GHz 970 tower, matches it to a top-of-the-line 3.6GHz P4, and the 970 beats it handily. Then he intros that as the...Low-End PowerMac 970. He then rolls out a Dual 2.2 GHz 970 beast. But instead of doing a bake-off, Steve's cell-phone rings, he answers it, hangs up, and announces that he has just been informed that Intel has preemptively filed for bankruptcy protection. :cool:
As a gesture of magnanimity, Steve will personally offer to upgrade at no charge the approximately 43 individuals who have actually bought a PowerMac in the previous 6 months.
-DCQ
*BTW, was anybody else coughing nervously when Steve raved about how its portables were an unusually large percent of its total units shipped? Ummm, Steve?...It's cause your towers blow!
I've been a rumor-watcher for a while. And an Apple watcher since the Mac Plus days. Rumor's have a way of getting repeated and reiterated on various boards and sites, each referring to the other. Think about the recent utterly confident rumors about a tablet coming out at this MWSF. Result? Nothing whatsoever. Crack smoke from someone somewhere that got repeated, cross referenced, and accepted as holy writ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely true, and worth remembering.
[quote]<strong>*BTW, was anybody else coughing nervously when Steve raved about how its portables were an unusually large percent of its total units shipped? Ummm, Steve?...It's cause your towers blow!</strong><hr></blockquote>
PC Towers must really be sucking, then, because notebooks make up a <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-898370.html"; target="_blank">large and steadily increasing chunk</a> of PC sales, too.
(To be fair, Apple's desktop/laptop split is more even, but still.)
Comments
It's not a trivial undertaking and there are real questions about whether Apple will be capable of creating the technology to use the 970 effectively.
[Hoping for the October 2003, expecting March 2004]
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Tom West ]</p>
Apple r0x0r, they have been let down by Motorola. Sure, it was partly their fault not to forsee the G4 fiasco, but they probably had other things on their mind in 97/98. Like how to stay alive.
Trust us. There is no way Apple will not be 100% ready for the next Power Mac. This is most probably the #1 priority at Apple. The company's fate depends on it.
I'm serious. If Apple keeps using embedded chips, their market share will continue to erode in all but the home user market.
And when there is only the home user left, the application base will dry up. And when that happens, they will lose home user market, and Apple will be nothing more than QuickTime and investment.
-----------------
First, Apple is convincing their customers that they don't have to buy Wintel. They can buy Apple, because Apple gets rid of all the associated costs and professional setup. This is happening.
But that's only half the story.
Second, Apple needs kick-arse hardware to be better than Wintel. It doesn't matter whether it is a big mofo machine, clustering, or somewhere in between. As long as it is kick-ass for the creative market.
That is why Apple cares so much about the 970.
That is why Apple will get everything right this time.
And that is why the next Power Mac will be the turn of the tide.
Barto
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
[QB]The potential problem with Mac's bearing 970's is not with IBM getting the chip out, it's whether Apple has the design competence to create the companion chip and motherboard that the 970 needs.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
You are right, it is complicated.
But that doesn't change the fact that the chipset is already done. As in finished. NOT in design stage. Those complications have been dealt with. (to be clear I have no idea how far Apple is with a MB, but I would think it would track with the chipset design.)
Why do people keep saying these things over and over. I still hear people saying how Apple can't use the 970 because its 64bit and every piece of existing SW will break.
Get over it. Apple will use the chip. I won't be 2004 (unless IBM's fabs burn to the ground in the next couple months). 32bit software will run. Apple won't recieve a pallet of chips one day and comment "oh crap, we better get started designing a MB and a chipset".
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>
[qb]
You are right, it is complicated.
But that doesn't change the fact that the chipset is already done. As in finished. NOT in design stage. Those complications have been dealt with. (to be clear I have no idea how far Apple is with a MB, but I would think it would track with the chipset design.)
Why do people keep saying these things over and over. I still hear people saying how Apple can't use the 970 because its 64bit and every piece of existing SW will break.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree. Of course Apple is ready and capable. Think ApplePI, FireWire, MoBo chipsets etc. etc. It's not like they are still going to the Radioshack and sticking things together in a wooden box in Scully's garage (or was that Woz's).
Apple knows the specs, the interface, the bus' and everything else to build the boxes and have them ready by the time UPS pulls in with a delivery of 970s. I'm sure Ives is working on the box as we speak. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
kroehl
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: kroehl ]</p>
<strong>
Apple knows the specs, the interface, the bus' and everything else to build the boxes and have them ready by the time UPS pulls in with a delivery of 970s. I'm sure Ives is working on the box as we speak. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
EXACTLY! It amazes me how many people here think that Apple is out of the loop on this one, and can't even begin to work on the new machines until IBM publicly announces the 970 is shipping in quantity.
