So how hard would it be to run Apple widgets on PSP ... the embedded os and graphics engine just need to run java/html and something that emulates QE?
That could be done without much fuss, if Dashboard isn't some proprietary code that can't be duplicated because of copyright, trademark etc. and is needed.
But there's always Konfabulator now that that Yahoo, I think, bought it. It's not as good or sophisticated, but it works.
It sure would be interesting, but not good for Apple's bottom line. what if a million people a year decide to buy a PS3 instead of a Mac Mini or an eMac? That would be trouble. It would reverberate down the whole chain of Apple's products, and stock price.
No, it wouldn't, since the margins on software are ten times better than hardware margins. Apple might do better with frenetic Mac OS X sales than be harmed by languishing Mac sales.
No, it wouldn't, since the margins on software are ten times better than hardware margins. Apple might do better with frenetic Mac OS X sales than be harmed by languishing Mac sales.
Yes it would. Profits are only one part of a product. Cash flow is as important, and even more important. If Apple loses a billion from hardware sales, but makes 100 million from software, that would be a problem.
Profit is taken out after all other costs are added up. R&D costs are one of them. Apple's software sales this year will be somewhat over $1 billion. Hardware sales over $10 billion. The rest is iTunes sales, services, etc. Software sales won't make up for the hardware R&D costs being lost.
Apple can't afford to lose hardware sales. If they sell the OS at retail, and they average a sales price of $110; that could mean a profit of $80. If they license it to Sony for $25 , let's say, they might make, what, $15? So a million copies would sell for $25 million, with a profit of $15 million? And you figure that it would make up for the sales of $600 million of Mini's and eMacs? Even if the percentage of profit is much lower, say 10%, that would be $60 million.
Of course all of these numbers are quesses. But they aren't all that far off, from what we know about selling prices for the hardware, even conservative. It's more likely the prices average higher.
The software price couldn't be higher because it's a game machine, and even though it's being said that it will come in for $400 now, it will be lowered real fast. I don't believe that it will cost $400, even in the beginning. Sony wouldn't be able to supply this to every machine it sells as it would bring the price even higher. Most gamers won't want it, and won't be willing to pay the price for it.
Mac OS X has an interface that took designers years of planning... and it was designed to work with a keyboard and mouse, are they gonna include those in the box?
Really people, this is not gonna happen...
It would be such a waste to have OSX on a gaming console...
There's nothing that says that it might not be a "Mac OS X Lite.." Apple may have had this on the backburner for a tablet for years, just like Mac OS X Intel which many people poo-poohed but was borne out to be reality.. who knows, they might be maintaining it for just such a use, as in the PS3 and maybe even XBOX 360..
The loss leader aspect of consoles pretty much makes the whole thing a non-starter, but why is anyone worried that OSX on PS3 is going to cannibalize eMac sales?!?!? Are all of the schools going to start buying PS3's for their computer labs!?!?
At some point Apple will take one of two paths....
Keep control of both h/w and s/w and stay below 10% market or ease control over h/w and go above 10% market. Either way Apple will sell probably the same number of Macs and get the same amount of money. 10% of all computer buyers will still want the Apple Difference.
There's nothing that says that it might not be a "Mac OS X Lite.." Apple may have had this on the backburner for a tablet for years, just like Mac OS X Intel which many people poo-poohed but was borne out to be reality.. who knows, they might be maintaining it for just such a use, as in the PS3 and maybe even XBOX 360..
You know, you guys are really too much. If you could come up with even one well thought out business reason for Apple to do these things, it might be worthwhile to think about. But other than the usual; "Boy, if Apple came out with this, it would be sooo cool!" bit, there's nothing.
Can't you guys sit down and think this out? How much money would it cost Apple to do this? Why would Apple do this? What benefit would they get from it? What problems would it cause? Was it offered, and if so, why didn't they accept it already? What does the Cell actually do that would be an advantage? How is it being used now? Why are game programmers not able to use more than one or two of the SPE's now? What's the difference in architecture? How could Apple accommodate that? The possible limitation of 512MB of memory? Etc.
