... Or, the Xserve is using the 130nm part because it works for a 2GHz CPU and Apple had to ship something. But they'd hoped to ship with the 90nm part.
That would be my guess. That would explain why updates to the whole line are delayed. That's the key question, Amorph. How can we find out?
MOSR thinks the delay is because some governemnt agencies have ordered g5s and xserves...and they are killing all the supply, but Apple can't announce them as new customers yet.
MOSR thinks the delay is because some governemnt agencies have ordered g5s and xserves...and they are killing all the supply, but Apple can't announce them as new customers yet.
This has to be one of MOSR's worst i.e. most unbelievable claims. They imply that the programs the machines are for are so secret that Apple has to hide the transactions in their accounts.
Clearly demonstrates their lack of knowledge of federal acquistions. Whether it's for a classified project or something else, it just appears on Apple's books as a GSA schedule sale.
Also clearly demonstrates their low opinion of the IQ of their readers. "So how did you get this inside information on classified program purchases? Oh, so someone with a clearance told you..." right...
Doubtful. They would have to change their information on the technical overview of the ...
OK, that's right. Also, AI's latest report (just posted!) says delays are for "unknown internal reasons", so it could be the "northbridge" chip problems discussed here.
I'm going to have to vote for Northbridge problems. IBM seems to have been confident enough to say they could produce 2.5ghz 970fx chips... so wouldn't it be on apple's end?
Since the graphics cards aren't in question any more... what else is there? A case redesign? New MOBO needed? Cooling issues / Fan issues? Or last but not yet solved... Power Supply issues. Apple is still having problems with the powersupply on current g5's. If they haven't fixed this yet it might not be the wisest to release the new machines with this malfunctioning PS.
I have a lot of doubt that it is IBM's side.
Really at this point waiting until WWDC might be the best thing Apple can do. Get production up before they announce the machines so the demand for them doesn't put a 12 week shipping time on them.
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
Because then apple would make me happy... that just doesn't happen . I couldn't be so lucky as to win 5 iTMS songs, get a free WWDC ticket, and get a d3ghz powermac all in the same year!!
IBM is readying the Power(PC) platform to be an open standard, any company can make a ppc box and IBM sells them the CPUs. Why would IBM announce such an initiative to ultimately eat away at X86 dominance if the G5s have hit a brickwall?
(BTW, if there are gonna be Power(PC) generic boxes, then will Mac OS X run on them?)
IBM is readying the Power(PC) platform to be an open standard, any company can make a ppc box and IBM sells them the CPUs. Why would IBM announce such an initiative to ultimately eat away at X86 dominance if the G5s have hit a brickwall?
(BTW, if there are gonna be Power(PC) generic boxes, then will Mac OS X run on them?)
OS X wont' be able to run on them for many reasons. I suppose a lot of hardware hacking could lead up to it... but they would have to jump over a lot of hoops in order for it to be successful. 1 thing would be the motherboard. This has everything from apple's boot rom to the way memory is stored. My guess is someone would have ot use an apple mobo to be successful. Anyone agree?
Who said the g5 procs have hit a brickwall? My guess is this is an apple issue... not IBM.
It sure would be nice to see IBM kill the monster they created. Perhaps thats motive enough?
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
This is the most optimistic reason I can think of. After Jobs publicly announced Macs with unspecified CPUs running at 3GHz by the end of this summer, I believe, Apple as a company has no way out. Now suppose that IBM is currently only able to make 970fx run at miserable 2.9GHz. Though in terms of performance it makes no difference, in terms of marketing and Wall Street boys it's a disaster: even IBM made no public promises about 3GHz by the end of this summer.
If, on the contrary, IBM were able to manufacture 970fx at 2.5GHz in February, I'm sure Apple would do all they can to make faster Macs available immediately. The thing is, it takes some time to spin up the production-sales-delivery machine and it makes little to no sense to go through all the hassle (ending in cleaning up the inventory) for the sake of 2 or 3 models which have to be EOLed some 3 months later.
