I wouldn't necessarily believe the register. Early commentary by intel people (quoted around the net) was that the pentium M, while much faster than the 4M "clock for clock," wouldn't necessarily be as fast overall. Who knows untill we actually get some complete systems to test. Intel will not sell just the processor then? hmmm... sounds like it's going to be pricey.
In any event, it is impressive if 7-8 lab hours translate into 5 real world hours that is a fair bit ahead of Apple then. Apple says the the 12" PB sees 5 hours, but I don't think so. Running word, on a full charge, I see a hair over 4 hours, which I think is pretty good for a light notebook. When I had the battery off, I saw that it's actually quite small in comparison to the cover plate, Apple could easily spec something with 55+ watt hours. If they added a few ounces I wouldn't care so long as the form factor didn't change.
It'll be interesting to put these things side by side and see how they perform.
P4M seriously underperforms relative to desktop P4's, so even if the M is faster than P4M, you're not looking at anything like desktop performance. A linux journal recently benched the iBook 800 G3 to have comparable performance to 1.7Ghz P4M.
PPC970? yeah, that would rock, but who knows what supplies will be like? I think it fair to assume that Moto can get it's act together and supply some very fast G4's for the mobile market. Mobile computing is a much better fit for Moto's MO anyway. Their .18u G4 is well past what anyone expected from a 7 stage, .18u chip, maxxing at 1.42. That makes their claims of 1.8Ghz top end for the '57 quite believable actually. And if the supply it in quantity by Q3-4 then they're right in the game and Apple can use it immediately because it is designed as a drop in replacement for 7455/45.
I think you will see a 970 in a laptop, but ONLY in the lapzilla, because it's the kind of machine that demands this sort of engine, the same way a huge touring car demands a V-12.
Should be an interesting year. I don't business demanding 802.11a or necessarily choosing it over b/g but that's a wait and see type thing.
Where exactly did this strain of member called "Spooky" jump from? I haven't seen Spooky anywhere today, in future hardware, OS X, or any other forum. And his/her post cound supercedes mine. Hmmmm...
how exctly will the 970 destroy almost evrything available. from what I've read so far the 970 will at least keep pace with current top of the line offerings from intel. By the time the 970 comes out and given apple's staggering inability to see the great gap (and their willingness to happily offer under powered/specced hardware) the competition will kill the 970. what are mac users supposed to do? hang on until the 970 matures? just we're supposed to hang on until X matures ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the answer is that whilst the Spec speeds of the 3ghz P4 seem to be similar to the projection of the 970, the 970 has a velocity engine and spec does not measure this. I think that most people expect that n real world tests the 970 is going to be the leader of the pack on any desktop machine.
[quote]I think it fair to assume that Moto can get it's act together and supply some very fast G4's for the mobile market. Mobile computing is a much better fit for Moto's MO anyway. Their .18u G4 is well past what anyone expected from a 7 stage, .18u chip, maxxing at 1.42. That makes their claims of 1.8Ghz top end for the '57 quite believable actually.<hr></blockquote>Well 1.8GHZ would be optimistic for Moto, especially for that to appear near launch in Q3 2004. We still haven't seen any HiP7 product from Moto, and by Q3 2004 Intel's 0.09u fab will be cranking out chips. I think that by the time Moto produces anything near 1.8GHZ for the 7457, IBM will be fabbing 970's at 0.09u.
I do believe that the G4 duel 1.42 Ghz is the highest Moto has available right now. Unless of coarse you bought a server and hooked your single computer up to it...now that's some raw power.
how exctly will the 970 destroy almost evrything available. from what I've read so far the 970 will at least keep pace with current top of the line offerings from intel. By the time the 970 comes out and given apple's staggering inability to see the great gap (and their willingness to happily offer under powered/specced hardware) the competition will kill the 970. what are mac users supposed to do? hang on until the 970 matures? just we're supposed to hang on until X matures ?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, considering that the 1.8ghz is on par with a 3.2ghz P4, I'd say that it would crush anything from iNtel at the same closk speed. So after the 970, Intel will need almost 1.5ghz worth of speed on each chip to stay even. That's destroyinmg in my book. So we will go from barely hanging on by a thread to laughing as we pass them.