I know it's fun and all, but despite what Sony said, this is not a done deal.
Oh of course not. This is sheer silly speculation.
What's in it for Apple? Licensing fees. Exposure in millions of living rooms. Downsides? Dev costs. Essentially they'd have to port Darwin to the PS3 mobo. Probably not that bad, really, since they'd be porting a tiny subset.
What's in it for Sony? A Media Center core that's already well tested, has H.264/MPEG-4 support, etc, etc. *NOT* a Mac replacement, that's just silly. Imagine however if it was just Darwin + QuickTime + iTunes/iPhoto/iPVR. Downsides? iTunes Music Store competes with Sony Connect. That right there is a full stop on this IMO. Sony would never ship iTunes on the PS3 to compete with Connect. End of story.
Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Technically, it's not that big a deal if a Media Center subset is all that's required. The Cell is a crappy *general purpose* CPU, but for single-app-at-a-time, it's pretty teh snapp!e. Technical issues aren't the problem here. Business model is, and it simply isn't there.
Oh of course not. This is sheer silly speculation.
What's in it for Apple? Licensing fees. Exposure in millions of living rooms. Downsides? Dev costs. Essentially they'd have to port Darwin to the PS3 mobo. Probably not that bad, really, since they'd be porting a tiny subset.
What's in it for Sony? A Media Center core that's already well tested, has H.264/MPEG-4 support, etc, etc. *NOT* a Mac replacement, that's just silly. Imagine however if it was just Darwin + QuickTime + iTunes/iPhoto/iPVR. Downsides? iTunes Music Store competes with Sony Connect. That right there is a full stop on this IMO. Sony would never ship iTunes on the PS3 to compete with Connect. End of story.
Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Technically, it's not that big a deal if a Media Center subset is all that's required. The Cell is a crappy *general purpose* CPU, but for single-app-at-a-time, it's pretty teh snapp!e. Technical issues aren't the problem here. Business model is, and it simply isn't there.
The technical issues are there. The PPe is a stripped down G4 core with two threads. Ok, but not such a big deal. If the SPE's, in sufficiant number can't be brought to bear, then it's not so fast.
Absolutely, but what would a Media Center need? (And remember, that's *ALL* I've ever said made sense...) Decompression/compression. What do the SPE's excel at? Ayup. What's left? The UI.
That isn't much.
If the PS3 can't handle simple playback of MP3/AAC/MP4/H.264, then Sony has MUCH bigger problems on their hands.
I have *never* claimed that a full MacOS X on PS3 made any sense - I think it's utterly inane. But a Media Center bundle? Feasible, and except for Sony Connect, it might make sense. That's the deal killer though. No business model = no way.
Absolutely, but what would a Media Center need? (And remember, that's *ALL* I've ever said made sense...) Decompression/compression. What do the SPE's excel at? Ayup. What's left? The UI.
That isn't much.
If the PS3 can't handle simple playback of MP3/AAC/MP4/H.264, then Sony has MUCH bigger problems on their hands.
I have *never* claimed that a full MacOS X on PS3 made any sense - I think it's utterly inane. But a Media Center bundle? Feasible, and except for Sony Connect, it might make sense. That's the deal killer though. No business model = no way.
The Cell, and PS3, can handle H.264 at 1080p. That's what it's designed for. But if using Darwin, etc. It can't have the SPE's out in full force, then it might not be able to. And if all Darwin does is to let us see hi-def and such, then it's not doing any more than the PS3 can do already. So what's the point? We know that iTunes won't be politically possible unless Sony changes their tune (groan) about music sales. So far that doesn't look good. In Japan they haven't even licensed their music to Apple yet. If They and Apple were to cooperate on these far more complex relationships, one would think that the much easier one of music licensing would be a cinch. But it's not.
