It doesn't. IBM has plans to do it though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
great. so my remark about the 7457 everybody was flamming wasn't as stupid as it seems:
Motorola has the same plans with it's 7457 RM (but if it ever will be released is another story, look at the 7500. great plans, everybody expected this G5 and after a few months Moto pulled it from it's roadmap, sad indeed)
<strong>great. so my remark about the 7457 everybody was flamming wasn't as stupid as it seems:
Motorola has the same plans with it's 7457 RM (but if it ever will be released is another story, look at the 7500. great plans, everybody expected this G5 and after a few months Moto pulled it from it's roadmap, sad indeed)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 7457 will just have the existing MPX bus and no other changes except a double sized L2. Power levels will drop. This will definitely be an improvement for Apple portables, no doubt about it. When it arrives late this year.
The 7457-RM was last listed as "under considertion" on a Motorola roadmap a few months ago, and given Moto's typical timeline for new processor development this doesn't bode well. I think everybody is skeptical that we'll ever see it, and if we do that it will be in a useful timeline for Apple's purposes. The 970 might arrive @ 0.09 micron before the 7457-RM shows up @ 0.13 and the idea of a 7457-RM @ 0.09 will instill much laughter. Nobody would complain if it actually materialized, it just seems far more likely that IBM will get there first.
I disagree -- if the 7x0 core, or a decendent of it w/ VMX, is put into a 44x-style system-on-a-chip with I/O & memory controller plus a RapidIO bus and its power consumption is down in the 2-3W range then it makes a lot of sense. Trying to stretch a single processor design across the gamut of applications is what has gotten Apple into its current mess, its time to have "options".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It seems like four or five years ago that I read about Motorola developing a system-on-a-chip processor code named Thunderbird at the time. It even had a PCI bus controller, if I remember correctly. I always thought that something like this would be great for very low cost systems, and hoped Apple would have such a chip someday.
If I understand what you are saying, it could be a possibility from IBM. Apple needs this kind of chip so they can lower prices on Macs for the home, educational and general purpose business computer markets.
<strong>It seems like four or five years ago that I read about Motorola developing a system-on-a-chip processor code named Thunderbird at the time. It even had a PCI bus controller, if I remember correctly. I always thought that something like this would be great for very low cost systems, and hoped Apple would have such a chip someday.
If I understand what you are saying, it could be a possibility from IBM. Apple needs this kind of chip so they can lower prices on Macs for the home, educational and general purpose business computer markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That became the 8xxx embedded host processor series, I believe. Not appropriate for Apple desktop use due to the weak core and lack of FPU&VMX. Conceptually, however, a G3/G4+memory controller+RIO makes a lot of sense and I have to believe that either IBM or Moto will get there eventually.
That became the 8xxx embedded host processor series, I believe. Not appropriate for Apple desktop use due to the weak core and lack of FPU&VMX. Conceptually, however, a G3/G4+memory controller+RIO makes a lot of sense and I have to believe that either IBM or Moto will get there eventually.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO.
There are portions of the semiconductor space in which Motorola is really a champ. Some of Moto's chips only consume 1 or 2 watts and are every bit as competent as G3s of a couple years ago. Given first Apple's then their own near-death experiences of the past few years, though, I don't believe Moto's got the cojones to compete in the top end, performance-is-everything, power-consumption-be-damned arena any more.
I think there is a role for Motorola processors in Apple's future, but only by using them in Moto's strengths - ultra low-power, moderate performance portables.
Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Jobs apparently loved the eMate.
I would not put it past him to revive something very much like it.
<strong>Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that they are generally not capable of running Macintosh software. The Mac APIs, libraries, and apps in generally are full of uses of standard PowerPC FPU-based floating point math which these embedded processors typically have omitted or implemented in a non-standard fashion. For this reason a 7x0 core is about the minimum required to run MacOS X and its applications. Sure you could come up with a new platform and build around that, but more attractive is simply using a more advanced core in a SoC package... which we haven't seen yet from IBM or Moto.
