I reckon well see a Dual Core or Triple Core 3 ghz ppc976 Processor in the next macs. Anyone remember when rumours of the xbox 2 specs were released on the net? They claimed it was called a ppc976 and had 3 processors in 1. Plus there was rumours Microsoft wanted to ship the machine for this christmas. So judging by the timing the chip should be ready for when the next mac revision is ready to ship. OK im gettign too carried away. So...anyone like Mr Kipling exceedingly good cakes?
I reckon well see a Dual Core or Triple Core 3 ghz ppc976 Processor in the next macs. Anyone remember when rumours of the xbox 2 specs were released on the net? They claimed it was called a ppc976 and had 3 processors in 1. Plus there was rumours Microsoft wanted to ship the machine for this christmas. So judging by the timing the chip should be ready for when the next mac revision is ready to ship. OK im gettign too carried away. So...anyone like Mr Kipling exceedingly good cakes?
IBM has publicly stated that every chip design in the 9XX class processors beyond the 970FX will be custom designs per customer. This means, if the 976 is what's going to be used in the XBox2, it's going to be microsoft's chip, not something everyone can use.
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.
At least I have the balls to own up to it directly, publicly and quickly when I make the mistake or did you conveniently forget that post. A trait I notice lacking from you on ANY of your points anyone has refuted. Kind of puts a different perspective on everything else you say after the fact. Doesn't it?
you and brussel can have your sissywar via private messages, but get a life and take it off the thread. Thanks.
IBM has publicly stated that every chip design in the 9XX class processors beyond the 970FX will be custom designs per customer. This means, if the 976 is what's going to be used in the XBox2, it's going to be microsoft's chip, not something everyone can use.
Do you have a link or quote? Not that I doubt you, but I hadn't heard that, and I'd love to see something new.
[edit] Also, I would be willing to bet that IBM's intention is not to limit the possibilities of potential buyers, but simply to protect any IP or marketing rights. As such, if Company X came to IBM and wanted to design a 3 core, 90nm PPC 97x with on chip memory controlers and ultra wide-fast caches, IBM would not turn them away, no matter how similar that was to MS's XBox chip. IBM simply wouldn't list the 976 as a preconfigured option for everyone to choose. [/edit]
The easiest answer is that it is simply a PC world out there. In fact, "PC" has become synonymous with the word "Computer". Apple is regarded now as just a fringe computer. People want what they use at work, what their friends have and what they're used to using. PCs have had a lock on the industry for so long that they've been steadily choking off all competition - no matter how good. You only need to see steady decline in computer sales from Apple over the last 8 or 9 years to tell you that. Even a robust OS:X and a competitive G5 hasn't allowed them to recover, only stabilize.
I would argue that the steady decline over the last 8-9 years has been a result of a less than overwhelming value proposition by Apple. OSX is robust, but the G5 is far from a slam dunk in its present form. Apple's laptop offering has been compelling and this is borne out by solid growth in unit sales. If the G5 value proposition was really that good, it would be selling by the truck load - at this stage, it is not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
At this stage of the game it doesn't matter what speed of computer Apple can produce, people tend to go with what they are comfortable with. And if you have a lot of apps and personal files accumulated over the years it becomes that much harder yet to want to switch.
People will switch if the total value proposition is better. Apple is not there yet, and there are considerable barriers (as you rightly point out, software being one). For Apple to make the value proposition compelling, one element could include, for example, working with the mainstream software vendors to offer competitive crossgrades. But this is only one element - it will need to be coupled with fast, quality hardware, a solid OS, a high level of compatibility, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
In the long run Apple needs to come up with a fundamentally better way of computing. Something so compelling that you would have to be stupid not to buy into it.
Agreed - this is what I meant by saying "overwhelming value proposition"
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
What you have to understand is that for the general consumer compatibility is more valuable than raw speed. Speed we've got in spades already because there is no killer consumer app that requires more than we've got.
Compatibility is important for a consumer with legacy apps and data. However, in most cases, for mainstream apps, data can be transferred. The problem is that software vendors do not offer cost-effective cross-grade options for the applications. The other thing that is important for the consumer is the value proposition (including, inter alia quality, included software, support, expected life, price and speed). This appears to be borne out by Apple's unit sales which show that around 50% of customer purchasing from Apple's retail stores are new to the Mac platform. I would reckon that Apple could have achieved much stronger growth in the last 8-9 years if they didn't have to contend with the megahertz myth. Deliver an attractively priced dual G5 or G6 at 3+ ghz and see what happens.