Personally I think if this was to happen it would be the coolest thing (Now do I believe this will happen ? ).
As far as the hacking bit goes, I don't think there would be much required. I mean PearPC and similiar emulation proved tiger could be run on generic PPC (g3/g4/g5) hardware and the cell is the continuation of the PPC family. I don't see it being anymore difficult then installing 10.2 on a generic G4 or G5.
Plus I imagine if the good people over at opendarwin and otherworld have anything to say about it XPostFacto will be moded to run Tiger on the new PS3 machines.
In closing points I still don't believe the complete migration to x86 macs yet. Aside from the fact Intel is still stalling, claiming it can't produce enough processors for Apple's new Macs. Plus the new Mac roll out plans don't migrate the whole line till 2007, and that's if all goes well. The "Cell" which is the next in the powerpc line offers a clean, inexpensive, powerful path to commonplace SMP and if IBM's claims are to be taken seriously, one which exceeds 4Ghz. Putting "Cell" based macs well over modern PCs for a fraction of the cost. The new PS3 which retails for $500 will ship with 4 cell processors.
[B]Personally I think if this was to happen it would be the coolest thing (Now do I believe this will happen ? ).
As far as the hacking bit goes, I don't think there would be much required. I mean PearPC and similiar emulation proved tiger could be run on generic PPC (g3/g4/g5) hardware and the cell is the continuation of the PPC family. I don't see it being anymore difficult then installing 10.2 on a generic G4 or G5.
PearPC has proved that you can emulate OS X running at about 10% of speed on the x86. Not in the slightest bit useful at all. The project is just to show that it can be done at all. I also don't understand your sentence about PearPC proving that OS X could be run on "(g3,g4,g5) hardware". It was designed to run on that hardware. Also, the Cell, while being an offshool of the PPC family, is not a continuation of it. If anything, the Xenon, in the 360 would be closer to that. The Cell requires a great deal of work to be usefull to OS X.
Sony obviously got quite a bit ahead of itself with that statement, and has most of us scratching our heads over it.
Quote:
Plus I imagine if the good people over at opendarwin and otherworld have anything to say about it XPostFacto will be moded to run Tiger on the new PS3 machines.
Unless you are working on these bits yourself, it's hard to figure where you are coming up with them.
Quote:
In closing points I still don't believe the complete migration to x86 macs yet. Aside from the fact Intel is still stalling, claiming it can't produce enough processors for Apple's new Macs.
This is really TOO much! Are you serious?
Quote:
Plus the new Mac roll out plans don't migrate the whole line till 2007, and that's if all goes well.
Sure, the whole line (including the XServe) might not be moved over till sometime 2007, though it looks as it might be sooner.
Quote:
The "Cell" which is the next in the powerpc line offers a clean, inexpensive, powerful path to commonplace SMP and if IBM's claims are to be taken seriously, one which exceeds 4Ghz. Putting "Cell" based macs well over modern PCs for a fraction of the cost. The new PS3 which retails for $500 will ship with 4 cell processors.
This is no more than uninformed speculation, or, just simply incorrect.
The Cell isn't that suitable for SMP. The Mac will not be based upon it. That's pretty obvious at this point.
The PS3 has ONE Cell processor. One of the SPE's is also disabled. The PS3 is also not in production yet. It therefore doesn't retail for anything. Sony has not given a final price, and it's subject to much speculation.
This is no more than uninformed speculation, or, just simply incorrect.
The Cell isn't that suitable for SMP. The Mac will not be based upon it. That's pretty obvious at this point.
The PS3 has ONE Cell processor. One of the SPE's is also disabled. The PS3 is also not in production yet. It therefore doesn't retail for anything. Sony has not given a final price, and it's subject to much speculation. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually your the one speculating my friend. Sony, IBM, and Freescale have already said the purpose of the cell is to be a native SMP Processor or is made to be installed in SMP confiurations. In addition Sony's official statement is that the PS3 will hav an MSRP of about $500 and contain four (not one) Cell processors. Again this information is from official statements, and not an alleged release like is being discussed here. So it is you my friend who is very much mistaken.
