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.
Don't all computers have something like this? It is a BIOS on the PC. MAC's is just unique to the Mac, and the OS has been tied to it so that it wouldn't run on non-Apple computers that used the same processor, like the Amiga's.
Well this quote from AppleInsider's latest article on speed-bumped PowerMac G5's doesn't sound good:
Quote:
Sources also confirmed that the absence of faster models is a direct result of an unanticipated setback. "Something has gone terribly wrong," one source said, who noted that prototypes of the revised Power Macs first shipped to select partners prior to the start of the year, but would not comment further.
But if they shipped faster models to partners, what would the unexpected setback be? Not enough yield of G5s at those speeds like some people have mentioned? Yet they mention that Dual Xserves are are waiting on RAID controllers or some RAID component.
But if they shipped faster models to partners, what would the unexpected setback be?
They shipped faster prototypes, which they always do for select developers who need access to forthcoming hardware (such as ATi). That's a far cry from being able to ship a finished product to anyone.
I can't believe the release of PowerMacs got delayed 3 months! Now that we all know what happened (kind of) and know pretty much a confirmed annoncement date... we can make predictions on specs...
I'll start... going out on a limb:
Dual 2.8ghz
9800xt
512mb ram
Dual 2.5ghz
9600xt
256 mb ram
dual 2.0ghz
nvidia 5600
256mb ram
They will sport a dual external drive case... along with support for at least 3 hard drives.
All will be announced june 28th.... They will ship end of August.
Whats cool is if they ARE announced at WWDC... I will get to see them announced... so maybe the delay was worth it
it's a pretty big stretch to say we know release dates and what theyre gonna have in store. i'll admit that WWDC is looking more realistic, but apple obviously wants to get new pmac's out.
I can't believe the release of PowerMacs got delayed 3 months! Now that we all know what happened (kind of) and know pretty much a confirmed annoncement date...
it's a pretty big stretch to say we know release dates and what theyre gonna have in store. i'll admit that WWDC is looking more realistic, but apple obviously wants to get new pmac's out.
I definitely agree... but WWDC definitely is the next biggest event. I know apple wants to get away from announcing at big events though. I hope you're right... I wish they'd come out tomorrow. This 3k is getting harder and harder to hold on to
About the Boot ROM/OF issue I'm a bit confused. A quick glance to the TechNotes posted above just reveals this:
1- POST (check ram and basic components, then beeps and passes control to OF)
2- OF loads and checks various devices involved in the boot process, and if everything is ok it points to a boot file (be it Linux or whatever or Mac OS -related). In the case of MacOS (but the first TN is very old, is this true too under OS X?) this file is a ROM image, which is temporarily loaded into RAM.
In a *NIX boot process shouldn't the boot loader (OF in this case) load directly the kernel (or something like that)?
For instance, does anybody know how a Sun WS boots? It's UNIX and OF-based, wouldn't that be helpful to shed some light on this?
Personally, if I'm not totally an idiot (which I might very well be! ), I'm inclined to think that a patched OS X version able to run on those "open" boards shouldn't be too difficult to put together-granted, unless the Mobo architechture/structure changes radically, and also with lots of reverse engineering involved.
About the Boot ROM/OF issue I'm a bit confused. A quick glance to the TechNotes posted above just reveals this:
1- POST (check ram and basic components, then beeps and passes control to OF)
2- OF loads and checks various devices involved in the boot process, and if everything is ok it points to a boot file (be it Linux or whatever or Mac OS -related). In the case of MacOS (but the first TN is very old, is this true too under OS X?) this file is a ROM image, which is temporarily loaded into RAM.
In a *NIX boot process shouldn't the boot loader (OF in this case) load directly the kernel (or something like that)?
For instance, does anybody know how a Sun WS boots? It's UNIX and OF-based, wouldn't that be helpful to shed some light on this?
Personally, if I'm not totally an idiot (which I might very well be! ), I'm inclined to think that a patched OS X version able to run on those "open" boards shouldn't be too difficult to put together-granted, unless the Mobo architechture/structure changes radically, and also with lots of reverse engineering involved.
I hope my post made some sense (unsure myself!)
ZoSo
I was the idiot that got us off onto the boot-rom idea.
The reason this was brought up is someone asked if we could get os x to work on other machines.... what are the odds of another company coming out with a cheaper computer than apple? You say the xbox 2 will have ppc chips... xbox 2 won't have a harddrive this time. All other uses will most likely be used towards serving. How could someone build a fast computer without the logic board... who else makes these besides apple? We're talking about some major technology just in the logic board alone!
I'm inclined to think that a patched OS X version able to run on those "open" boards shouldn't be too difficult to put together-granted, unless the Mobo architechture/structure changes radically, and also with lots of reverse engineering involved.
