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.
And I don't think that it will be too long before things are on track. This is IBM, not Moto. IBM has a strong commitment to shipping faster chips and delays like this look bad for them. This problem will be fixed asap.
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.
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.
please forgive me if i'm missing something, again...
but i've read that first link a bunch of times (in the past) and read it again when you posted it. and the entire point of it is that the traditional "MacOS ROM" is no longer ROM, but a file (or collection of) that lives on the boot device (harddrive). isn't that what i said?
the discussion was about the ability to (potentially) load OS X on something built by a third party (IBM blade). and what i was trying to get across is that because those devices, like an IBM blade with ppc970, use the open firmware architecture it shouldn't be too tough to "port" OS X to them. open firmware allows you to power on the device, identify available hardware (device tree), and specify a boot device/boot file. so the only missing link, as I said in my first post, is to write (or port) OS level device drivers for the specific hardware. and since those OS-level device drivers already exist in several forms (linux & unix), it shouldn't be too tough. in fact, it should be a LOT easier than it was to write the OS-level device drivers to get Linux booting on Mac "closed" hardware.
please forgive me if i'm missing something, again...
but i've read that first link a bunch of times (in the past) and read it again when you posted it. and the entire point of it is that the traditional "MacOS ROM" is no longer ROM, but a file (or collection of) that lives on the boot device (harddrive). isn't that what i said?
the discussion was about the ability to (potentially) load OS X on something built by a third party (IBM blade). and what i was trying to get across is that because those devices, like an IBM blade with ppc970, use the open firmware architecture it shouldn't be too tough to "port" OS X to them. open firmware allows you to power on the device, identify available hardware (device tree), and specify a boot device/boot file. so the only missing link, as I said in my first post, is to write (or port) OS level device drivers for the specific hardware. and since those OS-level device drivers already exist in several forms (linux & unix), it shouldn't be too tough. in fact, it should be a LOT easier than it was to write the OS-level device drivers to get Linux booting on Mac "closed" hardware.
Technical feasibility is not the issue. See my post farther up the thread.
If you want to know why no PM GSs read the following excerpt from the earnings report yesterday (WSJ)
The semiconductor portion of the hardware business continued to struggle, with sales down 9% from a year ago, and the unit posted a loss of $154 million on a pretax basis. Mr. Joyce said the semiconductor business was hurt because it received $100 million less from selling patented technology this year than last year, but he said that will be made up in the current quarter because of the sale of technology to Applied Micro Circuits Corp. However, he said the percentage of good chips produced at the year-old semiconductor plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., still is too low for profitable operation.
please forgive me if i'm missing something, again...
but i've read that first link a bunch of times (in the past) and read it again when you posted it. and the entire point of it is that the traditional "MacOS ROM" is no longer ROM, but a file (or collection of) that lives on the boot device (harddrive). isn't that what i said?
No, you're still wrong. You have to take what you read in the first link and hook that in with the info on the Boot ROM in the second and third link.
Ie. from the first link we get:
Quote:
The two main areas involved in the NewWorld Architecture are the Boot ROM and the "bootinfo" file, along with supporting changes in Mac OS System Software. Before implementation of the NewWorld Architecture, the Mac OS ToolBox ROM contained all of the hardware-specific initialization code and the Mac OS-specific start-up and ToolBox functions. The NewWorld Architecture breaks up that monolithic Mac OS ToolBox ROM into several pieces that are located in two places.
The Boot ROM is a physical part of the specific implementation of the Macintosh CPU, containing:
POST (Power-on Self Test), start-up code without Mac OS-specific code
diagnostics
boot beep, error beep
Open Firmware
Mac OS drivers ('ndrv's and 'nlib's) for motherboard devices needed at boot time. The "bootinfo" file is kept in the System Folder of the startup volume containing:
Mac OS-specific Open Firmware code and required "bootinfo" components
Open Firmware-specific Mac OS code ("Trampoline" code)
a Mac OS ToolBox ROM Image
and other Mac OS software
Other operating systems also use the Boot ROM and a "bootinfo" file, but the contents of the "bootinfo" file are specific to the operating system. The contents of the "bootinfo" file listed above are for Mac OS only.