I would argue that the steady decline over the last 8-9 years has been a result of a less than overwhelming value proposition by Apple. OSX is robust, but the G5 is far from a slam dunk in its present form. Apple's laptop offering has been compelling and this is borne out by solid growth in unit sales. If the G5 value proposition was really that good, it would be selling by the truck load - at this stage, it is not.
I tend to agree with concord that the main problem is PC majority rule. If Apple cut margins there's a very good chance they couldn't cut them enough to overcome the majority rule mentality, they wouldn't gain that much market share, and the resulting drop in profits could make Apple simply cease to exist. I think they recognize that and have decided to stay alive with larger margins and trying to lock up several pro niche markets rather than really compete in the cutthroat Dell consumer market. But at some point, you're right, Apple is going to have to go for it and get back into that market.
I would argue that the steady decline over the last 8-9 years has been a result of a less than overwhelming value proposition by Apple. OSX is robust, but the G5 is far from a slam dunk in its present form. Apple's laptop offering has been compelling and this is borne out by solid growth in unit sales. If the G5 value proposition was really that good, it would be selling by the truck load - at this stage, it is not.
I really wish that would be all it would take. But to fight the momentum of the PC industry will take more than just speed. It requires a revolution. 8)
Quote:
People will switch if the total value proposition is better.
Do not underestimate people's willingness to cling to that which is familiar and comfortable - even when there are "better" options available to them. Do not underestimate the herd mentality either.
It's no longer the early years of the computing industry where anything goes, every year people get more and more set in their computing ways. The value you have to be able to offer now to get Joe Public to even give you a *first* look has to be overwhelming or very near to it.
Quote:
Agreed - this is what I meant by saying "overwhelming value proposition"
However, OS:X and faster G5s don't constitute and "overwhelming value proposition" from the general public's perspective - not even with competitive cross-grades... You gotta get their attention and shake up their perceptions. It's gotta be fundamentally better.
Quote:
Compatibility is important for a consumer with legacy apps and data. However, in most cases, for mainstream apps, data can be transferred. The problem is that software vendors do not offer cost-effective cross-grade options for the applications.
I mean any kind of hassle is going to turn off the general public from switching. Especially if it isn't seemless... or you have to drop large amounts of money to buy all your software for a different platform... or if you're not going to be able to even find all the software that you need... or if the learning curve is steep... etc.
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.
Now while I agree with this whole majority rule market mentality and the various offshoots of it, that actually has little to do with discussions of the G5 or hardware (if any) showing at WWDC , that part of the conversation is better served in it's own thread over in General Discussion.
agreed, so let's get back on topic...
"SMU_Neo2" what can we speculate about the SMU part? As I've covered several times in this thread, it seems clear that we'll be seeing a consumer-level machine (probably iMac) with a PPC 970fx it in at WWDC. But the SMU part is likely of some significance. What might it stand for?
Does anyone have any information on any "Clock for Clock" speed increases theoretically(assuming a 975 did exist) over the 970fx.
The POWER5 is up to 4 times faster than a POWER4 not because it runs 4 times faster but because it's a more efficient architecture. Can we expect a derivitive to have the same more efficient architecture at the core? Also Altivec in the 970 is subpar in some ways..where could improvements be made. Let's think about the whole picture here. Just what are we getting with a new core?
The easiest answer is that it is simply a PC world out there.
You idiot, the Mac is a PC. Their called Macintosh PC's and Window's PC's. The reason why we call it a Mac without the PC, is because there is more of a personal attachment to the Mac PC among most Mac OS users. The reason for than attachments is that the Mac PC is mostly helpful and enabling. Window's PCs are viewed as buggy, insecure, uncool and hard to use, a necessary evil if you will. So you see, Windows PCs will always be just PCs, but a PowerMac G5 PC will be my Mac.
Do you understand the reasoning. To me all PCs are just PCs, even Macs. What is awesome to me, is OS X. Heck it is hard for me to used Windows XP after using Panther for the last 6 months.