The problem is that they are generally not capable of running Macintosh software. The Mac APIs, libraries, and apps in generally are full of uses of standard PowerPC FPU-based floating point math which these embedded processors typically have omitted or implemented in a non-standard fashion. For this reason a 7x0 core is about the minimum required to run MacOS X and its applications. Sure you could come up with a new platform and build around that, but more attractive is simply using a more advanced core in a SoC package... which we haven't seen yet from IBM or Moto.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Picky, picky, picky....
I understand what you're saying completely. I didn't mean to imply that I thought current processors were suitable, only that such a processor was within reach.
For example, a Motorola 8560 with an FPU added would be pretty good for that sort of thing - probably overkill, in fact, even without AltiVec. It may be missing much more than the FPU - I'm certainly not an expert (or even exceptionally knowedgeable). They don't publish the power consumption of it yet, but its core runs at only 1.2 V, and puts out 1850 MIPS at 800 MHz. Their 82xx series run typically at 1.9 V and dissipate 2-3 W at 300 MHz or so with a 603e core. I doubt the 8560 would put out much more than that.
My point really was that this is an area where Motorola excels and they really could still be an important part of Apple's processor mix. It would only require Moto to extend proven designs a bit to fit Apple's needs, not try to maintain an entirely distinct line of high-power desktop chips used only by Apple. Whether or not they actually do is an entirely different matter. There's enough bad blood at this point that the relationship may be past salvaging.
[Not entirely convinced that economy of topic items in the topic list is worth shoehorning posts into ill-fitting topic headings, nevertheless, I re-post as follows...]
I've heard a lot of talk about OS X needing to be updated to a 64-bit OS for the PowerPC 970, and I've also heard a lot of talk that this shouldn't be that hard to do.
Still, I have a hard time imagining that such a change wouldn't constitute a major new version of the OS - 10.3, rather than 10.2.x.
Given that the 970 can run 32-bit code just fine, and that even at 32 bits, the 970 will be a substantial improvement over the G4, would it make sense for Apple, if 10.3 isn't right around the corner, to release new 970-based computers, with only a slightly tweaked OS 10.2.x that simply uses the 970 in 32-bit mode?
I think that would be a good move if it gets us new 970-based systems sooner that we would by waiting for OS 10.3.
Hmmm....I don't know about you guys, but a slow G3 with 4 MB of VRAM would run OS X Lite just fine, especially considering the small screen size of this idea.
[quote]Originally posted by os10geek (and moved from a locked thread):
<strong>Definitely not. It would be maginally acceptable to have the Powermac 970 announced before the 64-bit OS was ready, but that would be just plain cheap. I expect all Apple Pro software titles to be ready at the time that the PM 970 ships. That means that Finalcut Pro, not Express, Web Objects, and Shake will be ready to run 64-bit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that there aren't plenty of 970 rumors going about now, but still, I'd expect to hear much more rumbling if all of these 64-bit software upgrades were already well under development, most likely requiring that developer versions of a 64-bit OS, and the hardware to run it on.
Besides, OS X 10.3, while quite likely to be a 64-bit OS to support the 970, won't be all about 64-bitness. There's like to be a whole lot more to 10.3, and who knows how far along the whole package of goodies that will be 10.3 is?
For people hoping for July availability of a 970 Power Mac (not just a July announcement of something that will ship in September or later) it seems to me that there'd have to be widespread beta copies of 10.3 now, or very soon, if those July Power Macs are going to have a 64-bit 10.3 installed when they ship.
Now, maybe neither 970s nor OS 10.3 will be ready until northern-hemisphere Fall arrives, in which case, my speculation might be a moot point.
But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"?
I'd happily buy such a system -- I expect the 970 to be quite an enormous leap beyond the G4, even running in 32-bit mode, with or without a 64-bit OS behind it. Besides, I'd know that 64-bit goodness would come soon, and that I'd probably have something of a wait before much software was able to take advantage of 64-bit architecture anyway.