So you have the old Boot ROM has been split into two parts, the new Boot ROM and the bootinfo file. Now while the document is specific that the bootinfo file is a file, it's not specific that the Boot ROM is a hardware ROM, but I think it's inferred. From the second and third document it is quite apparent it is an actual hardware ROM. So on the Mac motherboard there is still a hardware ROM. Heck, I'm not a computer engineer and even I get it!
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
the discussion was about the ability to (potentially) load OS X on something built by a third party (IBM blade).
And I'm saying you can't load MacOS X on anything other than an Apple built motherboard because you need an Apple specific part, the Mac Boot Rom, which Apple will NEVER allow anyone else to use or copy.
No, you're still wrong. You have to take what you read in the first link and hook that in with the info on the Boot ROM in the second and third link.
Ie. from the first link we get:
So you have the old Boot ROM has been split into two parts, the new Boot ROM and the bootinfo file. Now while the document is specific that the bootinfo file is a file, it's not specific that the Boot ROM is a hardware ROM, but I think it's inferred. From the second and third document it is quite apparent it is an actual hardware ROM. So on the Mac motherboard there is still a hardware ROM. Heck, I'm not a computer engineer and even I get it!
And I'm saying you can't load MacOS X on anything other than an Apple built motherboard because you need an Apple specific part, the Mac Boot Rom, which Apple will NEVER allow anyone else to use or copy.
Leonard, you did some funny copying and pasting. Let me help you...
"The NewWorld Architecture breaks up that monolithic Mac OS ToolBox ROM into several pieces that are located in two places. [emphasis added]
[PLACE ONE]
The Boot ROM is a physical part of the specific implementation of the Macintosh CPU, containing:
POST (Power-on Self Test), start-up code without Mac OS-specific code
diagnostics
boot beep, error beep
Open Firmware
[PLACE TWO]
Mac OS drivers ('ndrv's and 'nlib's) for motherboard devices needed at boot time. The "bootinfo" file is kept in the System Folder of the startup volume containing:
Mac OS-specific Open Firmware code and required "bootinfo" components
Open Firmware-specific Mac OS code ("Trampoline" code)
a Mac OS ToolBox ROM Image
and other Mac OS software
Other operating systems also use the Boot ROM and a "bootinfo" file, but the contents of the "bootinfo" file are specific to the operating system. The contents of the "bootinfo" file listed above are for Mac OS only."
So the Boot ROM (the only physical device, see "PLACE ONE") contains non-Mac OS specific code about the basic board hardware. Any board maker can produce this, and does not require licensing of anything from Apple.
So, in theory, I can build a board with a PPC970, and IBM's system controller, and all the other supporting features I want. Yes the board needs a boot ROM that identifies basic board hardware, and does POST, diagnostics, etc. But that has nothing to do with Apple, or Mac OS.
So what would be needed to then allow the installation and/or booting of Mac OS X on such a device?
As I said in previous posts, you'd need to add the specific OS-level device drivers and code to MacOS X, including a unique "bootinfo" file (just like ppclinux has to boot on OF machines) that handles the OS-level boot sequence.
So, I hate to say it again (since you didn't get my sarcasm in the last post) but this is completely feasable as things stand today.
And as for programmers comments about the clause in Apple's Mac OS license, that is an end user license. That in no way could prevent any company from producing an OF-based PPC system for enthusiasts, etc. The machine could easily be designed to allow support for multiple linux and unix distributions. Obviously, any OS that was to be installed on the machine would need some amount of hardware specific code (ie. bootinfo file). So if users installed Mac OS X (violating their license agreement) that's their problem, and present ZERO liability for the hardware manufacturer.
So, YES you could potentially use Mac OS X on an IBM blade, but you, as a user, would be violating a license agreement with Apple.