"PC" these days is in a lot of ways like saying "KFC" - the acronym really has become the word...
KFC changed their name to a "nothing but initials" name because a certain state has an asinine policy of charging royalties for use of the name... Neil Diamond reportedly called radio stations and begged them not to play a certain song with the state's name in the title.
However, OS:X and faster G5s don't constitute and "overwhelming value proposition" from the general public's perspective - not even with competitive cross-grades... You gotta get their attention and shake up their perceptions. It's gotta be fundamentally better.
I agree but Apple has to remember to keep people like me from deciding to do my graphics work on less expensive PC hardware that runs photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, etc. Those high margins make an Apple purchase hard, while a Dell system can be much more finically palatable.
I know the current systems are price competitive for what they are, but I don't feel Apple is price competitive (power competitive) in the $1000 -$1700 range.
Personally I'd be more than happy with a dual 2.4 using 970fx's. More important to me would be space for three internal drives, two of which plug into a built-in hardware RAID. Yummy. Then throw in a tasty promotion that would include a free copy of Motion. That would sell some new G5s I think.
I However, OS:X and faster G5s don't constitute and "overwhelming value proposition" from the general public's perspective - not even with competitive cross-grades... You gotta get their attention and shake up their perceptions. It's gotta be fundamentally better.
C.
I don't think Apple's problem is attracting switchers. They have never been very good at that. I think their current challenge is keeping the core constituency satisfied and offering compelling reasons for Mac users to upgrade to new systems. Please don't bother with the "Macs stay useful for longer periods of time" argument because it just doesn't wash. People don't buy new systems because their old one stopped working. They buy new systems because they believe there is a compelling reason to do so. The specs have significantly improved, or the price has dropped, or because of a wicked new case design, or just because they can without breaking the bank. Apple does a worse job at getting existing customers to buy sooner. There are more Mac users than I can count that say they will keep using their "fill in the out of date model) until Apple offers a compelling enough upgrade. The G4 never tapped into that market and the G5 is not reaching enough of that market either. That is Apple's real problem with the G5 and their challenge for the next one. It has got to get people excited about buying a new machine. It does not have to have a bunch of new technology. Frankly, it does not have to change anything. The same machines with a significant price cut would stimulate sales. Faster systems at the same or slightly lower prices would do the same thing. Even a big pulsing neon Apple logo on the side of the case that changes color with CPU usage would probably do the trick as well. Apple does not need to build a better mouse trap. They need to get better at selling the one they have.
In the long run Apple needs to come up with a fundamentally better way of computing. Something so compelling that you would have to be stupid not to buy into it.
Agreed - this is what I meant by saying "overwhelming value proposition"
Not only does it have to be fundamentally better, it has to be obviously fundamentally better. Remember that most of the market is daft so you really have to hit them over the head to see the advantages.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
[B]Let's talk about what means the most. Speeeeeeed. [b]
Well it means the most to you, not everyone.
Quote:
Does anyone have any information on any "Clock for Clock" speed increases theoretically(assuming a 975 did exist) over the 970fx.
The POWER5 is up to 4 times faster than a POWER4 not because it runs 4 times faster but because it's a more efficient architecture. Can we expect a derivitive to have the same more efficient architecture at the core? Also Altivec in the 970 is subpar in some ways..where could improvements be made. Let's think about the whole picture here. Just what are we getting with a new core?
Not true. IBM claims a 4x speed improvement in the POWER5 due to higher clockrate, 2-way SMT, and more cache. The architecture itself isn't fundamentally changed.
Also, the "shortcomings" of the 970's VMX implementation are over-blown. While it does resemble the original G4 implementation, and not the later G4+ implementation, it is built on an advanced OOoE processor with a huge register set, massive bandwidth capabilities, 8-way prefetch streams, and dual load/store units. The biggest shortcoming is probably a limitation of the current VMX manual streaming instruction implementation.
I don't actually expect much of a per-clock improvement in the 975 (or whatever they call it) over the 970. If it improves it will likely be from increases to internal resources that they add to support SMT, and this will usually only be evident if running in single thread mode (or if the 2nd thread is really low priority). I don't think IBM feels that most of the complaints generally raised are worth the design tradeoffs that would be required to address them.