Your theory hinges on the difficulty of moving OSX to 64bit. Well written apps by either Apple or 3rd parties should be able to support G4bits with a relatively minores tweaks and a recompile. You won't see Apple holding up PPC 970's system IMO. I doubt that the PPC 970 is going to see large scale production until 2H 2003 so 10.3 and the PPC 970 could/should coincide nicely as far as their release.
[quote] But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"?
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think Apple would have a problem with that. But I doubt that moving OSX to 64bit is going to present that much of a challenge anyways.
<strong>I don't think Apple would do that...I think that they would try to have the 64-bit OS preloaded into the machine at the plant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not as it's most likely a few code tweaks and a recompile away. I believe it would depend more on the compiler supporting 64bit. Some of the GCC 3.x Mavens around here would be better off explaining but I think that moving to 64bit has confused many a person on just how it's done and what benefits it will entail.
. . . But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"? . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If we are giving out opinions, I think Apple would ship with 10.2.
If the 970 is ready to go well before OS X 10.3, I don't believe Apple would hold back the new PowerMacs. From what IBM has said, a 32 bit OS needs relatively few changes to work with the 970. Since Apple had this information before we did, they may have rolled those minor changes into 10.2 already, especially if they suspected 10.3 might be the critical path.
Who wouldn't buy a new PowerMac with an IBM 970 running OS 10.2? It will still run 64 bit applications, even if the OS is 32 bits, and we know that OS X will soon be upgraded to 64 bits too.
Comments
<strong>Remember when we thought that the G5 would be out in january 2000?
Sad...</strong><hr></blockquote>Not 2000. The G4 came out in late 1999. The Register's rumors were for Jan. 2002.
<strong>
It doesn't. IBM has plans to do it though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
great. so my remark about the 7457 everybody was flamming wasn't as stupid as it seems:
Motorola has the same plans with it's 7457 RM (but if it ever will be released is another story, look at the 7500. great plans, everybody expected this G5 and after a few months Moto pulled it from it's roadmap, sad indeed)
<strong>great. so my remark about the 7457 everybody was flamming wasn't as stupid as it seems:
Motorola has the same plans with it's 7457 RM (but if it ever will be released is another story, look at the 7500. great plans, everybody expected this G5 and after a few months Moto pulled it from it's roadmap, sad indeed)</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 7457 will just have the existing MPX bus and no other changes except a double sized L2. Power levels will drop. This will definitely be an improvement for Apple portables, no doubt about it. When it arrives late this year.
The 7457-RM was last listed as "under considertion" on a Motorola roadmap a few months ago, and given Moto's typical timeline for new processor development this doesn't bode well. I think everybody is skeptical that we'll ever see it, and if we do that it will be in a useful timeline for Apple's purposes. The 970 might arrive @ 0.09 micron before the 7457-RM shows up @ 0.13 and the idea of a 7457-RM @ 0.09 will instill much laughter. Nobody would complain if it actually materialized, it just seems far more likely that IBM will get there first.
<a href="http://www.cse.clrc.ac.uk/disco/mew/Talks/Follows_IBM.pdf"; target="_blank">IBM LINK</a>
Very interesting.
<strong>
I disagree -- if the 7x0 core, or a decendent of it w/ VMX, is put into a 44x-style system-on-a-chip with I/O & memory controller plus a RapidIO bus and its power consumption is down in the 2-3W range then it makes a lot of sense. Trying to stretch a single processor design across the gamut of applications is what has gotten Apple into its current mess, its time to have "options".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It seems like four or five years ago that I read about Motorola developing a system-on-a-chip processor code named Thunderbird at the time. It even had a PCI bus controller, if I remember correctly. I always thought that something like this would be great for very low cost systems, and hoped Apple would have such a chip someday.
If I understand what you are saying, it could be a possibility from IBM. Apple needs this kind of chip so they can lower prices on Macs for the home, educational and general purpose business computer markets.