Okay, now that you agree you need a Boot ROM and have expanded upon your point, I can see your point. You could be right. The only problem I could see is if the "Open Firmware" in the Boot ROM is owned by Apple, but I'm not sure if it is, and then if it is, it could be possible to write your own "Open Firmware". Based on this comment "Open Firmware provides boot mechanisms and a description of the system hardware, in the form of a "device tree". The IEEE Standard 1275-1994 Standard for Boot (Initialization, configuration) Firmware: Core Requirements and Practices document, along with associated bindings, provides the specification for Open Firmware. The current bindings are available at:IEEE 1275 at Sun it sounds like open firmware is freely available.
Hmmmm... maybe it is possible to build your own board.
The Microelectronics Division has been in the red for some time. During a conference call with analysts, John Joyce, senior vice president and chief financial officer for IBM, said the former technology unit lost $150 million on a pro forma basis in the first quarter of 2004 alone.
One of the problems is ongoing yield issues within the company's 300-mm fab in East Fishkill, N.Y. For months, IBM has been struggling with yields in the fab, a 130- and 90-nm plant.
"We do see demand, but we need to make the products," Joyce said. "We need to improve our yields in our 300-mm plant. Our yields did see some improvement, but not as fast (as the company had hoped)."
IBM is seeing better-than-expected yields within its 200-mm plant in Burlington, Vt., he said. But profits within the 200-mm fab did not offset ongoing losses within the 300-mm fab and a sudden drop in IP revenues in the first quarter, he said.
Joyce believes the technology unit will become profitable in 2004, due to increased chip demand, improving yields and flat IP sales.
The one detail they add is wrong. As discovered by M. Isobe at Ars, IBM does not use SSDOI to make the 970fx.
I'm confused
What is the "D" for in "SSDOI"
A direct quote from the article you cite:
"The 90-nanometer process technology used to create the 970FX chip is a blend of strained silicon, silicon on insulator (SOI) and copper wiring,". IBM's statements have also reiterated the fact that the 970FX uses strained silicon, silicon on insulator and a copper process.
Okay, now that you agree you need a Boot ROM and have expanded upon your point, I can see your point. You could be right. The only problem I could see is if the "Open Firmware" in the Boot ROM is owned by Apple, but I'm not sure if it is, and then if it is, it could be possible to write your own "Open Firmware". Based on this comment "Open Firmware provides boot mechanisms and a description of the system hardware, in the form of a "device tree". The IEEE Standard 1275-1994 Standard for Boot (Initialization, configuration) Firmware: Core Requirements and Practices document, along with associated bindings, provides the specification for Open Firmware. The current bindings are available at:IEEE 1275 at Sun it sounds like open firmware is freely available.
Hmmmm... maybe it is possible to build your own board.
Openfirmware is an IEEE standard, you just need to pay them for the document.
As far as drivers go, OS X can use the generic openfirmware drivers, so you dont even need to write specific drivers. I guess the performance of the of drivers isnt going to be so hot ( probably doesnt support a lot of advanced features ).
People are starting to blow thi sout of proportion. According to what we know, the yield isn't due to bad design, it was a fault in one of the materials used. Big deal, it is 'easily' fixed and we'll have our faster 0.09nm G5s, don't go around prophesying that Apple will fall due to another curse (i.e. like Apple did with motorola).
I am dissapointed, yes, but Apple isn't doomed at all. The G5 is moving to a new micron process for crying out loud, how long did it take with G4s? EXACTLY.
Comments
Originally posted by Programmer
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.
And I don't think that it will be too long before things are on track. This is IBM, not Moto. IBM has a strong commitment to shipping faster chips and delays like this look bad for them. This problem will be fixed asap.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
IBM has a strong commitment to shipping faster chips and delays like this look bad for them. This problem will be fixed asap.
Especially since IBM has been beating their drum and fluffing their feathers about their PowerPC manufacturing capabilities and goals.