Apple and IBM are partners in this chip, whether that is ever admitted publicly or not. They are so intimate with each other that I hope they are both using birth control.
There is no doubt that Apple has working 970 prototypes in their labs right now. They have everything they need to build the next kick-ass Apple system, and you can be certain that as soon as IBM is ready to publicly announce that the 970 is shpping in quantity, Apple will be there with the new machine. To think otherwise clearly indicates that you just don't "get" Apple at all.
-- Ensoniq
<hr></blockquote>
Wow. Did you actually get that from an Apple contact? My contact only broadly hinted about chip troubles (not wanting to lose his job). But if you have (relatively) hard info, that's *great* news.
[quote] Why do people keep saying these things over and over.<hr></blockquote>
Um, 'cause that's what was hinted at from our friends at Apple? That and we don't want another round of "The World is Coming to an End" when expectations are dashed yet again :-).
[quote] I still hear people saying how Apple can't use the 970 because its 64bit and every piece of existing SW will break.<hr></blockquote>
I'm not worried about software, only hardware. I figure Apple will punt on 64 bits for a few years, given how little gain there is for them to invest the time to do it right.
<strong>
They are so intimate with each other that I hope they are both using birth control.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope not! I am waiting impatiently to adopt one of their baby PowerMac 970's!!
<strong>
I figure Apple will punt on 64 bits for a few years, given how little gain there is for them to invest the time to do it right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm almost positive that they'll roll out a 64-bit OS with the rollout of the 970, or shortly thereafter. Oracle and Sybase are either coming to OS X or already here. IBM is asking its customers if they want DB/2 on OS X. Apple is wooing UNIX workstation users, who are long since used to 64 bit platforms, and it has a strong presence in biotech, at NASA, and in Los Alamos.
Most of the traditional Apple markets might be a bit slow to move to 64 bit, since the number of educational CD-ROMs that need to access terabytes of virtual memory are few and far between. But don't forget the markets that Apple is moving into. Scientists, high-end video and 3D artists, and enterprise customers will cheerfully consume all the power that Apple can throw at them. I'm sure that some Photoshop users wouldn't mind having essentially unlimited VM, and more than 2GB real RAM, to play around in either. (Yes, I know that the current G4 can address more than 2GB RAM...).
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
I'm almost positive that they'll roll out a 64-bit OS with the rollout of the 970, or shortly thereafter. </strong><hr></blockquote>
...and at the very least, they'll want to _DEMO_ something that has OOOOOhhhh factor in it. I'm not (and I don't think Amorph is either) talking about a full rewrite where maximum OS goodness/optimizations are done to see speed improvements due to 64-bitness. Just that the OS will _work_, and allow an app to both access >4GB of RAM directly, _and_ allow integer math etc on 64 bit values.
That doesn't require a complete rewrite of Quicktime, or most anything really. The virtual memory pager and the hardware drivers (kexts) for the actual chips that are present would seem to be the big issues - and new kexts are written for every major new hardware anyway. (The 12" has a new 'Intrepid' chip in it.-> new kext needed.)
(It can't be said enough that) 64 bits don't help most consumer apps. However, Apple can certainly find things where having a 64-bit integer unit is (easily) a major enhancement. Add that to the extra FPU -> a dual 970 with a _minimally_ enhanced OS -> major improvements for _certain_ things. I think Apple can find those things
<strong>
...and at the very least, they'll want to _DEMO_ something that has OOOOOhhhh factor in it. I'm not (and I don't think Amorph is either) talking about a full rewrite where maximum OS goodness/optimizations are done to see speed improvements due to 64-bitness. Just that the OS will _work_, and allow an app to both access >4GB of RAM directly, _and_ allow integer math etc on 64 bit values.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think that will ever be done, actually. For all that people talk about how you need a G4 to run OS X, the overwhelming bulk of OS X is straight C, C++, and/or Objective-C. Depending on how long they've prepared for the transition to 64 bit, they could get OS X to 64 bits - and optimized, to the extent of the compiler's abilities, for the 970 - simply by recompiling with a few #defines set appropriately. Most UNIX apps won't need more than a re-Configure/make install at the utmost - not to run, because they should run fine compiled for 32 bit PPC; but to support the 970's 64 bit capabilities.
Not all of OS X has to move to 64 bit, either. QuickTime could (and probably will) remain 32 bit for a while, not least because of its hoary, cross-platform codebase. Since the 970 implements the PPC spec fully, allowing for seamless compatibility with 32-bit code, that's fine. All that needs to be 64 bit to make the jump worthwhile is the core of the OS, including Core Foundation.
