If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
I have tried to calculate how many time higher SPEC scores a dual 970 gets than my current G4/400 at home but I am running out out of fingers <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Is a manyfold a bigger entity than a several fold?
Sorry for the pun, I am giddy <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah - give me the 970 - i wanna get rid of my G4/400 too <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> this is awesome - and perhaps we will get a newer sound-system and endless graphics-power!!!! droooooooooooooooool
<strong>stop this marklar-sh** - i just want my 970 - there's no need for OS X on x86-"machines" <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... You have the possibility to buy a cheap peecee and run OSX on it, or you will have a PIV crushing PPC 970 with OSX on it.. Consumers buy peecee's AND OSX, top-end d00d's buy PPC 970's with OSX... Apple's marketshare KABOOOMS. ==> Apple sells more macs ==> More marketshare ==> More Apple sales... -Get my point? <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>IBM PPC 970:
SPECint2000
? 937 @ 1.8 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 5220 @ 1.8 GHz
....
So let's extrapolate this to 2.5ghz...
SPECint2000
? 1301 @ 2.5 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1459 @ 2.5 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 7250 @ 2.5 GHz
.....
Here's what the current MOT G4 does:
SPECint2000
? 418 @ 1.4 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 248 @ 1.4 GHz
.....
That would make a single PPC 970 processor running at the same MHz as a G4 a bit less than 2x faster for SPECint2000, and a bit over 3x faster for SPECfp.
A single PPC 970 @ 2.5 GHz vs. a single G4 @ 1.4 GHz would result in the PPC 970 being about 3.1x faster for SPECint, and about 5.8x faster.
This is all "on paper" of course, but still, quite interesting.
.....
Oh, and here's a Pentium IV @ 3.06 GHz:
SPECint2000
? 1032 @ 3.06 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1092 @ 3.06 GHz
.....
Looks like an interesting future indeed...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people!
Marklar would be the cheapest way for a switcher. I never liked the whole idea until I thought about switchers. Look, people defect from Wintel not because of the hardware. There is decent PC hardware. There is also great PC hardware. It is Microsoft that pisses off most of switchers. And Marklar, though still a developer's headache, is a question of $130 per Mac OS X box, not a question of some $1500 per Macintosh. If they included an ugly powerful Windows-in-MacOS emulator to run Windows apps inside Mac OS X, a switcher could save a great lot of money on software for a while. Imagine: you buy a Mac OS X license, try it with Windows software, see that you like it and start buying the MacOS software (or even Apple's hardware if you can afford a blazingly fast computer). Think 'fully functional MacOS demo on your PC'. Might be cool.
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
What do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not think your second idea is plausible. I believe OS X x86 is kept current with the PPC version internally. It's a proof of concept and option of last resort. I don't see a viable future for such a product for many reasons. In any case, it wouldn't make sense to hype the new tremendous PPC and then simultaneously roll out an Intel binary. The timing just wouldn't work. And it's certainly not what moki suggested.
Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".
Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who cares about real world? We all live online anyway..
Hmmm. Yes. If Apple could rely on substance to back up the undoubted style of their hardware, then opening up to x86 does seem more feasible. Especially in view of Fred Anderson's remarks about a lot more software coming along this year....
<strong> If they included an ugly powerful Windows-in-MacOS emulator to run Windows apps inside Mac OS X, a switcher could save a great lot of money on software for a while. Imagine: you buy a Mac OS X license, try it with Windows software, see that you like it and start buying the MacOS software (or even Apple's hardware if you can afford a blazingly fast computer). Think 'fully functional MacOS demo on your PC'. Might be cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
VPC for Marklar? Intriguing. Of course, those of us who enjoyed the X-Files a little too much (such as myself) might wonder if a certain recent M$ acquisition was done to forestall such a development!
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>PPC970 production starting in MARCH.
Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Assuming you're correct.
As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?
<strong>Marklar would be the cheapest way for a switcher. I never liked the whole idea until I thought about switchers. Look, people defect from Wintel not because of the hardware. There is decent PC hardware. There is also great PC hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But there is not consistent PC hardware. How many switchers complain about peripherals and drivers not working? Well, you can't blame all of that on MS. Windows is as chaotic as it is at least partly because they have to support all kinds of arbitrary hardware in a single software release. That's a recipe for disaster, and it's not something Apple can overcome: Bad, corrupted or conflicting drivers can undercut any operating system's attempts at stability. Also, how many switchers have switched just by seeing a TiBook? Hardware has, in fact, been a reason to switch.
Now that it looks like Apple wil be able to offer a P4-based machine for those lemmings- oops, better not revive that ad - who really want a slower, hotter, kludgier, more expensive, single processor solution just because it's x86, they might. But I maintain that if they do it will be targeted at enterprise, not at consumer switchers; it will in all likelihood be a server component, and it will be safely embedded in Apple hardware. You will not be able to run OS X on your Dell.
It would be an interesting part of a blade-like system, actually: Run your Linux code without recompiling, without the headaches of maintaining Linux. An OS X Server that could transparently cluster via Rendezvous and bridge across ISAs in a way that allowed it to discern the native type of an executable and dispatch it to the appropriate CPU for execution... that might go somewhere. Or it might simply serve to get a foot in the door of x86-only shops, which is something moki has given as a reason.