Originally posted by tink
Especially since IBM has been beating their drum and fluffing their feathers about their PowerPC manufacturing capabilities and goals.
I remember Motorola
Originally posted by onlooker
I remember Motorola
HAHA!!! Moto will always be hated by us now
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 Leonard
Here are those Apple Articles on the Boot ROM.
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.
please forgive me if i'm missing something, again...
but i've read that first link a bunch of times (in the past) and read it again when you posted it. and the entire point of it is that the traditional "MacOS ROM" is no longer ROM, but a file (or collection of) that lives on the boot device (harddrive). isn't that what i said?
the discussion was about the ability to (potentially) load OS X on something built by a third party (IBM blade). and what i was trying to get across is that because those devices, like an IBM blade with ppc970, use the open firmware architecture it shouldn't be too tough to "port" OS X to them. open firmware allows you to power on the device, identify available hardware (device tree), and specify a boot device/boot file. so the only missing link, as I said in my first post, is to write (or port) OS level device drivers for the specific hardware. and since those OS-level device drivers already exist in several forms (linux & unix), it shouldn't be too tough. in fact, it should be a LOT easier than it was to write the OS-level device drivers to get Linux booting on Mac "closed" hardware.
Originally posted by concentricity
please forgive me if i'm missing something, again...
but i've read that first link a bunch of times (in the past) and read it again when you posted it. and the entire point of it is that the traditional "MacOS ROM" is no longer ROM, but a file (or collection of) that lives on the boot device (harddrive). isn't that what i said?
the discussion was about the ability to (potentially) load OS X on something built by a third party (IBM blade). and what i was trying to get across is that because those devices, like an IBM blade with ppc970, use the open firmware architecture it shouldn't be too tough to "port" OS X to them. open firmware allows you to power on the device, identify available hardware (device tree), and specify a boot device/boot file. so the only missing link, as I said in my first post, is to write (or port) OS level device drivers for the specific hardware. and since those OS-level device drivers already exist in several forms (linux & unix), it shouldn't be too tough. in fact, it should be a LOT easier than it was to write the OS-level device drivers to get Linux booting on Mac "closed" hardware.
Technical feasibility is not the issue. See my post farther up the thread.
The semiconductor portion of the hardware business continued to struggle, with sales down 9% from a year ago, and the unit posted a loss of $154 million on a pretax basis. Mr. Joyce said the semiconductor business was hurt because it received $100 million less from selling patented technology this year than last year, but he said that will be made up in the current quarter because of the sale of technology to Applied Micro Circuits Corp. However, he said the percentage of good chips produced at the year-old semiconductor plant in East Fishkill, N.Y., still is too low for profitable operation.
Obviously still a low yield problem for Apple
Originally posted by concentricity
please forgive me if i'm missing something, again...
but i've read that first link a bunch of times (in the past) and read it again when you posted it. and the entire point of it is that the traditional "MacOS ROM" is no longer ROM, but a file (or collection of) that lives on the boot device (harddrive). isn't that what i said?
No, you're still wrong. You have to take what you read in the first link and hook that in with the info on the Boot ROM in the second and third link.
Ie. from the first link we get:
The two main areas involved in the NewWorld Architecture are the Boot ROM and the "bootinfo" file, along with supporting changes in Mac OS System Software. Before implementation of the NewWorld Architecture, the Mac OS ToolBox ROM contained all of the hardware-specific initialization code and the Mac OS-specific start-up and ToolBox functions. The NewWorld Architecture breaks up that monolithic Mac OS ToolBox ROM into several pieces that are located in two places.
The Boot ROM is a physical part of the specific implementation of the Macintosh CPU, containing:
POST (Power-on Self Test), start-up code without Mac OS-specific code
diagnostics
boot beep, error beep
Open Firmware
Mac OS drivers ('ndrv's and 'nlib's) for motherboard devices needed at boot time. The "bootinfo" file is kept in the System Folder of the startup volume containing:
Mac OS-specific Open Firmware code and required "bootinfo" components
Open Firmware-specific Mac OS code ("Trampoline" code)
a Mac OS ToolBox ROM Image
and other Mac OS software
Other operating systems also use the Boot ROM and a "bootinfo" file, but the contents of the "bootinfo" file are specific to the operating system. The contents of the "bootinfo" file listed above are for Mac OS only.