Comments
Screed
Originally posted by silvergun
I reckon well see a Dual Core or Triple Core 3 ghz ppc976 Processor in the next macs. Anyone remember when rumours of the xbox 2 specs were released on the net? They claimed it was called a ppc976 and had 3 processors in 1. Plus there was rumours Microsoft wanted to ship the machine for this christmas. So judging by the timing the chip should be ready for when the next mac revision is ready to ship. OK im gettign too carried away. So...anyone like Mr Kipling exceedingly good cakes?
IBM has publicly stated that every chip design in the 9XX class processors beyond the 970FX will be custom designs per customer. This means, if the 976 is what's going to be used in the XBox2, it's going to be microsoft's chip, not something everyone can use.
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
At least I have the balls to own up to it directly, publicly and quickly when I make the mistake or did you conveniently forget that post. A trait I notice lacking from you on ANY of your points anyone has refuted. Kind of puts a different perspective on everything else you say after the fact. Doesn't it?
you and brussel can have your sissywar via private messages, but get a life and take it off the thread. Thanks.
Originally posted by Zapchud
IBM has publicly stated that every chip design in the 9XX class processors beyond the 970FX will be custom designs per customer. This means, if the 976 is what's going to be used in the XBox2, it's going to be microsoft's chip, not something everyone can use.
Do you have a link or quote? Not that I doubt you, but I hadn't heard that, and I'd love to see something new.
[edit] Also, I would be willing to bet that IBM's intention is not to limit the possibilities of potential buyers, but simply to protect any IP or marketing rights. As such, if Company X came to IBM and wanted to design a 3 core, 90nm PPC 97x with on chip memory controlers and ultra wide-fast caches, IBM would not turn them away, no matter how similar that was to MS's XBox chip. IBM simply wouldn't list the 976 as a preconfigured option for everyone to choose. [/edit]
Originally posted by Concord
The easiest answer is that it is simply a PC world out there. In fact, "PC" has become synonymous with the word "Computer". Apple is regarded now as just a fringe computer. People want what they use at work, what their friends have and what they're used to using. PCs have had a lock on the industry for so long that they've been steadily choking off all competition - no matter how good. You only need to see steady decline in computer sales from Apple over the last 8 or 9 years to tell you that. Even a robust OS:X and a competitive G5 hasn't allowed them to recover, only stabilize.
I would argue that the steady decline over the last 8-9 years has been a result of a less than overwhelming value proposition by Apple. OSX is robust, but the G5 is far from a slam dunk in its present form. Apple's laptop offering has been compelling and this is borne out by solid growth in unit sales. If the G5 value proposition was really that good, it would be selling by the truck load - at this stage, it is not.
Originally posted by Concord
At this stage of the game it doesn't matter what speed of computer Apple can produce, people tend to go with what they are comfortable with. And if you have a lot of apps and personal files accumulated over the years it becomes that much harder yet to want to switch.
People will switch if the total value proposition is better. Apple is not there yet, and there are considerable barriers (as you rightly point out, software being one). For Apple to make the value proposition compelling, one element could include, for example, working with the mainstream software vendors to offer competitive crossgrades. But this is only one element - it will need to be coupled with fast, quality hardware, a solid OS, a high level of compatibility, etc.
Originally posted by Concord
In the long run Apple needs to come up with a fundamentally better way of computing. Something so compelling that you would have to be stupid not to buy into it.
Agreed - this is what I meant by saying "overwhelming value proposition"
Originally posted by Concord
What you have to understand is that for the general consumer compatibility is more valuable than raw speed. Speed we've got in spades already because there is no killer consumer app that requires more than we've got.
Compatibility is important for a consumer with legacy apps and data. However, in most cases, for mainstream apps, data can be transferred. The problem is that software vendors do not offer cost-effective cross-grade options for the applications. The other thing that is important for the consumer is the value proposition (including, inter alia quality, included software, support, expected life, price and speed). This appears to be borne out by Apple's unit sales which show that around 50% of customer purchasing from Apple's retail stores are new to the Mac platform. I would reckon that Apple could have achieved much stronger growth in the last 8-9 years if they didn't have to contend with the megahertz myth. Deliver an attractively priced dual G5 or G6 at 3+ ghz and see what happens.