How is the competition going the kill the 970? Ah, guy, it will be out in less then 6 months, is Intel going to hit 5.ghz in 6 months? No? Ah, OK, then Intel won't be killing anything except all the bad press about the 970 whipping the P4's ass.
hang on til X matures? Hmm, ah, well, I've had no issues using it as my BUSINESS OS, or as a FULL TIME STABLE OS, I mean how much more can be matured. I'm talking about what's there and what needs to be addressed, not 'cool should be added features'.
I think you need to re-evaluate your platform of choice, anything the feeds the negativity you have should be addressed.
Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".
<strong>Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's right, I keep forgetting: Macs are and must always be in all ways inferior to PCs, and anyone who says otherwise is in denial.
spooky, you might want to seriously look into getting your power lines checked. something is wrong when that many machines/displays die in such a short time span.
have you tried running any of your hardware off of UPS devices?
<strong>Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's true, most new tech stuff does come first on a PC. but being an early adopter of a lot of PC tech has a big price. I had one of the first Intel TX boards that supported SDRAM DIMMS, which due to its newness was slower and more expensive than top quality EDO SIMMS. The board was also finicky about what type of SDRAM, what order they could be placed, and it still wouldn't overclock worth a shit. The 'bleeding edge' stuff (sound cards, graphics cards) doesn't usually become useful for at least 3 months after its release (when they finally release decent drivers) and the markup is insane for at least 6 months after its release.
CPUs are a notable exception, and Apple has been so far behind on RAM for so long that it sure as hell matters now. But most of the whizbang new stuff on a PC is pretty half baked...Serial ATA has NOT arrived, AGP8x has yet to differentiate itself from AGP4x in terms of performance, etc.
And then there's tech like USB, Firewire, and wireless ethernet, which were available first on PCs, and just sat there until Apple started pushing it.
Macs might not have the fastest tech right away, but they generally get technology at the point where it is mature and useful. And that matters a hell of a lot more to me than some "me first!" pissing contest.
Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".
I am sorry, but Intel IS playing catch up. The 970 allows a seamless transition to 64 bit computing. For those applications that can benefit from such large memory addressing, the P4 will be very much outclassed. In Altivec functions, the P4 will be destroyed. If I'm not wrong, the 970's memory bus is also superior to the P4. The 970 is also amenable to multiprocessor setups which is not available for the P4, unless one moves up to the Xeon. IBM will soon move the chip to a 90 nm process and I suspect IBM's fabs can compete with Intel's best.
It's too bad that Intel bet their future on the Itanic. I still can't believe that Intel listened to the losers from HP in developing EPIC. Intel really does have a bunch of smart people, but as in any company, the bean counters control the engineers. Just because they sank tons of money into the Itanic, doesn't mean they are forced to stick with it. By the time Intel gets their act together, it will likely be too late. Intel will survive AMD's x86-64 chips, but they won't survive for long against IBM's Power and PowerPC chips. Even as Microsoft won't stand up against Linux/Unix (it really is only a matter of time), Intel will need to execute flawlessly in order to remain competitive against IBM. So far, though Intel has managed to pull ahead of the PowerPC, they won't stay there for long. This time, IBM will only be too willing to keep Intel in the slow lane. The G3 trounced the early Pentiums and the 970 will do the same to the present ones. I just don't see Intel's future chips mounting much of a challenge. IBM is on a mission to take back the desktop. Microsoft is about to get crushed by Linux and IBM will only be too happy to help it along. Intel is about to see their own 64 bit aspirations vaporize, again courtesy of IBM. If it comes down to a battle between IBM and Intel, I would not be betting against IBM is all I can say.
so where exactly is the evidence that it will destory almost everything? this sounds like a softening up campaign from apple themselves a la megahertz myth. the same Bs was spouted with the "blazing power" of the G4 and look what happened to that.
and as for X being "plenty mature" I guess that even with the fastest mac hardware out there its still not as fast as 9.2.2. I guess its also why 10.2.4 is so poor.