So you have the old Boot ROM has been split into two parts, the new Boot ROM and the bootinfo file. Now while the document is specific that the bootinfo file is a file, it's not specific that the Boot ROM is a hardware ROM, but I think it's inferred. From the second and third document it is quite apparent it is an actual hardware ROM. So on the Mac motherboard there is still a hardware ROM. Heck, I'm not a computer engineer and even I get it!
Originally posted by concentricity
the discussion was about the ability to (potentially) load OS X on something built by a third party (IBM blade).
And I'm saying you can't load MacOS X on anything other than an Apple built motherboard because you need an Apple specific part, the Mac Boot Rom, which Apple will NEVER allow anyone else to use or copy.
Originally posted by Leonard
No, you're still wrong. You have to take what you read in the first link and hook that in with the info on the Boot ROM in the second and third link.
Ie. from the first link we get:
So you have the old Boot ROM has been split into two parts, the new Boot ROM and the bootinfo file. Now while the document is specific that the bootinfo file is a file, it's not specific that the Boot ROM is a hardware ROM, but I think it's inferred. From the second and third document it is quite apparent it is an actual hardware ROM. So on the Mac motherboard there is still a hardware ROM. Heck, I'm not a computer engineer and even I get it!
And I'm saying you can't load MacOS X on anything other than an Apple built motherboard because you need an Apple specific part, the Mac Boot Rom, which Apple will NEVER allow anyone else to use or copy.
Leonard, you did some funny copying and pasting. Let me help you...
"The NewWorld Architecture breaks up that monolithic Mac OS ToolBox ROM into several pieces that are located in two places. [emphasis added]
[PLACE ONE]
The Boot ROM is a physical part of the specific implementation of the Macintosh CPU, containing:
POST (Power-on Self Test), start-up code without Mac OS-specific code
diagnostics
boot beep, error beep
Open Firmware
[PLACE TWO]
Mac OS drivers ('ndrv's and 'nlib's) for motherboard devices needed at boot time. The "bootinfo" file is kept in the System Folder of the startup volume containing:
Mac OS-specific Open Firmware code and required "bootinfo" components
Open Firmware-specific Mac OS code ("Trampoline" code)
a Mac OS ToolBox ROM Image
and other Mac OS software
Other operating systems also use the Boot ROM and a "bootinfo" file, but the contents of the "bootinfo" file are specific to the operating system. The contents of the "bootinfo" file listed above are for Mac OS only."
So the Boot ROM (the only physical device, see "PLACE ONE") contains non-Mac OS specific code about the basic board hardware. Any board maker can produce this, and does not require licensing of anything from Apple.
So, in theory, I can build a board with a PPC970, and IBM's system controller, and all the other supporting features I want. Yes the board needs a boot ROM that identifies basic board hardware, and does POST, diagnostics, etc. But that has nothing to do with Apple, or Mac OS.
So what would be needed to then allow the installation and/or booting of Mac OS X on such a device?
As I said in previous posts, you'd need to add the specific OS-level device drivers and code to MacOS X, including a unique "bootinfo" file (just like ppclinux has to boot on OF machines) that handles the OS-level boot sequence.
So, I hate to say it again (since you didn't get my sarcasm in the last post) but this is completely feasable as things stand today.
And as for programmers comments about the clause in Apple's Mac OS license, that is an end user license. That in no way could prevent any company from producing an OF-based PPC system for enthusiasts, etc. The machine could easily be designed to allow support for multiple linux and unix distributions. Obviously, any OS that was to be installed on the machine would need some amount of hardware specific code (ie. bootinfo file). So if users installed Mac OS X (violating their license agreement) that's their problem, and present ZERO liability for the hardware manufacturer.