The PowerPC is not x86. There is no crisis here, no big move full of uncertainties. The PowerPC was ready for 64 bit from its launch in the early '90s. This transition should be not only less painful than the IA-32 -> IA-64 transition, but less painful than the 68k -> PPC transition, because the ISA is unchanged. Apple is "moving" from PPC to PPC.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
I agree. Of course Apple is ready and capable. Think ApplePI, FireWire, MoBo chipsets etc. etc. It's not like they are still going to the Radioshack and sticking things together in a wooden box in Scully's garage (or was that Woz's).
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: kroehl ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoa now...read up on your Apple history... that is Steve Job's garage
Anyway...this news all sounds very good...May will be here before we know it...I hope something, anything (even if it is only talk about developing 64 bit applications) comes up at WWDC...
I understand the new hardware (PowerPC 970..), will have minimal issues running the OS be it updated for 64-bit or if it remains the current 32-bit. :cool:
However if/when the OS is updated and compiled to run 64-bit, is there then an issue with older 32-bit legacy systems like my beige, Blue & White and Ti's ability to run this 64-bit OS? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
Is Apple going to need to provide two OS update packages, one 32-bit for backwards compatibility with older hardware and one 64-bit that can take full advantage of 64-bit CPUs? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
-tink
<strong>
However if/when the OS is updated and compiled to run 64-bit, is there then an issue with older 32-bit legacy systems like my beige, Blue & White and Ti's ability to run this 64-bit OS? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sincerely doubt that.
At a bare minimum, the system installer can figure out what hardware it's installing onto, and choose the bits that it installs accordingly.
Remember that OS X is based on OpenStep, which ran on all kinds of completely different systems. The people in charge have years of experience making this kind of thing work.
The 970 itself will present less of a challenge, from a systems programming point of view, than the board it runs on, especially in MP setups, but applications and the end user should be blissfully ignorant of the complexities involved.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
However if/when the OS is updated and compiled to run 64-bit, is there then an issue with older 32-bit legacy systems like my beige, Blue & White and Ti's ability to run this 64-bit OS? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[surprised]" />
Is Apple going to need to provide two OS update packages, one 32-bit for backwards compatibility with older hardware and one 64-bit that can take full advantage of 64-bit CPUs? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
-tink</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Sun's been distributing Solaris install CDs that swtich between 32 and 64 bit-ness for years now.
It's no big deal.
Looking at the company's software strategy, all the indications are that Apple is looking well ahead of the current marketplace, with a clear plan and timeframe for bringing new products and technology to market.
Rendezvous, Bluetooth, NG Firewire, iLife, Keynote, Safari and other software innovations... these things should instill confidence that Apple is doing things right. I'm 100% certain that further productivity software is also on the way, so expect more than one application to accompany Keynote before the year is out.
Apple are clearly not shying away from confronting the problems in their complex relationship with Microsoft head on. Consider the rumors of x86 OS X and Marklar..... This is not a company sitting back, they're making some very bold and aggressive moves.
Apple must have done a lot of work with Motorolla on the G5. How much of this can be carried forward with the 970 is anybody's guess, but I don't think Apple has much breathing space. Still, it pays to be cautious when playing guessing games over delivery dates of unannounced products. Nvidia and the current Geforce FX fiasco show how finely balanced issues with new hardware can throw a project into serious trouble. I expect the motherboard and accompanying components of 970-based systems to be the biggest challenge facing Apple this year, not the delivery timeframe or yields of 970 silicon from IBM.
I would feel fairly confident in saying that significant work must be going on within Apple to bring a 64-bit ready version of Mac OS X to market. FreeBSD is already 64-bit clean, look at the ports to SPARC, Alpha and IA64 for evidence of this.... It would garner serious industry attention if Apple were able to bring a combined 64-bit hardware and software solution to market before the end of the year.
With AMD's 64-bit plans drifting back and Microsoft apparently in no particular rush to bring a 64-bit Windows to market, there exists an opportunity too good to miss.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Interface Widget ]
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Interface Widget ]</p>
<strong>Sorry to be a downer. But Steve told us when the PowerMacs would be updated to the 970.
"2003 will be the year of the portable."
He wouldn't say that if he knew that this year would bring a processor to its desktop line that would threaten Intel.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He also said Apple has a few tricks up it's sleeve when asked about desktops.
[quote]He wouldn't say that if he knew that this year would bring a processor to its desktop line that would threaten Intel.<hr></blockquote>
Well, absolutely every clue I can scrounge from Apple and elsewhere points to a 970 machine in the Jan - March 2004 timeframe, although it's all deduction, whisper and employee vague hints.