As a long time mac fanatic I see no reason for optimism once you cut through all the hype about the 970 that is being heralded as the saviour. It sounds like a fast chip - that's it. tomorrow it will be a reasonably fast chip. the day after it will be a once fast chip. by the time apple impliment it it will be an average chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not 'plenty mature' as in finished, but in the fact that it has grown into a strong OS with enough features to be used on a daily basis with little to no problems. At least that's how I feel.
consider a reality where Mac OS X was available with applications for either Intel or PowerPC processors. A best of both worlds scenario where new x86 processors were available in new Macs on the day of the announcement - ditto PowerPC...
Don't you ever - just for a fleeting moment - wonder what it would be like to live in a world where Macs were readily available... in all shapes and sizes... in all speeds and configurations... at all price points... ?
Remember that the claims for the Centrino are really just marketspeak so far. No hard specs have really been provided. Besides to get 7 hour battery life, all you really need is a bigger battery. Any current CPU can get 7 hour battery life with a big enough battery to back it up. The claims so far have no hard facts behind them. I don't doubt that it will be more effecient, but how will it really perform and at what cost?
Also, the first answer already exists in the form of the 1.2ghz 970. Low power consumption and processing power that is more then twice that of the current top line powerbooks, which are generally considered "state of the art" by any standards.
As to the slowness of OS-X? They said the same things about OS-7 compared to 6, OS-9 compared to 7 or 8, etc. Each generation of OS is more complex, more powerful and does more. All OS-X needs is processors powerful enough to unleash its true potential. Hopefully the 970s will do just that.
Re: "And then there's tech like USB, Firewire, and wireless ethernet, which were available first on PCs, and just sat there until Apple started pushing it. "
Re: "And then there's tech like USB, Firewire, and wireless ethernet, which were available first on PCs, and just sat there until Apple started pushing it.
Umm.... Apple invented firewire. I don't think firewire was around first on PC's. Remember the B & W G3, I don't recall a SINGLE system having firewire except for that machine.
In it self it "mearly" keeps up with the P4. But Win XP home and AFAIK allmost all Win applications is geared toward one CPU only, no SMP. Apple have dual CPU in both harware and OS support for quite a while.
Dual 970 vs single P4
non SMP ---about even
SMP--- Beating the P4
SMP and AltiVec---Destructionof the P4 :cool:
compare that to Dual G4 vs single P4
Non SMP---Destruction of the G4
SMP---beating the G4
SMP and AltiVec---keeping up at least sometimes in some tasks <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
So the speed of the 970 does not appear to be a world dominator in it self but with SMP in OS X and several applications vs very little SMP in Windows for the home market, you can say that this has opened up a window of opportunity
<strong>Re: "And then there's tech like USB, Firewire, and wireless ethernet, which were available first on PCs, and just sat there until Apple started pushing it. "
Apple invented Firewire... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, Apple invented Firewire, but it was available via PCI card upgrade on PCs before it was built-in on Macs (to be fair, it was a BTO option on Macs too, but the point is neither side used Firewire much until it was built-in on Macs.
Comments
In any event, it is impressive if 7-8 lab hours translate into 5 real world hours that is a fair bit ahead of Apple then. Apple says the the 12" PB sees 5 hours, but I don't think so. Running word, on a full charge, I see a hair over 4 hours, which I think is pretty good for a light notebook. When I had the battery off, I saw that it's actually quite small in comparison to the cover plate, Apple could easily spec something with 55+ watt hours. If they added a few ounces I wouldn't care so long as the form factor didn't change.
It'll be interesting to put these things side by side and see how they perform.
P4M seriously underperforms relative to desktop P4's, so even if the M is faster than P4M, you're not looking at anything like desktop performance. A linux journal recently benched the iBook 800 G3 to have comparable performance to 1.7Ghz P4M.
PPC970? yeah, that would rock, but who knows what supplies will be like? I think it fair to assume that Moto can get it's act together and supply some very fast G4's for the mobile market. Mobile computing is a much better fit for Moto's MO anyway. Their .18u G4 is well past what anyone expected from a 7 stage, .18u chip, maxxing at 1.42. That makes their claims of 1.8Ghz top end for the '57 quite believable actually. And if the supply it in quantity by Q3-4 then they're right in the game and Apple can use it immediately because it is designed as a drop in replacement for 7455/45.