So, YES you could potentially use Mac OS X on an IBM blade, but you, as a user, would be violating a license agreement with Apple.
Hmmmm... maybe it is possible to build your own board.
Article about IBM's yields(free registration required):
The Microelectronics Division has been in the red for some time. During a conference call with analysts, John Joyce, senior vice president and chief financial officer for IBM, said the former technology unit lost $150 million on a pro forma basis in the first quarter of 2004 alone.
One of the problems is ongoing yield issues within the company's 300-mm fab in East Fishkill, N.Y. For months, IBM has been struggling with yields in the fab, a 130- and 90-nm plant.
"We do see demand, but we need to make the products," Joyce said. "We need to improve our yields in our 300-mm plant. Our yields did see some improvement, but not as fast (as the company had hoped)."
IBM is seeing better-than-expected yields within its 200-mm plant in Burlington, Vt., he said. But profits within the 200-mm fab did not offset ongoing losses within the 300-mm fab and a sudden drop in IP revenues in the first quarter, he said.
Joyce believes the technology unit will become profitable in 2004, due to increased chip demand, improving yields and flat IP sales.
But i more believe Croquer
A tested source brings information to us on the causes of the delay of
G5. There are 3 of them since January: * thermal concerns for probes
extinguished the machines with 27°C. It was solved during January
* ATI delayed to deliver the video cards. Solved since 3 weeks
* More serious. APPLE was obliged to dismount all the cards girls of
G5 and to return them in factory. IBM discovered very tardily a
problem on PPC 970FX. In the manufacturing process, an adhesive is
used to assemble two layers. It is an innovation of process SSDOI. The
adhesive used since the beginning of the manufacture of the processors
worsens quickly with heat causing the break-in of the CPU. Since they
modified the formula and started again the manufacture of the
processors. But APPLE will have all to change them on its cards girls.
Translated with Sherlock
The one detail they add is wrong. As discovered by M. Isobe at Ars, IBM does not use SSDOI to make the 970fx.
Originally posted by Amorph
Most of that report was ripped from AI.
The one detail they add is wrong. As discovered by M. Isobe at Ars, IBM does not use SSDOI to make the 970fx.
I'm confused
What is the "D" for in "SSDOI"
A direct quote from the article you cite:
"The 90-nanometer process technology used to create the 970FX chip is a blend of strained silicon, silicon on insulator (SOI) and copper wiring,". IBM's statements have also reiterated the fact that the 970FX uses strained silicon, silicon on insulator and a copper process.
Originally posted by Fat Freddy
Directly
Thanks, I guess I should have googled it. Found several articles.
Originally posted by Leonard
Okay, now that you agree you need a Boot ROM and have expanded upon your point, I can see your point. You could be right. The only problem I could see is if the "Open Firmware" in the Boot ROM is owned by Apple, but I'm not sure if it is, and then if it is, it could be possible to write your own "Open Firmware". Based on this comment "Open Firmware provides boot mechanisms and a description of the system hardware, in the form of a "device tree". The IEEE Standard 1275-1994 Standard for Boot (Initialization, configuration) Firmware: Core Requirements and Practices document, along with associated bindings, provides the specification for Open Firmware. The current bindings are available at:IEEE 1275 at Sun it sounds like open firmware is freely available.
Hmmmm... maybe it is possible to build your own board.
Openfirmware isnt owned by Apple.
http://www.firmworks.com/www/ofw.htm
Openfirmware is an IEEE standard, you just need to pay them for the document.
As far as drivers go, OS X can use the generic openfirmware drivers, so you dont even need to write specific drivers. I guess the performance of the of drivers isnt going to be so hot ( probably doesnt support a lot of advanced features ).
And they seem to be having a BIG problem with that.
I am dissapointed, yes, but Apple isn't doomed at all. The G5 is moving to a new micron process for crying out loud, how long did it take with G4s? EXACTLY.