Originally posted by McCrab
I would argue that the steady decline over the last 8-9 years has been a result of a less than overwhelming value proposition by Apple. OSX is robust, but the G5 is far from a slam dunk in its present form. Apple's laptop offering has been compelling and this is borne out by solid growth in unit sales. If the G5 value proposition was really that good, it would be selling by the truck load - at this stage, it is not.
I tend to agree with concord that the main problem is PC majority rule. If Apple cut margins there's a very good chance they couldn't cut them enough to overcome the majority rule mentality, they wouldn't gain that much market share, and the resulting drop in profits could make Apple simply cease to exist. I think they recognize that and have decided to stay alive with larger margins and trying to lock up several pro niche markets rather than really compete in the cutthroat Dell consumer market. But at some point, you're right, Apple is going to have to go for it and get back into that market.
Originally posted by McCrab:
I would argue that the steady decline over the last 8-9 years has been a result of a less than overwhelming value proposition by Apple. OSX is robust, but the G5 is far from a slam dunk in its present form. Apple's laptop offering has been compelling and this is borne out by solid growth in unit sales. If the G5 value proposition was really that good, it would be selling by the truck load - at this stage, it is not.
I really wish that would be all it would take. But to fight the momentum of the PC industry will take more than just speed. It requires a revolution. 8)
People will switch if the total value proposition is better.
Do not underestimate people's willingness to cling to that which is familiar and comfortable - even when there are "better" options available to them. Do not underestimate the herd mentality either.
It's no longer the early years of the computing industry where anything goes, every year people get more and more set in their computing ways. The value you have to be able to offer now to get Joe Public to even give you a *first* look has to be overwhelming or very near to it.
Agreed - this is what I meant by saying "overwhelming value proposition"
However, OS:X and faster G5s don't constitute and "overwhelming value proposition" from the general public's perspective - not even with competitive cross-grades... You gotta get their attention and shake up their perceptions. It's gotta be fundamentally better.
Compatibility is important for a consumer with legacy apps and data. However, in most cases, for mainstream apps, data can be transferred. The problem is that software vendors do not offer cost-effective cross-grade options for the applications.
I mean any kind of hassle is going to turn off the general public from switching. Especially if it isn't seemless... or you have to drop large amounts of money to buy all your software for a different platform... or if you're not going to be able to even find all the software that you need... or if the learning curve is steep... etc.
C.
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
I luv you too.
Now while I agree with this whole majority rule market mentality and the various offshoots of it, that actually has little to do with discussions of the G5 or hardware (if any) showing at WWDC , that part of the conversation is better served in it's own thread over in General Discussion.
agreed, so let's get back on topic...
"SMU_Neo2" what can we speculate about the SMU part? As I've covered several times in this thread, it seems clear that we'll be seeing a consumer-level machine (probably iMac) with a PPC 970fx it in at WWDC. But the SMU part is likely of some significance. What might it stand for?
Does anyone have any information on any "Clock for Clock" speed increases theoretically(assuming a 975 did exist) over the 970fx.
The POWER5 is up to 4 times faster than a POWER4 not because it runs 4 times faster but because it's a more efficient architecture. Can we expect a derivitive to have the same more efficient architecture at the core? Also Altivec in the 970 is subpar in some ways..where could improvements be made. Let's think about the whole picture here. Just what are we getting with a new core?
Originally posted by Concord
The easiest answer is that it is simply a PC world out there.
You idiot, the Mac is a PC. Their called Macintosh PC's and Window's PC's. The reason why we call it a Mac without the PC, is because there is more of a personal attachment to the Mac PC among most Mac OS users. The reason for than attachments is that the Mac PC is mostly helpful and enabling. Window's PCs are viewed as buggy, insecure, uncool and hard to use, a necessary evil if you will. So you see, Windows PCs will always be just PCs, but a PowerMac G5 PC will be my Mac.
Do you understand the reasoning. To me all PCs are just PCs, even Macs. What is awesome to me, is OS X. Heck it is hard for me to used Windows XP after using Panther for the last 6 months.
Originally posted by Concord
"PC" these days is in a lot of ways like saying "KFC" - the acronym really has become the word...
