Oh right. A company with %3 market share is going to start making made to order products. Mork calling Orsen.. Come in Orsen.
Market share is irrelevant. Market *size* is. Around 1990, Apple made a special version of their IIci that used parity RAM for government contracts. They had less customers then than they do now.
Zero. Unless we take into consideration the dual core G4s of the other thread.
Only problem: this is Motorola.
What about a dual core IBM G3 with Altivec? There were rumors of IBM making a G3 with Altivec (basically a G4) and IBM makes dual core chips...sooooo... put 2 and 2 together and you get... a dual core G3 with altivec (dual altivec?)?
Just take a dual G4 XServe, duck tape a 17" Studio display to the end. Duck tape a keyboard to it and get a really long extension cord. Re-in-act the old MTV commercials.
What about a dual core IBM G3 with Altivec? There were rumors of IBM making a G3 with Altivec (basically a G4) and IBM makes dual core chips...sooooo... put 2 and 2 together and you get... a dual core G3 with altivec (dual altivec?)?
Apple has effectively removed the G3 processor from its lineup. I don't believe that you will see them going back to it.
What about a dual core IBM G3 with Altivec? There were rumors of IBM making a G3 with Altivec (basically a G4) and IBM makes dual core chips...sooooo... put 2 and 2 together and you get... a dual core G3 with altivec (dual altivec?)?
Same problem as with Motos dual-G4s:
- the G3+SMD is vaporware. We have heard about it roughly a year now and nothing, but nothing has surfaced. The "Gobi" 750Gx was 3 month late to the market, the 750vx (single-core) is still missing. Apple can't use a chip that is not available, let alone a dual version.
- the bus is too slow for a fast dual-core chip. The 750 even uses a revised 60x-bus protocol. In contrast to G4 and G5 busses, this is a synchronous bus, meaning if the CPU wants to read data, the bus is blocked until the data has arrived. This is bad in a single-core setup (think about data coming from the HD), but worse in dual-core. So, the 750 needs a new bus interface before it can go dual.
Additional problems (not present with the Moto G4):
- the 750 has crappy spec values, meaning it is underpowered. In contrast to common mythology, the G4 is way faster per clock cycle (and this is not counting AltiVec).
- the 750 has no SMP support, this would be needed for a dual-core chip.
In summary: a dual-core G3+Altivec means a completely new chip - why go this route for a product life of a year at best?
I think Apple should indeed make a dual processor PowerBook. But, instead of two G4's, Apple should use dual x86 chips. If priced low enough, Windows users would buy them like hotcakes, and when they put them on their laps, they would fry their balls, causing them to be unable to reproduce.
I think Apple should indeed make a dual processor PowerBook. But, instead of two G4's, Apple should use dual x86 chips. If priced low enough, Windows users would buy them like hotcakes, and when they put them on their laps, they would fry their balls, causing them to be unable to reproduce.
I am reading all this talks about how nice it would be to have a G5 powerbook. But how about a dual G4 powerbook. The speed would be almost as fast as a single 1.6 G5 and the chip is already there. What is the possibility that for the next upgrade of powerbooks, before we get a G5 powerbook, apple releases a dual G4 powerbook. I mean apple will have the title for the first dual processor laptop before they have the title for the first 64bit laptop.
Let me know what you guys think. I for one think that it will be a big seller.
Brian
My initial reaction to this questionis why?, when the fact that dual core G5's are coming in about a 12-18mths. Meaning we should get G5 PB's shortly and dual core 97x's in about 18mths time.
But alot of people (espec. video) want desktop replacements - PB 17" size laptops and FAST!, the 970FX is rated at 24.5W @ 2G - so I would think this would be a welcome possibility in the 17" PB.
The 12/15" models would remain single CPU until the dual cores are available.
For the movie Twister Silicon Graphics actually built their Indy into a laptop case. One was on ebay a long time ago. Only a dozen were made... something like that. I don't know when Sun built theirs, but SGI definitely had one back in the mid-90s.
No, those were fakes. There were 14 built in all - 7 "functional" and 7 shells with nothing in them. The functional ones were merely LCDs in custom made shells with looong cables running out of the back to the actual Indy boxes. The reason for this pointless exercise was that SGI had the product placement contract for the computer equipment but didn't actually produce a laptop. The contract, however, stipulated that nothing but SGIs could be used.
Almost all of the graphics was produced on a *drrrrrrumrollllll* PowerMac.
I think Sun holds the honours for the first 64 bit laptop. Sorry.
If IBM were to get the proc down to 65nm, and do dual core from the "Power" series, think they could have this version of a dual processor working really well. It will probably be cool enough to be "dualble." (get it...ya shut up)
In my opinion, this is the best way to go dual. Speed between units is greater than separate chips, as well as space that is taken up is smaller too. A pretty good design.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
Oh right. A company with %3 market share is going to start making made to order products. Mork calling Orsen.. Come in Orsen.