This is no more than uninformed speculation, or, just simply incorrect.
The Cell isn't that suitable for SMP. The Mac will not be based upon it. That's pretty obvious at this point.
The PS3 has ONE Cell processor. One of the SPE's is also disabled. The PS3 is also not in production yet. It therefore doesn't retail for anything. Sony has not given a final price, and it's subject to much speculation.
Actually your the one speculating my friend. Sony, IBM, and Freescale have already said the purpose of the cell is to be a native SMP Processor or is made to be installed in SMP confiurations. In addition Sony's official statement is that the PS3 will hav an MSRP of about $500 and contain four (not one) Cell processors. Again this information is from official statements, and not an alleged release like is being discussed here. So it is you my friend who is very much mistaken. [/B][/QUOTE]
We all ready know the specs of the PS3, and it will contain ONE Cell. If you can find this Sony document that you are referring to, then please provide a link to it, as it goes against what is already known, and written about.
There was some speculation a long time ago that the PS3 might be using 2 or more Cells linked together. That was based purely on estimates from patent applications though.
Sony has said that the PS3 will contain 1 Cell, the Cell in this case being defined as one PPE, and 8 SPEs (with one disabled to improve yields). Later uses of the Cell will probably vary the amounts of SPEs - and maybe PPEs - as regards their needs for HDTV, servers, and so forth.
Similarly the Xbox360 is using a 3 PPE design, Xeon. Which is not Cell (having none of the software, memory, bandwidth, or SPE elements that it has) but does use the same IBM designed processor, albeit with some custom modifications.
Both the Xbox360's and the PS3's PPE's will be running at 3.2 GHz which is roughly comparable on out-of-order-code to a G4 (NOT a G4+ like current G4s) at 1.6 GHz.
At least one company is building a Cell server, although I don't know offhand how many Cells they may or may not be using in each server. I do know that linking together multiple Cells, beyond 4 I believe, requires more work then originally envisioned.
And just to nitpick a little arttwist55, Freescale doesn't have anything to do with the Cell. Toshiba on the other hand...
All this merely to back up you up of course, melgross.
Ok, now I'm going to go back and verify the rest of this. Because everything I got was from Sony's original press release earlier this year. If there is some discrepency I'll find it and if so I appologize. However, you should know Freescale, or what used to be Motorola's semiconductor division, plays a quintessential role in the development of the Cell. The partnership is formed by Sony, IBM, and Freescale (formerly Motorola semiconductor).
So why I could be wrong about some of this, Freescales involvement is not one of the facts I am wrong about. So not for nothing the nitpick at the end was sort of a bad thing to nitpick about. If you re-read any of the original pre-releases you would see.
Cell is a future PPC architecture developed by the alliance of Sony, IBM, and Freescale. All of this is just meant to enlighten.
Arttwist
Quote:
Originally posted by Electric Monk
There was some speculation a long time ago that the PS3 might be using 2 or more Cells linked together. That was based purely on estimates from patent applications though.
Sony has said that the PS3 will contain 1 Cell, the Cell in this case being defined as one PPE, and 8 SPEs (with one disabled to improve yields). Later uses of the Cell will probably vary the amounts of SPEs - and maybe PPEs - as regards their needs for HDTV, servers, and so forth.
Similarly the Xbox360 is using a 3 PPE design, Xeon. Which is not Cell (having none of the software, memory, bandwidth, or SPE elements that it has) but does use the same IBM designed processor, albeit with some custom modifications.
Both the Xbox360's and the PS3's PPE's will be running at 3.2 GHz which is roughly comparable on out-of-order-code to a G4 (NOT a G4+ like current G4s) at 1.6 GHz.
At least one company is building a Cell server, although I don't know offhand how many Cells they may or may not be using in each server. I do know that linking together multiple Cells, beyond 4 I believe, requires more work then originally envisioned.