KFC changed their name to a "nothing but initials" name because a certain state has an asinine policy of charging royalties for use of the name... Neil Diamond reportedly called radio stations and begged them not to play a certain song with the state's name in the title.
Some guesses about SMU:
Stackable Mac Unit
Storage Management Unit (Xserve RAID?)
Systeme Macintosh Universelle (Francaise)
Originally posted by Concord
However, OS:X and faster G5s don't constitute and "overwhelming value proposition" from the general public's perspective - not even with competitive cross-grades... You gotta get their attention and shake up their perceptions. It's gotta be fundamentally better.
I agree but Apple has to remember to keep people like me from deciding to do my graphics work on less expensive PC hardware that runs photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, etc. Those high margins make an Apple purchase hard, while a Dell system can be much more finically palatable.
I know the current systems are price competitive for what they are, but I don't feel Apple is price competitive (power competitive) in the $1000 -$1700 range.
Woops, sorry! Off Topic
Originally posted by Concord
I However, OS:X and faster G5s don't constitute and "overwhelming value proposition" from the general public's perspective - not even with competitive cross-grades... You gotta get their attention and shake up their perceptions. It's gotta be fundamentally better.
C.
I don't think Apple's problem is attracting switchers. They have never been very good at that. I think their current challenge is keeping the core constituency satisfied and offering compelling reasons for Mac users to upgrade to new systems. Please don't bother with the "Macs stay useful for longer periods of time" argument because it just doesn't wash. People don't buy new systems because their old one stopped working. They buy new systems because they believe there is a compelling reason to do so. The specs have significantly improved, or the price has dropped, or because of a wicked new case design, or just because they can without breaking the bank. Apple does a worse job at getting existing customers to buy sooner. There are more Mac users than I can count that say they will keep using their "fill in the out of date model) until Apple offers a compelling enough upgrade. The G4 never tapped into that market and the G5 is not reaching enough of that market either. That is Apple's real problem with the G5 and their challenge for the next one. It has got to get people excited about buying a new machine. It does not have to have a bunch of new technology. Frankly, it does not have to change anything. The same machines with a significant price cut would stimulate sales. Faster systems at the same or slightly lower prices would do the same thing. Even a big pulsing neon Apple logo on the side of the case that changes color with CPU usage would probably do the trick as well. Apple does not need to build a better mouse trap. They need to get better at selling the one they have.
Originally posted by Concord
In the long run Apple needs to come up with a fundamentally better way of computing. Something so compelling that you would have to be stupid not to buy into it.
Agreed - this is what I meant by saying "overwhelming value proposition"
Not only does it have to be fundamentally better, it has to be obviously fundamentally better. Remember that most of the market is daft so you really have to hit them over the head to see the advantages.
Originally posted by hmurchison
[B]Let's talk about what means the most. Speeeeeeed. [b]
Well it means the most to you, not everyone.
Does anyone have any information on any "Clock for Clock" speed increases theoretically(assuming a 975 did exist) over the 970fx.
The POWER5 is up to 4 times faster than a POWER4 not because it runs 4 times faster but because it's a more efficient architecture. Can we expect a derivitive to have the same more efficient architecture at the core? Also Altivec in the 970 is subpar in some ways..where could improvements be made. Let's think about the whole picture here. Just what are we getting with a new core?
Not true. IBM claims a 4x speed improvement in the POWER5 due to higher clockrate, 2-way SMT, and more cache. The architecture itself isn't fundamentally changed.
Also, the "shortcomings" of the 970's VMX implementation are over-blown. While it does resemble the original G4 implementation, and not the later G4+ implementation, it is built on an advanced OOoE processor with a huge register set, massive bandwidth capabilities, 8-way prefetch streams, and dual load/store units. The biggest shortcoming is probably a limitation of the current VMX manual streaming instruction implementation.
I don't actually expect much of a per-clock improvement in the 975 (or whatever they call it) over the 970. If it improves it will likely be from increases to internal resources that they add to support SMT, and this will usually only be evident if running in single thread mode (or if the 2nd thread is really low priority). I don't think IBM feels that most of the complaints generally raised are worth the design tradeoffs that would be required to address them.