OS X wont' be able to run on them for many reasons. I suppose a lot of hardware hacking could lead up to it... but they would have to jump over a lot of hoops in order for it to be successful. 1 thing would be the motherboard. This has everything from apple's boot rom to the way memory is stored. My guess is someone would have ot use an apple mobo to be successful. Anyone agree?
Who said the g5 procs have hit a brickwall? My guess is this is an apple issue... not IBM.
It sure would be nice to see IBM kill the monster they created. Perhaps thats motive enough?
unless I'm confused, all "New World" Macs lack a traditional 'boot rom' on the board, and instead use the open firmware to load a software rom from a device (usually the primary hd).
I'm not saying generic PPC boards would easily boot OS X, obviously the drivers for all of the board-level hardware needs to be there. but if the drivers exist (and are open) in an IBM linux/unix form, they would most likely be ported quickly to Darwin/OS X.
If any "1337" kid can run windows, linux, etc. on a hacked XBox, people will overcome the difficulties of booting Darwin/OS X on generic PPC boards (as long as the boards are available at a reasonable cost for amateur developers to work on).
unless I'm confused, all "New World" Macs lack a traditional 'boot rom' on the board, and instead use the open firmware to load a software rom from a device (usually the primary hd).
I'm not saying generic PPC boards would easily boot OS X, obviously the drivers for all of the board-level hardware needs to be there. but if the drivers exist (and are open) in an IBM linux/unix form, they would most likely be ported quickly to Darwin/OS X.
If any "1337" kid can run windows, linux, etc. on a hacked XBox, people will overcome the difficulties of booting Darwin/OS X on generic PPC boards (as long as the boards are available at a reasonable cost for amateur developers to work on).
If thats the case then why can't one run OS X on IBM's PPC blade servers?
An xbox costs 199, a blade server and host costs a mighty sight more. You might notice that 'amatuer' development for linux takes place on hardware that people can get cheap ( home computers, x86 ) or free ( old high end machines, sgi ). IBM blades servers dont fit into either of those categories, so the only OSes for them are the ones IBM pays for.
So, this begs the question: why so many delays? Chip supply? System Controller issues (I don't see why as it could use the same as the PM G5 @ 2.0 GHz)?
Croquer, published today their bu11$h1t, ooops sorry, opinion, on the delays. Essentially, they repeat what MOSR said, but providing some numbers. Croquer.
It could be a number of things. Perhaps Apple waited for 3Ghz chips, and they're becoming available in significant quantities. However, due to waiting for those, perhaps new updates are needed, such a PCI-X (or whatveer it called).
Maybe Apple is introducing a memory controller for each G5 processor, so duals will have two. Apple is offering savings on memory now, so perhaps new Powermacs will come out with 512MB per processor... Wishful thinking, they've always been too stingy with memory.
My bet is on the northbridge not being ready yet. Does anyone know Apple's stance on FSB speeds? It seems to me that Apple takes pride in the fact that G5s have an effective bus speed at half the speed of the processors. Is it possible that Apple has 2.6Ghz G5s or whatever, but is having difficulty bumping up the bus speed? According to the multipliers, couldn't new G5s, dependant on the speed boost, have a slower bus than the current PowerMacs? If this is the case, then perhaps Apple is desparately trying to find a way to resolve this problem.
unless I'm confused, all "New World" Macs lack a traditional 'boot rom' on the board, and instead use the open firmware to load a software rom from a device (usually the primary hd).
Sorry to say this, but your wrong. All Macs have a boot rom, the boot rom on new world Macs is just smaller. I had a link to a couple of articles about this on Apple's site but they are on my other computer. But basically a Mac has to load boot code from a hardware place (a ROM), because it has no idea of how to access any devices like a HD until it loads the hardware boot ROM.
I'll post the link later this afternoon when I'm home, if no-one posts it by then.
Sorry to say this, but your wrong. All Macs have a boot rom, the boot rom on new world Macs is just smaller. I had a link to a couple of articles about this on Apple's site but they are on my other computer. But basically a Mac has to load boot code from a hardware place (a ROM), because it has no idea of how to access any devices like a HD until it loads the hardware boot ROM.