And just to nitpick a little arttwist55, Freescale doesn't have anything to do with the Cell. Toshiba on the other hand...
All this merely to back up you up of course, melgross.
Comments
Originally posted by MacGregor
So how hard would it be to run Apple widgets on PSP ... the embedded os and graphics engine just need to run java/html and something that emulates QE?
That could be done without much fuss, if Dashboard isn't some proprietary code that can't be duplicated because of copyright, trademark etc. and is needed.
But there's always Konfabulator now that that Yahoo, I think, bought it. It's not as good or sophisticated, but it works.
Originally posted by melgross
It sure would be interesting, but not good for Apple's bottom line. what if a million people a year decide to buy a PS3 instead of a Mac Mini or an eMac? That would be trouble. It would reverberate down the whole chain of Apple's products, and stock price.
No, it wouldn't, since the margins on software are ten times better than hardware margins. Apple might do better with frenetic Mac OS X sales than be harmed by languishing Mac sales.
Originally posted by Placebo
No, it wouldn't, since the margins on software are ten times better than hardware margins. Apple might do better with frenetic Mac OS X sales than be harmed by languishing Mac sales.
Yes it would. Profits are only one part of a product. Cash flow is as important, and even more important. If Apple loses a billion from hardware sales, but makes 100 million from software, that would be a problem.
Profit is taken out after all other costs are added up. R&D costs are one of them. Apple's software sales this year will be somewhat over $1 billion. Hardware sales over $10 billion. The rest is iTunes sales, services, etc. Software sales won't make up for the hardware R&D costs being lost.
Apple can't afford to lose hardware sales. If they sell the OS at retail, and they average a sales price of $110; that could mean a profit of $80. If they license it to Sony for $25 , let's say, they might make, what, $15? So a million copies would sell for $25 million, with a profit of $15 million? And you figure that it would make up for the sales of $600 million of Mini's and eMacs? Even if the percentage of profit is much lower, say 10%, that would be $60 million.
Of course all of these numbers are quesses. But they aren't all that far off, from what we know about selling prices for the hardware, even conservative. It's more likely the prices average higher.
The software price couldn't be higher because it's a game machine, and even though it's being said that it will come in for $400 now, it will be lowered real fast. I don't believe that it will cost $400, even in the beginning. Sony wouldn't be able to supply this to every machine it sells as it would bring the price even higher. Most gamers won't want it, and won't be willing to pay the price for it.
Really people, this is not gonna happen...
It would be such a waste to have OSX on a gaming console...
At some point Apple will take one of two paths....
Keep control of both h/w and s/w and stay below 10% market or ease control over h/w and go above 10% market. Either way Apple will sell probably the same number of Macs and get the same amount of money. 10% of all computer buyers will still want the Apple Difference.
Originally posted by RockyClark
There's nothing that says that it might not be a "Mac OS X Lite.." Apple may have had this on the backburner for a tablet for years, just like Mac OS X Intel which many people poo-poohed but was borne out to be reality.. who knows, they might be maintaining it for just such a use, as in the PS3 and maybe even XBOX 360..
You know, you guys are really too much. If you could come up with even one well thought out business reason for Apple to do these things, it might be worthwhile to think about. But other than the usual; "Boy, if Apple came out with this, it would be sooo cool!" bit, there's nothing.
Can't you guys sit down and think this out? How much money would it cost Apple to do this? Why would Apple do this? What benefit would they get from it? What problems would it cause? Was it offered, and if so, why didn't they accept it already? What does the Cell actually do that would be an advantage? How is it being used now? Why are game programmers not able to use more than one or two of the SPE's now? What's the difference in architecture? How could Apple accommodate that? The possible limitation of 512MB of memory? Etc.
I know it's fun and all, but despite what Sony said, this is not a done deal.
What's in it for Apple? Licensing fees. Exposure in millions of living rooms. Downsides? Dev costs. Essentially they'd have to port Darwin to the PS3 mobo. Probably not that bad, really, since they'd be porting a tiny subset.