<strong>It seems like four or five years ago that I read about Motorola developing a system-on-a-chip processor code named Thunderbird at the time. It even had a PCI bus controller, if I remember correctly. I always thought that something like this would be great for very low cost systems, and hoped Apple would have such a chip someday.
If I understand what you are saying, it could be a possibility from IBM. Apple needs this kind of chip so they can lower prices on Macs for the home, educational and general purpose business computer markets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That became the 8xxx embedded host processor series, I believe. Not appropriate for Apple desktop use due to the weak core and lack of FPU&VMX. Conceptually, however, a G3/G4+memory controller+RIO makes a lot of sense and I have to believe that either IBM or Moto will get there eventually.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
That became the 8xxx embedded host processor series, I believe. Not appropriate for Apple desktop use due to the weak core and lack of FPU&VMX. Conceptually, however, a G3/G4+memory controller+RIO makes a lot of sense and I have to believe that either IBM or Moto will get there eventually.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO.
There are portions of the semiconductor space in which Motorola is really a champ. Some of Moto's chips only consume 1 or 2 watts and are every bit as competent as G3s of a couple years ago. Given first Apple's then their own near-death experiences of the past few years, though, I don't believe Moto's got the cojones to compete in the top end, performance-is-everything, power-consumption-be-damned arena any more.
I think there is a role for Motorola processors in Apple's future, but only by using them in Moto's strengths - ultra low-power, moderate performance portables.
<strong>
Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Jobs apparently loved the eMate.
I would not put it past him to revive something very much like it.
<strong>Embedded processors from both IBM and Mot are gettting to the point where they can do all of the "basic" computing functions (writing, web-surfing, email, etc) very competently and at extremely low power consumption. I think there is a market for an "e-mate"-like portable with no pretenses of being a game platform or a portable video workstation. Wireless internet, word processing, presentations, (tablet, maybe?) etc. with 10-12 hours of battery life for $700 would sell, IMHO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is that they are generally not capable of running Macintosh software. The Mac APIs, libraries, and apps in generally are full of uses of standard PowerPC FPU-based floating point math which these embedded processors typically have omitted or implemented in a non-standard fashion. For this reason a 7x0 core is about the minimum required to run MacOS X and its applications. Sure you could come up with a new platform and build around that, but more attractive is simply using a more advanced core in a SoC package... which we haven't seen yet from IBM or Moto.
<strong>
The problem is that they are generally not capable of running Macintosh software. The Mac APIs, libraries, and apps in generally are full of uses of standard PowerPC FPU-based floating point math which these embedded processors typically have omitted or implemented in a non-standard fashion. For this reason a 7x0 core is about the minimum required to run MacOS X and its applications. Sure you could come up with a new platform and build around that, but more attractive is simply using a more advanced core in a SoC package... which we haven't seen yet from IBM or Moto.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Picky, picky, picky....
I understand what you're saying completely. I didn't mean to imply that I thought current processors were suitable, only that such a processor was within reach.
For example, a Motorola 8560 with an FPU added would be pretty good for that sort of thing - probably overkill, in fact, even without AltiVec. It may be missing much more than the FPU - I'm certainly not an expert (or even exceptionally knowedgeable). They don't publish the power consumption of it yet, but its core runs at only 1.2 V, and puts out 1850 MIPS at 800 MHz. Their 82xx series run typically at 1.9 V and dissipate 2-3 W at 300 MHz or so with a 603e core. I doubt the 8560 would put out much more than that.
My point really was that this is an area where Motorola excels and they really could still be an important part of Apple's processor mix. It would only require Moto to extend proven designs a bit to fit Apple's needs, not try to maintain an entirely distinct line of high-power desktop chips used only by Apple. Whether or not they actually do is an entirely different matter. There's enough bad blood at this point that the relationship may be past salvaging.
I've heard a lot of talk about OS X needing to be updated to a 64-bit OS for the PowerPC 970, and I've also heard a lot of talk that this shouldn't be that hard to do.