However, given the forcefulness of Transcendental Octothorpe statements that the 970 is coming, and soon, (which I'm willing to accept at face value, if he'll admit to having an Apple source), he'd better have a source inside Apple.
It's that or he's a MS double agent, sent here to utterly alienate the last of the Mac fanatics by raising hopes into the stratosphere (hopes that Apple has done their best to deny) and then watching all that enthusiasm become hatred and disdain for Apple when they fail to get a machine out for a deadline they never promised :-)
In about 3 months, we'll see which it is.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: Tom West ]</p>
- Which architecture will they support? AMD (X86-64) or Itanic (IA-64)?
This leads to other questions and uncertainties....
- There certainly won't be two versions because that would mean that software developers will be asked to code for two different architectures and I don't see that happening, so which (if any) will they choose?
- Drivers ... Another issue. Which architecture to support?
- IA-64 (Itanic) not meant for the desktop, so why bother writing common commercial apps for it?
- If Microsoft chooses to go X86-64 for Winders then I'd say Intel is behind the 8-ball, because they seem hell-bent on getting Itanic to work out at any cost.
- If Microsoft chooses IA-64, where does that leave AMD? Dead. But maybe not because IA-64 really isn't designed for the desktop environment, which will likely continue with 32-bit Winders...
- the old 32-bit codebase from legacy apps ... They will run like crap providing a crappy experience, not to mention that both AMD and Intel will be fighting the MHz myth themselves ;-)
- What about all the people who are committed to the 32-bit machines that they just bought ? ;-)
Oh and the BIG question...
How much *more* consumer-confusion is this going to generate in the Wintelon world?
The questions keep mounting.. too much uncertainty... It isn't like that with Apple and 64-bit. It's just a matter of "when"
--
Ed M.
<strong>
Well, absolutely every clue I can scrounge from Apple and elsewhere points to a 970 machine in the Jan - March 2004 timeframe, although it's all deduction, whisper and employee vague hints.
However, given the forcefulness of Transcendental Octothorpe statements that the 970 is coming, and soon, (which I'm willing to accept at face value, if he'll admit to having an Apple source), he'd better have a source inside Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been a rumor-watcher for a while. And an Apple watcher since the Mac Plus days. Rumor's have a way of getting repeated and reiterated on various boards and sites, each referring to the other. Think about the recent utterly confident rumors about a tablet coming out at this MWSF. Result? Nothing whatsoever. Crack smoke from someone somewhere that got repeated, cross referenced, and accepted as holy writ.
Nothing against TransOct, but we have no way of verifying anything anyone says on these boards. Hell, the people who run these types of rumor sites are almost laughingstocks (some more than others) among most of us--and it's their *job* to dig up this stuff. Board posters have no accountability whatsoever. (For the record, the only "rumor" guy who I trust implicitly is Matthew Rothenburg, the original--the one and only--Mac the Knife.)
Powermac 970 at MWSF '04. If it comes out in the fall, we can all smile big, broad smiles. It won't come out this summer.
As for the "tricks up our sleeve" comment, think of it this way: the biggest trick of all would be managing to get another 10.5 months of life out of the G4! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Next year, he'll be able to point to how successful Apple's portables have been.* 75% of their units or whatever it will be by that time. Then he can repeat how he was right about "the year of the portable" thing. Then he can say but this year will be different: "the year Intel bites the dust (TM)" or however they decide to market it.
As a gesture of magnanimity, Steve will personally offer to upgrade at no charge the approximately 43 individuals who have actually bought a PowerMac in the previous 6 months.
-DCQ
*BTW, was anybody else coughing nervously when Steve raved about how its portables were an unusually large percent of its total units shipped? Ummm, Steve?...It's cause your towers blow!
<strong>
I've been a rumor-watcher for a while. And an Apple watcher since the Mac Plus days. Rumor's have a way of getting repeated and reiterated on various boards and sites, each referring to the other. Think about the recent utterly confident rumors about a tablet coming out at this MWSF. Result? Nothing whatsoever. Crack smoke from someone somewhere that got repeated, cross referenced, and accepted as holy writ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Absolutely true, and worth remembering.
[quote]<strong>*BTW, was anybody else coughing nervously when Steve raved about how its portables were an unusually large percent of its total units shipped? Ummm, Steve?...It's cause your towers blow!</strong><hr></blockquote>
PC Towers must really be sucking, then, because notebooks make up a <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1040-898370.html"; target="_blank">large and steadily increasing chunk</a> of PC sales, too.
(To be fair, Apple's desktop/laptop split is more even, but still.)