What's in it for Sony? A Media Center core that's already well tested, has H.264/MPEG-4 support, etc, etc. *NOT* a Mac replacement, that's just silly. Imagine however if it was just Darwin + QuickTime + iTunes/iPhoto/iPVR. Downsides? iTunes Music Store competes with Sony Connect. That right there is a full stop on this IMO. Sony would never ship iTunes on the PS3 to compete with Connect. End of story.
Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Technically, it's not that big a deal if a Media Center subset is all that's required. The Cell is a crappy *general purpose* CPU, but for single-app-at-a-time, it's pretty teh snapp!e. Technical issues aren't the problem here. Business model is, and it simply isn't there.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh of course not. This is sheer silly speculation.
What's in it for Apple? Licensing fees. Exposure in millions of living rooms. Downsides? Dev costs. Essentially they'd have to port Darwin to the PS3 mobo. Probably not that bad, really, since they'd be porting a tiny subset.
What's in it for Sony? A Media Center core that's already well tested, has H.264/MPEG-4 support, etc, etc. *NOT* a Mac replacement, that's just silly. Imagine however if it was just Darwin + QuickTime + iTunes/iPhoto/iPVR. Downsides? iTunes Music Store competes with Sony Connect. That right there is a full stop on this IMO. Sony would never ship iTunes on the PS3 to compete with Connect. End of story.
Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Technically, it's not that big a deal if a Media Center subset is all that's required. The Cell is a crappy *general purpose* CPU, but for single-app-at-a-time, it's pretty teh snapp!e. Technical issues aren't the problem here. Business model is, and it simply isn't there.
The technical issues are there. The PPe is a stripped down G4 core with two threads. Ok, but not such a big deal. If the SPE's, in sufficiant number can't be brought to bear, then it's not so fast.
That isn't much.
If the PS3 can't handle simple playback of MP3/AAC/MP4/H.264, then Sony has MUCH bigger problems on their hands.
I have *never* claimed that a full MacOS X on PS3 made any sense - I think it's utterly inane. But a Media Center bundle? Feasible, and except for Sony Connect, it might make sense. That's the deal killer though. No business model = no way.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Absolutely, but what would a Media Center need? (And remember, that's *ALL* I've ever said made sense...) Decompression/compression. What do the SPE's excel at? Ayup. What's left? The UI.
That isn't much.
If the PS3 can't handle simple playback of MP3/AAC/MP4/H.264, then Sony has MUCH bigger problems on their hands.
I have *never* claimed that a full MacOS X on PS3 made any sense - I think it's utterly inane. But a Media Center bundle? Feasible, and except for Sony Connect, it might make sense. That's the deal killer though. No business model = no way.
The Cell, and PS3, can handle H.264 at 1080p. That's what it's designed for. But if using Darwin, etc. It can't have the SPE's out in full force, then it might not be able to. And if all Darwin does is to let us see hi-def and such, then it's not doing any more than the PS3 can do already. So what's the point? We know that iTunes won't be politically possible unless Sony changes their tune (groan) about music sales. So far that doesn't look good. In Japan they haven't even licensed their music to Apple yet. If They and Apple were to cooperate on these far more complex relationships, one would think that the much easier one of music licensing would be a cinch. But it's not.
Originally posted by Slackpacker
All this is.... is that sony will support OS X as a development platform.... That is you can use OS X on a Mac and develop for the PS3.
That's most likely the possibility. Just as MS has used the G5's for that purpose. Though they used their own OS.
As far as the hacking bit goes, I don't think there would be much required. I mean PearPC and similiar emulation proved tiger could be run on generic PPC (g3/g4/g5) hardware and the cell is the continuation of the PPC family. I don't see it being anymore difficult then installing 10.2 on a generic G4 or G5.
Plus I imagine if the good people over at opendarwin and otherworld have anything to say about it XPostFacto will be moded to run Tiger on the new PS3 machines.