I think you will see a 970 in a laptop, but ONLY in the lapzilla, because it's the kind of machine that demands this sort of engine, the same way a huge touring car demands a V-12.
Should be an interesting year. I don't business demanding 802.11a or necessarily choosing it over b/g but that's a wait and see type thing.
<strong>
how exctly will the 970 destroy almost evrything available. from what I've read so far the 970 will at least keep pace with current top of the line offerings from intel. By the time the 970 comes out and given apple's staggering inability to see the great gap (and their willingness to happily offer under powered/specced hardware) the competition will kill the 970. what are mac users supposed to do? hang on until the 970 matures? just we're supposed to hang on until X matures ?
I think the answer is that whilst the Spec speeds of the 3ghz P4 seem to be similar to the projection of the 970, the 970 has a velocity engine and spec does not measure this. I think that most people expect that n real world tests the 970 is going to be the leader of the pack on any desktop machine.
Well not long to wait now thank God.
<strong>
how exctly will the 970 destroy almost evrything available. from what I've read so far the 970 will at least keep pace with current top of the line offerings from intel. By the time the 970 comes out and given apple's staggering inability to see the great gap (and their willingness to happily offer under powered/specced hardware) the competition will kill the 970. what are mac users supposed to do? hang on until the 970 matures? just we're supposed to hang on until X matures ?
Well, considering that the 1.8ghz is on par with a 3.2ghz P4, I'd say that it would crush anything from iNtel at the same closk speed. So after the 970, Intel will need almost 1.5ghz worth of speed on each chip to stay even. That's destroyinmg in my book. So we will go from barely hanging on by a thread to laughing as we pass them.
How is the competition going the kill the 970? Ah, guy, it will be out in less then 6 months, is Intel going to hit 5.ghz in 6 months? No? Ah, OK, then Intel won't be killing anything except all the bad press about the 970 whipping the P4's ass.
hang on til X matures? Hmm, ah, well, I've had no issues using it as my BUSINESS OS, or as a FULL TIME STABLE OS, I mean how much more can be matured. I'm talking about what's there and what needs to be addressed, not 'cool should be added features'.
I think you need to re-evaluate your platform of choice, anything the feeds the negativity you have should be addressed.
<strong>Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's right, I keep forgetting: Macs are and must always be in all ways inferior to PCs, and anyone who says otherwise is in denial.
Silly me.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
have you tried running any of your hardware off of UPS devices?
<strong>Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's true, most new tech stuff does come first on a PC. but being an early adopter of a lot of PC tech has a big price. I had one of the first Intel TX boards that supported SDRAM DIMMS, which due to its newness was slower and more expensive than top quality EDO SIMMS. The board was also finicky about what type of SDRAM, what order they could be placed, and it still wouldn't overclock worth a shit. The 'bleeding edge' stuff (sound cards, graphics cards) doesn't usually become useful for at least 3 months after its release (when they finally release decent drivers) and the markup is insane for at least 6 months after its release.
CPUs are a notable exception, and Apple has been so far behind on RAM for so long that it sure as hell matters now. But most of the whizbang new stuff on a PC is pretty half baked...Serial ATA has NOT arrived, AGP8x has yet to differentiate itself from AGP4x in terms of performance, etc.
And then there's tech like USB, Firewire, and wireless ethernet, which were available first on PCs, and just sat there until Apple started pushing it.
Macs might not have the fastest tech right away, but they generally get technology at the point where it is mature and useful. And that matters a hell of a lot more to me than some "me first!" pissing contest.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Gizzmonic ]</p>
Intel is playing catch up? Yeah right. Denial is getting you no where, buddy. Just like how all the goodies available on the PC side 6 months or more before Mac (8X AGP, fast DDRAM or RDRAM , serial ATA) are all PC's way of "catching up".
I am sorry, but Intel IS playing catch up. The 970 allows a seamless transition to 64 bit computing. For those applications that can benefit from such large memory addressing, the P4 will be very much outclassed. In Altivec functions, the P4 will be destroyed. If I'm not wrong, the 970's memory bus is also superior to the P4. The 970 is also amenable to multiprocessor setups which is not available for the P4, unless one moves up to the Xeon. IBM will soon move the chip to a 90 nm process and I suspect IBM's fabs can compete with Intel's best.