As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?
Please feel free to correct me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since IBM is demoing prototype PowerPC Blade servers in what, 3 weeks, then production has begun.
It's the wrappings (read: other system board/component production), that is what will take time now. The chip exists, and prototype servers are already produced. I think Apple is probably in the same phase of finishing prototype boxes right now. Who knows, maybe they're just waiting for prototype boxes that 'glow'....
VPC for Marklar? Intriguing. Of course, those of us who enjoyed the X-Files a little too much (such as myself) might wonder if a certain recent M$ acquisition was done to forestall such a development!</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's been some talk about Apple incorporating the Bochs emulation (open-source Windows emulator for Unix) system into OS X, possibly as soon as 10.3. <a href="http://bochs.sourceforge.net/"; target="_blank">Bochs homepage</a>
That would be the REAL butt-kicker - if the 970+Bochs gives Apple native IA-32 emulation that is nearly as fast as the best x86 hardware, built right into the OS, who needs Marklar?
Big Mac compared the G4 to 970 to the 68k to PPC. adn concluded that this is a bigger jump, I agree! For pure code cruncing PPC was an enourmous jump forward. in RC-5 the 601 nubus computers score 100-200 k/s while the IIfx is at 5K/s as I recall. But in practical use the combination of a lot of emulation in the OS and some really crappy applications liek Word 6 that made a 120 MHz PPC work slower than a 16 MHz 68020 with Word 5.1a. I got a 6100/60 at work when it came out in 1994 and it was a dissapointment from the start until I left it to rot in 1999.
This time it is no emulation, it is pure PPC just much faster, and if the 970 are " to fast" compared to the current G4, please Apple make me suffer from speed overload, I think I can forgive you on that one <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Regarding 64 bit computing, let it come in due time there is no hurry, more urgent is to get the HFSplus to HFSExtreme (hfSEXtreme perhaps). That is to get the file system to be not only case presvering but also case sensitive this would make it closer to other UNIXes.
<strong>As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That assumes you're correct that it takes 60 days to fab the PPC970 and I'm not convinced that's the case. It may take 60 days (or so) to ramp up to full production level yields, but that doesn't mean there won't be chips available (although constrained) to the market before then.
everyone sure has gotten their expectations up. There has been no announcement that apple will even use the 970 or anything else for that matter. THey could do something completely arbitruary. Lets get back to earth. Mac users this is Houston... do you read me?
Comments
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
What do you think?
<strong>
I have tried to calculate how many time higher SPEC scores a dual 970 gets than my current G4/400 at home but I am running out out of fingers <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Is a manyfold a bigger entity than a several fold?
Sorry for the pun, I am giddy <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah - give me the 970 - i wanna get rid of my G4/400 too <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> this is awesome - and perhaps we will get a newer sound-system and endless graphics-power!!!! droooooooooooooooool
<strong>stop this marklar-sh** - i just want my 970 - there's no need for OS X on x86-"machines" <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well... You have the possibility to buy a cheap peecee and run OSX on it, or you will have a PIV crushing PPC 970 with OSX on it.. Consumers buy peecee's AND OSX, top-end d00d's buy PPC 970's with OSX... Apple's marketshare KABOOOMS. ==> Apple sells more macs ==> More marketshare ==> More Apple sales... -Get my point? <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>IBM PPC 970:
SPECint2000
? 937 @ 1.8 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1051 @ 1.8 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 5220 @ 1.8 GHz
....
So let's extrapolate this to 2.5ghz...
SPECint2000
? 1301 @ 2.5 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1459 @ 2.5 GHz
Dhrystone MIPS
? 7250 @ 2.5 GHz
.....
Here's what the current MOT G4 does:
SPECint2000
? 418 @ 1.4 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 248 @ 1.4 GHz
.....
That would make a single PPC 970 processor running at the same MHz as a G4 a bit less than 2x faster for SPECint2000, and a bit over 3x faster for SPECfp.
A single PPC 970 @ 2.5 GHz vs. a single G4 @ 1.4 GHz would result in the PPC 970 being about 3.1x faster for SPECint, and about 5.8x faster.
This is all "on paper" of course, but still, quite interesting.
.....
Oh, and here's a Pentium IV @ 3.06 GHz:
SPECint2000
? 1032 @ 3.06 GHz
SPECfp2000
? 1092 @ 3.06 GHz
.....
Looks like an interesting future indeed...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people!
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?
Could, indeed, the second surprise be Marklar? Consider that Mac OS X on Intel is not like VirtualPC for Mac. It would be times faster. And it would begin a next round of Apple vs. Microsoft box match.
What do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do not think your second idea is plausible. I believe OS X x86 is kept current with the PPC version internally. It's a proof of concept and option of last resort. I don't see a viable future for such a product for many reasons. In any case, it wouldn't make sense to hype the new tremendous PPC and then simultaneously roll out an Intel binary. The timing just wouldn't work. And it's certainly not what moki suggested.