Market share is irrelevant. Market *size* is. Around 1990, Apple made a special version of their IIci that used parity RAM for government contracts. They had less customers then than they do now.
However, I agree that it is a bit far-fetched.
Originally posted by PB
Zero. Unless we take into consideration the dual core G4s of the other thread.
Only problem: this is Motorola.
What about a dual core IBM G3 with Altivec? There were rumors of IBM making a G3 with Altivec (basically a G4) and IBM makes dual core chips...sooooo... put 2 and 2 together and you get... a dual core G3 with altivec (dual altivec?)?
Originally posted by onlooker
Dual G4 PB. Oh yea.
Quad G4 powerbook.
Originally posted by Leonard
What about a dual core IBM G3 with Altivec? There were rumors of IBM making a G3 with Altivec (basically a G4) and IBM makes dual core chips...sooooo... put 2 and 2 together and you get... a dual core G3 with altivec (dual altivec?)?
Apple has effectively removed the G3 processor from its lineup. I don't believe that you will see them going back to it.
Originally posted by Leonard
What about a dual core IBM G3 with Altivec? There were rumors of IBM making a G3 with Altivec (basically a G4) and IBM makes dual core chips...sooooo... put 2 and 2 together and you get... a dual core G3 with altivec (dual altivec?)?
Same problem as with Motos dual-G4s:
- the G3+SMD is vaporware. We have heard about it roughly a year now and nothing, but nothing has surfaced. The "Gobi" 750Gx was 3 month late to the market, the 750vx (single-core) is still missing. Apple can't use a chip that is not available, let alone a dual version.
- the bus is too slow for a fast dual-core chip. The 750 even uses a revised 60x-bus protocol. In contrast to G4 and G5 busses, this is a synchronous bus, meaning if the CPU wants to read data, the bus is blocked until the data has arrived. This is bad in a single-core setup (think about data coming from the HD), but worse in dual-core. So, the 750 needs a new bus interface before it can go dual.
Additional problems (not present with the Moto G4):
- the 750 has crappy spec values, meaning it is underpowered. In contrast to common mythology, the G4 is way faster per clock cycle (and this is not counting AltiVec).
- the 750 has no SMP support, this would be needed for a dual-core chip.
In summary: a dual-core G3+Altivec means a completely new chip - why go this route for a product life of a year at best?
Originally posted by CharlesS
I think Apple should indeed make a dual processor PowerBook. But, instead of two G4's, Apple should use dual x86 chips. If priced low enough, Windows users would buy them like hotcakes, and when they put them on their laps, they would fry their balls, causing them to be unable to reproduce.
Originally posted by brianelmi
I am reading all this talks about how nice it would be to have a G5 powerbook. But how about a dual G4 powerbook. The speed would be almost as fast as a single 1.6 G5 and the chip is already there. What is the possibility that for the next upgrade of powerbooks, before we get a G5 powerbook, apple releases a dual G4 powerbook. I mean apple will have the title for the first dual processor laptop before they have the title for the first 64bit laptop.
Let me know what you guys think. I for one think that it will be a big seller.
Brian
My initial reaction to this questionis why?, when the fact that dual core G5's are coming in about a 12-18mths. Meaning we should get G5 PB's shortly and dual core 97x's in about 18mths time.
But alot of people (espec. video) want desktop replacements - PB 17" size laptops and FAST!, the 970FX is rated at 24.5W @ 2G - so I would think this would be a welcome possibility in the 17" PB.
The 12/15" models would remain single CPU until the dual cores are available.
Just my 2 cents
Originally posted by LoCash
For the movie Twister Silicon Graphics actually built their Indy into a laptop case. One was on ebay a long time ago. Only a dozen were made... something like that. I don't know when Sun built theirs, but SGI definitely had one back in the mid-90s.
No, those were fakes. There were 14 built in all - 7 "functional" and 7 shells with nothing in them. The functional ones were merely LCDs in custom made shells with looong cables running out of the back to the actual Indy boxes. The reason for this pointless exercise was that SGI had the product placement contract for the computer equipment but didn't actually produce a laptop. The contract, however, stipulated that nothing but SGIs could be used.
Almost all of the graphics was produced on a *drrrrrrumrollllll* PowerMac.
I think Sun holds the honours for the first 64 bit laptop. Sorry.
--
If IBM were to get the proc down to 65nm, and do dual core from the "Power" series, think they could have this version of a dual processor working really well. It will probably be cool enough to be "dualble." (get it...ya shut up)
In my opinion, this is the best way to go dual. Speed between units is greater than separate chips, as well as space that is taken up is smaller too. A pretty good design.
-walloo.