I'll post the link later this afternoon when I'm home, if no-one posts it by then.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
... Or, the Xserve is using the 130nm part because it works for a 2GHz CPU and Apple had to ship something. But they'd hoped to ship with the 90nm part.
That would be my guess. That would explain why updates to the whole line are delayed. That's the key question, Amorph. How can we find out?
Originally posted by cubist
That would be my guess. That would explain why updates to the whole line are delayed. That's the key question, Amorph. How can we find out?
Doubtful. They would have to change their information on the technical overview of the then.G5 Xserves then
Originally posted by jade
MOSR thinks the delay is because some governemnt agencies have ordered g5s and xserves...and they are killing all the supply, but Apple can't announce them as new customers yet.
This has to be one of MOSR's worst i.e. most unbelievable claims. They imply that the programs the machines are for are so secret that Apple has to hide the transactions in their accounts.
Clearly demonstrates their lack of knowledge of federal acquistions. Whether it's for a classified project or something else, it just appears on Apple's books as a GSA schedule sale.
Also clearly demonstrates their low opinion of the IQ of their readers. "So how did you get this inside information on classified program purchases? Oh, so someone with a clearance told you..." right...
Originally posted by rickag
Doubtful. They would have to change their information on the technical overview of the ...
OK, that's right. Also, AI's latest report (just posted!) says delays are for "unknown internal reasons", so it could be the "northbridge" chip problems discussed here.
Since the graphics cards aren't in question any more... what else is there? A case redesign? New MOBO needed? Cooling issues / Fan issues? Or last but not yet solved... Power Supply issues. Apple is still having problems with the powersupply on current g5's. If they haven't fixed this yet it might not be the wisest to release the new machines with this malfunctioning PS.
I have a lot of doubt that it is IBM's side.
Really at this point waiting until WWDC might be the best thing Apple can do. Get production up before they announce the machines so the demand for them doesn't put a 12 week shipping time on them.
Originally posted by Programmer
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
Originally posted by Programmer
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
Because then apple would make me happy... that just doesn't happen
IBM is readying the Power(PC) platform to be an open standard, any company can make a ppc box and IBM sells them the CPUs. Why would IBM announce such an initiative to ultimately eat away at X86 dominance if the G5s have hit a brickwall?
(BTW, if there are gonna be Power(PC) generic boxes, then will Mac OS X run on them?)
Originally posted by MajorMatt
This is strange.
IBM is readying the Power(PC) platform to be an open standard, any company can make a ppc box and IBM sells them the CPUs. Why would IBM announce such an initiative to ultimately eat away at X86 dominance if the G5s have hit a brickwall?
(BTW, if there are gonna be Power(PC) generic boxes, then will Mac OS X run on them?)
OS X wont' be able to run on them for many reasons. I suppose a lot of hardware hacking could lead up to it... but they would have to jump over a lot of hoops in order for it to be successful. 1 thing would be the motherboard. This has everything from apple's boot rom to the way memory is stored. My guess is someone would have ot use an apple mobo to be successful. Anyone agree?
Who said the g5 procs have hit a brickwall? My guess is this is an apple issue... not IBM.
It sure would be nice to see IBM kill the monster they created. Perhaps thats motive enough?
Originally posted by Programmer
It could also be that Apple is holding off until IBM can deliver enough 3 GHz chips. If they're really close then why not avoid an extra bump a little later?
This is the most optimistic reason I can think of. After Jobs publicly announced Macs with unspecified CPUs running at 3GHz by the end of this summer, I believe, Apple as a company has no way out. Now suppose that IBM is currently only able to make 970fx run at miserable 2.9GHz. Though in terms of performance it makes no difference, in terms of marketing and Wall Street boys it's a disaster: even IBM made no public promises about 3GHz by the end of this summer.
If, on the contrary, IBM were able to manufacture 970fx at 2.5GHz in February, I'm sure Apple would do all they can to make faster Macs available immediately. The thing is, it takes some time to spin up the production-sales-delivery machine and it makes little to no sense to go through all the hassle (ending in cleaning up the inventory) for the sake of 2 or 3 models which have to be EOLed some 3 months later.