The most important point is that I don't think this would hurt Apple's market. If they don't license it legitimately then nobody is going to go into the business of selling MacOS X clone boxes in volume, which leaves the bulk of Apple's market untouched. A few enterprising geeks who probably wouldn't spring for Apple's preimum hardware anyhow will likely be good for the platform since those are the same guys that tend to support the consumer base with tech services, information exchange, and new software. If anybody does try to sell in volume with illegal licenses for the OS, I'm sure Apple has a legal bomb or two to drop on them. A simple clause in the OS' license agreement requiring it to only be used on Apple built hardware would probably do the trick.
Greetings, I have been optimistically awaiting new PowerMacs; however, I am really concerned that there are issues at Apple or IBM that are holding things up. We ordered a G5 Xserve shortly after they were announced. Our shipping date was "on or before 3/31/04". Well, yesterday came and went, and our updating shipping date is "on or before 5/27/04"!
Well, according to the earnings conference call, IBM is the reason for the delays with the Xserve. They aren't delivering the 2.0GHz 90nm chips in volume.
Well, according to the earnings conference call, IBM is the reason for the delays with the Xserve. They aren't delivering the 2.0GHz 90nm chips in volume.
This jives with what AppleInsider has been saying:
Quote:
Apple engineers have reportedly resolved the sensor issue, though sources say that low processor supplies may have acted to compounded the delays. Reportedly, IBM's Power PC G5 970FX chip has failed to yield even the baseline 2.0 GHz mark on a consistent basis, preventing Apple from introducing faster machines.
Hopefully fixing the process fixes all speeds across the board, something not unheard of. It happened to Intel a few years back when they had an over-eager janitor polishing all those shiny discs to perfection...
Hopefully fixing the process fixes all speeds across the board, something not unheard of. It happened to Intel a few years back when they had an over-eager janitor polishing all those shiny discs to perfection...
R. Cringely tells a story of in the early '70's after Intel had introduced the first microprocessor they couldn't get any yields at all. They finally hired a private detective to follow the silicon from the supplier to Intel and found a shipping clerk at Intel was opening the packaging containing the silicon cylinders and inspecting that each package contained the specified number... [B]
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
The same basic story has been told of IBM and Motorola at various times as well. In order for it to be true you would have to assume that nobody noticed the opened containers of critical components when they finally got to the clean room, or if they did nobody has EVER said anything about it. Even Mulder couldn't be persuaded to believe that.
The point is though that a critical failure along the path can completely trash all production until it is resolved. It sounds like that is what happened to the 970FX. Once corrected things should jump back on track.
Comments
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.
Don't all computers have something like this? It is a BIOS on the PC. MAC's is just unique to the Mac, and the OS has been tied to it so that it wouldn't run on non-Apple computers that used the same processor, like the Amiga's.
Apple is always late, always
Hopefully Apple will give birth to something sweet.
Sources also confirmed that the absence of faster models is a direct result of an unanticipated setback. "Something has gone terribly wrong," one source said, who noted that prototypes of the revised Power Macs first shipped to select partners prior to the start of the year, but would not comment further.
But if they shipped faster models to partners, what would the unexpected setback be? Not enough yield of G5s at those speeds like some people have mentioned? Yet they mention that Dual Xserves are are waiting on RAID controllers or some RAID component.
Originally posted by Leonard
But if they shipped faster models to partners, what would the unexpected setback be?
They shipped faster prototypes, which they always do for select developers who need access to forthcoming hardware (such as ATi). That's a far cry from being able to ship a finished product to anyone.
The first is about the New World Architecture:
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1167.html
The next one discusses the architecture of the PowerMac G5 and mentions the Boot ROM at the bottom of the article.
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...section_4.html
And this one diagrams the PowerMac G5 architecture and you'll notice the Boot ROM in the pictture
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...section_2.html
And yes JCG, the PC bios is similar in nature to the Mac Boot ROM. I think of the Mac Boot ROM as a more advanced and mature bios.
I can't believe the release of PowerMacs got delayed 3 months! Now that we all know what happened (kind of) and know pretty much a confirmed annoncement date... we can make predictions on specs...
I'll start... going out on a limb:
Dual 2.8ghz
9800xt
512mb ram
Dual 2.5ghz
9600xt
256 mb ram
dual 2.0ghz
nvidia 5600
256mb ram
They will sport a dual external drive case... along with support for at least 3 hard drives.
All will be announced june 28th.... They will ship end of August.
Whats cool is if they ARE announced at WWDC... I will get to see them announced... so maybe the delay was worth it
Originally posted by emig647
Well I guess we all know the answer now
I can't believe the release of PowerMacs got delayed 3 months! Now that we all know what happened (kind of) and know pretty much a confirmed annoncement date...
oh ya??
i'm still not sold on the whole story.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
it's a pretty big stretch to say we know release dates and what theyre gonna have in store. i'll admit that WWDC is looking more realistic, but apple obviously wants to get new pmac's out.
I definitely agree... but WWDC definitely is the next biggest event. I know apple wants to get away from announcing at big events though. I hope you're right... I wish they'd come out tomorrow. This 3k is getting harder and harder to hold on to
1- POST (check ram and basic components, then beeps and passes control to OF)
2- OF loads and checks various devices involved in the boot process, and if everything is ok it points to a boot file (be it Linux or whatever or Mac OS -related). In the case of MacOS (but the first TN is very old, is this true too under OS X?) this file is a ROM image, which is temporarily loaded into RAM.