Still, I have a hard time imagining that such a change wouldn't constitute a major new version of the OS - 10.3, rather than 10.2.x.
Given that the 970 can run 32-bit code just fine, and that even at 32 bits, the 970 will be a substantial improvement over the G4, would it make sense for Apple, if 10.3 isn't right around the corner, to release new 970-based computers, with only a slightly tweaked OS 10.2.x that simply uses the 970 in 32-bit mode?
I think that would be a good move if it gets us new 970-based systems sooner that we would by waiting for OS 10.3.
Hmmm....I don't know about you guys, but a slow G3 with 4 MB of VRAM would run OS X Lite just fine, especially considering the small screen size of this idea.
<strong>Definitely not. It would be maginally acceptable to have the Powermac 970 announced before the 64-bit OS was ready, but that would be just plain cheap. I expect all Apple Pro software titles to be ready at the time that the PM 970 ships. That means that Finalcut Pro, not Express, Web Objects, and Shake will be ready to run 64-bit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not that there aren't plenty of 970 rumors going about now, but still, I'd expect to hear much more rumbling if all of these 64-bit software upgrades were already well under development, most likely requiring that developer versions of a 64-bit OS, and the hardware to run it on.
Besides, OS X 10.3, while quite likely to be a 64-bit OS to support the 970, won't be all about 64-bitness. There's like to be a whole lot more to 10.3, and who knows how far along the whole package of goodies that will be 10.3 is?
For people hoping for July availability of a 970 Power Mac (not just a July announcement of something that will ship in September or later) it seems to me that there'd have to be widespread beta copies of 10.3 now, or very soon, if those July Power Macs are going to have a 64-bit 10.3 installed when they ship.
Now, maybe neither 970s nor OS 10.3 will be ready until northern-hemisphere Fall arrives, in which case, my speculation might be a moot point.
But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"?
I'd happily buy such a system -- I expect the 970 to be quite an enormous leap beyond the G4, even running in 32-bit mode, with or without a 64-bit OS behind it. Besides, I'd know that 64-bit goodness would come soon, and that I'd probably have something of a wait before much software was able to take advantage of 64-bit architecture anyway.
[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
Your theory hinges on the difficulty of moving OSX to 64bit. Well written apps by either Apple or 3rd parties should be able to support G4bits with a relatively minores tweaks and a recompile. You won't see Apple holding up PPC 970's system IMO. I doubt that the PPC 970 is going to see large scale production until 2H 2003 so 10.3 and the PPC 970 could/should coincide nicely as far as their release.
[quote] But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"?
<hr></blockquote>
I don't think Apple would have a problem with that. But I doubt that moving OSX to 64bit is going to present that much of a challenge anyways.
<strong>I don't think Apple would do that...I think that they would try to have the 64-bit OS preloaded into the machine at the plant.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not as it's most likely a few code tweaks and a recompile away. I believe it would depend more on the compiler supporting 64bit. Some of the GCC 3.x Mavens around here would be better off explaining but I think that moving to 64bit has confused many a person on just how it's done and what benefits it will entail.
<strong>
. . . But the question remains, if the 970 is ready to roll much sooner than 10.3, and if 64-bitness is not something Apple wants to graft into a 10.2.x OS release, does anyone here think that Apple would be satisfied to ship a 970 system, with full 64-bit OS support not included, but "coming soon"? . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If we are giving out opinions, I think Apple would ship with 10.2.
If the 970 is ready to go well before OS X 10.3, I don't believe Apple would hold back the new PowerMacs. From what IBM has said, a 32 bit OS needs relatively few changes to work with the 970. Since Apple had this information before we did, they may have rolled those minor changes into 10.2 already, especially if they suspected 10.3 might be the critical path.
Who wouldn't buy a new PowerMac with an IBM 970 running OS 10.2? It will still run 64 bit applications, even if the OS is 32 bits, and we know that OS X will soon be upgraded to 64 bits too.
[ 03-15-2003: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>