I hope Apple is really going straight to 3 GHz.
Originally posted by emig647
OS X wont' be able to run on them for many reasons. I suppose a lot of hardware hacking could lead up to it... but they would have to jump over a lot of hoops in order for it to be successful. 1 thing would be the motherboard. This has everything from apple's boot rom to the way memory is stored. My guess is someone would have ot use an apple mobo to be successful. Anyone agree?
Who said the g5 procs have hit a brickwall? My guess is this is an apple issue... not IBM.
It sure would be nice to see IBM kill the monster they created. Perhaps thats motive enough?
unless I'm confused, all "New World" Macs lack a traditional 'boot rom' on the board, and instead use the open firmware to load a software rom from a device (usually the primary hd).
I'm not saying generic PPC boards would easily boot OS X, obviously the drivers for all of the board-level hardware needs to be there. but if the drivers exist (and are open) in an IBM linux/unix form, they would most likely be ported quickly to Darwin/OS X.
If any "1337" kid can run windows, linux, etc. on a hacked XBox, people will overcome the difficulties of booting Darwin/OS X on generic PPC boards (as long as the boards are available at a reasonable cost for amateur developers to work on).
Originally posted by concentricity
unless I'm confused, all "New World" Macs lack a traditional 'boot rom' on the board, and instead use the open firmware to load a software rom from a device (usually the primary hd).
I'm not saying generic PPC boards would easily boot OS X, obviously the drivers for all of the board-level hardware needs to be there. but if the drivers exist (and are open) in an IBM linux/unix form, they would most likely be ported quickly to Darwin/OS X.
If any "1337" kid can run windows, linux, etc. on a hacked XBox, people will overcome the difficulties of booting Darwin/OS X on generic PPC boards (as long as the boards are available at a reasonable cost for amateur developers to work on).
If thats the case then why can't one run OS X on IBM's PPC blade servers?
So, this begs the question: why so many delays? Chip supply? System Controller issues (I don't see why as it could use the same as the PM G5 @ 2.0 GHz)?
Croquer, published today their bu11$h1t, ooops sorry, opinion, on the delays. Essentially, they repeat what MOSR said, but providing some numbers. Croquer.
Maybe Apple is introducing a memory controller for each G5 processor, so duals will have two. Apple is offering savings on memory now, so perhaps new Powermacs will come out with 512MB per processor... Wishful thinking, they've always been too stingy with memory.
My bet is on the northbridge not being ready yet. Does anyone know Apple's stance on FSB speeds? It seems to me that Apple takes pride in the fact that G5s have an effective bus speed at half the speed of the processors. Is it possible that Apple has 2.6Ghz G5s or whatever, but is having difficulty bumping up the bus speed? According to the multipliers, couldn't new G5s, dependant on the speed boost, have a slower bus than the current PowerMacs? If this is the case, then perhaps Apple is desparately trying to find a way to resolve this problem.
Originally posted by concentricity
unless I'm confused, all "New World" Macs lack a traditional 'boot rom' on the board, and instead use the open firmware to load a software rom from a device (usually the primary hd).
Sorry to say this, but your wrong. All Macs have a boot rom, the boot rom on new world Macs is just smaller. I had a link to a couple of articles about this on Apple's site but they are on my other computer. But basically a Mac has to load boot code from a hardware place (a ROM), because it has no idea of how to access any devices like a HD until it loads the hardware boot ROM.
I'll post the link later this afternoon when I'm home, if no-one posts it by then.
Originally posted by Leonard
Sorry to say this, but your wrong. All Macs have a boot rom, the boot rom on new world Macs is just smaller. I had a link to a couple of articles about this on Apple's site but they are on my other computer. But basically a Mac has to load boot code from a hardware place (a ROM), because it has no idea of how to access any devices like a HD until it loads the hardware boot ROM.
I'll post the link later this afternoon when I'm home, if no-one posts it by then.
thank you