It's too bad that Intel bet their future on the Itanic. I still can't believe that Intel listened to the losers from HP in developing EPIC. Intel really does have a bunch of smart people, but as in any company, the bean counters control the engineers. Just because they sank tons of money into the Itanic, doesn't mean they are forced to stick with it. By the time Intel gets their act together, it will likely be too late. Intel will survive AMD's x86-64 chips, but they won't survive for long against IBM's Power and PowerPC chips. Even as Microsoft won't stand up against Linux/Unix (it really is only a matter of time), Intel will need to execute flawlessly in order to remain competitive against IBM. So far, though Intel has managed to pull ahead of the PowerPC, they won't stay there for long. This time, IBM will only be too willing to keep Intel in the slow lane. The G3 trounced the early Pentiums and the 970 will do the same to the present ones. I just don't see Intel's future chips mounting much of a challenge. IBM is on a mission to take back the desktop. Microsoft is about to get crushed by Linux and IBM will only be too happy to help it along. Intel is about to see their own 64 bit aspirations vaporize, again courtesy of IBM. If it comes down to a battle between IBM and Intel, I would not be betting against IBM is all I can say.
<strong>
so where exactly is the evidence that it will destory almost everything? this sounds like a softening up campaign from apple themselves a la megahertz myth. the same Bs was spouted with the "blazing power" of the G4 and look what happened to that.
and as for X being "plenty mature" I guess that even with the fastest mac hardware out there its still not as fast as 9.2.2. I guess its also why 10.2.4 is so poor.
As a long time mac fanatic I see no reason for optimism once you cut through all the hype about the 970 that is being heralded as the saviour. It sounds like a fast chip - that's it. tomorrow it will be a reasonably fast chip. the day after it will be a once fast chip. by the time apple impliment it it will be an average chip.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not 'plenty mature' as in finished, but in the fact that it has grown into a strong OS with enough features to be used on a daily basis with little to no problems. At least that's how I feel.
consider a reality where Mac OS X was available with applications for either Intel or PowerPC processors. A best of both worlds scenario where new x86 processors were available in new Macs on the day of the announcement - ditto PowerPC...
Don't you ever - just for a fleeting moment - wonder what it would be like to live in a world where Macs were readily available... in all shapes and sizes... in all speeds and configurations... at all price points... ?
I confess - I sometimes do.
Also, the first answer already exists in the form of the 1.2ghz 970. Low power consumption and processing power that is more then twice that of the current top line powerbooks, which are generally considered "state of the art" by any standards.
As to the slowness of OS-X? They said the same things about OS-7 compared to 6, OS-9 compared to 7 or 8, etc. Each generation of OS is more complex, more powerful and does more. All OS-X needs is processors powerful enough to unleash its true potential. Hopefully the 970s will do just that.
[ 03-14-2003: Message edited by: Shaktai ]</p>
Apple invented Firewire...
Umm.... Apple invented firewire. I don't think firewire was around first on PC's. Remember the B & W G3, I don't recall a SINGLE system having firewire except for that machine.
In it self it "mearly" keeps up with the P4. But Win XP home and AFAIK allmost all Win applications is geared toward one CPU only, no SMP. Apple have dual CPU in both harware and OS support for quite a while.
Dual 970 vs single P4
non SMP ---about even
SMP--- Beating the P4
SMP and AltiVec---Destructionof the P4 :cool:
compare that to Dual G4 vs single P4
Non SMP---Destruction of the G4
SMP---beating the G4
SMP and AltiVec---keeping up at least sometimes in some tasks <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
So the speed of the 970 does not appear to be a world dominator in it self but with SMP in OS X and several applications vs very little SMP in Windows for the home market, you can say that this has opened up a window of opportunity
<strong>Re: "And then there's tech like USB, Firewire, and wireless ethernet, which were available first on PCs, and just sat there until Apple started pushing it. "
Apple invented Firewire...
Yes, Apple invented Firewire, but it was available via PCI card upgrade on PCs before it was built-in on Macs (to be fair, it was a BTO option on Macs too, but the point is neither side used Firewire much until it was built-in on Macs.