In a *NIX boot process shouldn't the boot loader (OF in this case) load directly the kernel (or something like that)?
For instance, does anybody know how a Sun WS boots? It's UNIX and OF-based, wouldn't that be helpful to shed some light on this?
Personally, if I'm not totally an idiot (which I might very well be!
I hope my post made some sense (unsure myself!)
ZoSo
Originally posted by ZoSo
About the Boot ROM/OF issue I'm a bit confused. A quick glance to the TechNotes posted above just reveals this:
1- POST (check ram and basic components, then beeps and passes control to OF)
2- OF loads and checks various devices involved in the boot process, and if everything is ok it points to a boot file (be it Linux or whatever or Mac OS -related). In the case of MacOS (but the first TN is very old, is this true too under OS X?) this file is a ROM image, which is temporarily loaded into RAM.
In a *NIX boot process shouldn't the boot loader (OF in this case) load directly the kernel (or something like that)?
For instance, does anybody know how a Sun WS boots? It's UNIX and OF-based, wouldn't that be helpful to shed some light on this?
Personally, if I'm not totally an idiot (which I might very well be!
I hope my post made some sense (unsure myself!)
ZoSo
I was the idiot that got us off onto the boot-rom idea.
The reason this was brought up is someone asked if we could get os x to work on other machines.... what are the odds of another company coming out with a cheaper computer than apple? You say the xbox 2 will have ppc chips... xbox 2 won't have a harddrive this time. All other uses will most likely be used towards serving. How could someone build a fast computer without the logic board... who else makes these besides apple? We're talking about some major technology just in the logic board alone!
Just doesn't seem feasible to me.
Originally posted by ZoSo
I'm inclined to think that a patched OS X version able to run on those "open" boards shouldn't be too difficult to put together-granted, unless the Mobo architechture/structure changes radically, and also with lots of reverse engineering involved.
The most important point is that I don't think this would hurt Apple's market. If they don't license it legitimately then nobody is going to go into the business of selling MacOS X clone boxes in volume, which leaves the bulk of Apple's market untouched. A few enterprising geeks who probably wouldn't spring for Apple's preimum hardware anyhow will likely be good for the platform since those are the same guys that tend to support the consumer base with tech services, information exchange, and new software. If anybody does try to sell in volume with illegal licenses for the OS, I'm sure Apple has a legal bomb or two to drop on them. A simple clause in the OS' license agreement requiring it to only be used on Apple built hardware would probably do the trick.
Originally posted by Programmer
A simple clause in the OS' license agreement requiring it to only be used on Apple built hardware would probably do the trick.
Unless I'm misremembering, this provision is already there.
(Emphasizing, in the future .)
Originally posted by Amorph
Unless I'm misremembering, this provision is already there.
See how smart I am?
Originally posted by atomicham
Greetings, I have been optimistically awaiting new PowerMacs; however, I am really concerned that there are issues at Apple or IBM that are holding things up. We ordered a G5 Xserve shortly after they were announced. Our shipping date was "on or before 3/31/04". Well, yesterday came and went, and our updating shipping date is "on or before 5/27/04"!
Well, according to the earnings conference call, IBM is the reason for the delays with the Xserve. They aren't delivering the 2.0GHz 90nm chips in volume.
Originally posted by atomicham
Well, according to the earnings conference call, IBM is the reason for the delays with the Xserve. They aren't delivering the 2.0GHz 90nm chips in volume.
This jives with what AppleInsider has been saying:
Apple engineers have reportedly resolved the sensor issue, though sources say that low processor supplies may have acted to compounded the delays. Reportedly, IBM's Power PC G5 970FX chip has failed to yield even the baseline 2.0 GHz mark on a consistent basis, preventing Apple from introducing faster machines.
Hopefully fixing the process fixes all speeds across the board, something not unheard of. It happened to Intel a few years back when they had an over-eager janitor polishing all those shiny discs to perfection...
Originally posted by Programmer
Hopefully fixing the process fixes all speeds across the board, something not unheard of. It happened to Intel a few years back when they had an over-eager janitor polishing all those shiny discs to perfection...
R. Cringely tells a story of in the early '70's after Intel had introduced the first microprocessor they couldn't get any yields at all. They finally hired a private detective to follow the silicon from the supplier to Intel and found a shipping clerk at Intel was opening the packaging containing the silicon cylinders and inspecting that each package contained the specified number...
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
Urban legend.
The same basic story has been told of IBM and Motorola at various times as well. In order for it to be true you would have to assume that nobody noticed the opened containers of critical components when they finally got to the clean room, or if they did nobody has EVER said anything about it. Even Mulder couldn't be persuaded to believe that.
The point is though that a critical failure along the path can completely trash all production until it is resolved. It sounds like that is what happened to the 970FX. Once corrected things should jump back on track.