<strong>
Andrew for president!!! Now THIS is how you lift the spirit of a people!
Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".
<strong>
Wish I had something to do with it, but I don't. Thank the researchers at IBM, assuming things hold up as well in the real world as they do "on paper".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who cares about real world? We all live online anyway..
Don't know if I want to believe it though.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: boy_analog ]</p>
<strong> If they included an ugly powerful Windows-in-MacOS emulator to run Windows apps inside Mac OS X, a switcher could save a great lot of money on software for a while. Imagine: you buy a Mac OS X license, try it with Windows software, see that you like it and start buying the MacOS software (or even Apple's hardware if you can afford a blazingly fast computer). Think 'fully functional MacOS demo on your PC'. Might be cool.</strong><hr></blockquote>
VPC for Marklar? Intriguing. Of course, those of us who enjoyed the X-Files a little too much (such as myself) might wonder if a certain recent M$ acquisition was done to forestall such a development!
<strong>If a PPC970 @ 2.5GHz already exists (even if there are 2 or 3 of them) and things are really going well at IBM, what chance is there that PPC970 hits mass production earlier than in autumn? In other words, could one of moki's two surprises be an earlier-to-unexpected release date of our brand new PowerMac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't that what I've been saying for a while now?
Once again:
PPC970 production starting in MARCH.
Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.
<strong>PPC970 production starting in MARCH.
Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Assuming you're correct.
As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?
Please feel free to correct me.
<strong>Marklar would be the cheapest way for a switcher. I never liked the whole idea until I thought about switchers. Look, people defect from Wintel not because of the hardware. There is decent PC hardware. There is also great PC hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But there is not consistent PC hardware. How many switchers complain about peripherals and drivers not working? Well, you can't blame all of that on MS. Windows is as chaotic as it is at least partly because they have to support all kinds of arbitrary hardware in a single software release. That's a recipe for disaster, and it's not something Apple can overcome: Bad, corrupted or conflicting drivers can undercut any operating system's attempts at stability. Also, how many switchers have switched just by seeing a TiBook? Hardware has, in fact, been a reason to switch.
Now that it looks like Apple wil be able to offer a P4-based machine for those lemmings- oops, better not revive that ad
It would be an interesting part of a blade-like system, actually: Run your Linux code without recompiling, without the headaches of maintaining Linux. An OS X Server that could transparently cluster via Rendezvous and bridge across ISAs in a way that allowed it to discern the native type of an executable and dispatch it to the appropriate CPU for execution... that might go somewhere. Or it might simply serve to get a foot in the door of x86-only shops, which is something moki has given as a reason.
<strong>
Assuming you're correct.
As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June. Then an inventory must be built up before shipment/production by Apple. That would indicate what a July to August introduction?
Please feel free to correct me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since IBM is demoing prototype PowerPC Blade servers in what, 3 weeks, then production has begun.
It's the wrappings (read: other system board/component production), that is what will take time now. The chip exists, and prototype servers are already produced. I think Apple is probably in the same phase of finishing prototype boxes right now. Who knows, maybe they're just waiting for prototype boxes that 'glow'....
<strong>Isn't that what I've been saying for a while now?
Once again:
PPC970 production starting in MARCH.
Hmm, only a few days away, it seems.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.
Interesting.
<strong>
VPC for Marklar? Intriguing. Of course, those of us who enjoyed the X-Files a little too much (such as myself) might wonder if a certain recent M$ acquisition was done to forestall such a development!</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's been some talk about Apple incorporating the Bochs emulation (open-source Windows emulator for Unix) system into OS X, possibly as soon as 10.3. <a href="http://bochs.sourceforge.net/"; target="_blank">Bochs homepage</a>
That would be the REAL butt-kicker - if the 970+Bochs gives Apple native IA-32 emulation that is nearly as fast as the best x86 hardware, built right into the OS, who needs Marklar?
<a href="http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2003/tc20030226_0465_tc056.htm"; target="_blank">Business Week article</a>
This time it is no emulation, it is pure PPC just much faster, and if the 970 are " to fast" compared to the current G4, please Apple make me suffer from speed overload, I think I can forgive you on that one <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Regarding 64 bit computing, let it come in due time there is no hurry, more urgent is to get the HFSplus to HFSExtreme (hfSEXtreme perhaps). That is to get the file system to be not only case presvering but also case sensitive this would make it closer to other UNIXes.
<strong>As I understand it, manufacturing a processor takes about 60 days. Therefore, March 1st would mean the first silcon comes out in May. March 31st would mean first silcon comes out in June.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That assumes you're correct that it takes 60 days to fab the PPC970 and I'm not convinced that's the case. It may take 60 days (or so) to ramp up to full production level yields, but that doesn't mean there won't be chips available (although constrained) to the market before then.
<strong>
Hmmmm, current estimated ship time for a PM tower at Apple store? 3-4 weeks.
Interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Better: Why didn't Apple update the 15" PB, and why hasn't it now that the channel has been bone dry for some time?
How many 17" PB's have shipped? Over at MacNN, there are several increasingly furious threads about shipping delays.
As an idle thought, how many 1.42 GHz PowerMacs have actually shipped?
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>