In closing points I still don't believe the complete migration to x86 macs yet. Aside from the fact Intel is still stalling, claiming it can't produce enough processors for Apple's new Macs. Plus the new Mac roll out plans don't migrate the whole line till 2007, and that's if all goes well. The "Cell" which is the next in the powerpc line offers a clean, inexpensive, powerful path to commonplace SMP and if IBM's claims are to be taken seriously, one which exceeds 4Ghz. Putting "Cell" based macs well over modern PCs for a fraction of the cost. The new PS3 which retails for $500 will ship with 4 cell processors.
Originally posted by arttwist55
[B]Personally I think if this was to happen it would be the coolest thing (Now do I believe this will happen ?
As far as the hacking bit goes, I don't think there would be much required. I mean PearPC and similiar emulation proved tiger could be run on generic PPC (g3/g4/g5) hardware and the cell is the continuation of the PPC family. I don't see it being anymore difficult then installing 10.2 on a generic G4 or G5.
PearPC has proved that you can emulate OS X running at about 10% of speed on the x86. Not in the slightest bit useful at all. The project is just to show that it can be done at all. I also don't understand your sentence about PearPC proving that OS X could be run on "(g3,g4,g5) hardware". It was designed to run on that hardware. Also, the Cell, while being an offshool of the PPC family, is not a continuation of it. If anything, the Xenon, in the 360 would be closer to that. The Cell requires a great deal of work to be usefull to OS X.
Sony obviously got quite a bit ahead of itself with that statement, and has most of us scratching our heads over it.
Plus I imagine if the good people over at opendarwin and otherworld have anything to say about it XPostFacto will be moded to run Tiger on the new PS3 machines.
Unless you are working on these bits yourself, it's hard to figure where you are coming up with them.
In closing points I still don't believe the complete migration to x86 macs yet. Aside from the fact Intel is still stalling, claiming it can't produce enough processors for Apple's new Macs.
This is really TOO much! Are you serious?
Plus the new Mac roll out plans don't migrate the whole line till 2007, and that's if all goes well.
Sure, the whole line (including the XServe) might not be moved over till sometime 2007, though it looks as it might be sooner.
The "Cell" which is the next in the powerpc line offers a clean, inexpensive, powerful path to commonplace SMP and if IBM's claims are to be taken seriously, one which exceeds 4Ghz. Putting "Cell" based macs well over modern PCs for a fraction of the cost. The new PS3 which retails for $500 will ship with 4 cell processors.
This is no more than uninformed speculation, or, just simply incorrect.
The Cell isn't that suitable for SMP. The Mac will not be based upon it. That's pretty obvious at this point.
The PS3 has ONE Cell processor. One of the SPE's is also disabled. The PS3 is also not in production yet. It therefore doesn't retail for anything. Sony has not given a final price, and it's subject to much speculation.
The Cell isn't that suitable for SMP. The Mac will not be based upon it. That's pretty obvious at this point.
The PS3 has ONE Cell processor. One of the SPE's is also disabled. The PS3 is also not in production yet. It therefore doesn't retail for anything. Sony has not given a final price, and it's subject to much speculation. [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually your the one speculating my friend. Sony, IBM, and Freescale have already said the purpose of the cell is to be a native SMP Processor or is made to be installed in SMP confiurations. In addition Sony's official statement is that the PS3 will hav an MSRP of about $500 and contain four (not one) Cell processors. Again this information is from official statements, and not an alleged release like is being discussed here. So it is you my friend who is very much mistaken.
Originally posted by arttwist55
This is no more than uninformed speculation, or, just simply incorrect.
The Cell isn't that suitable for SMP. The Mac will not be based upon it. That's pretty obvious at this point.
The PS3 has ONE Cell processor. One of the SPE's is also disabled. The PS3 is also not in production yet. It therefore doesn't retail for anything. Sony has not given a final price, and it's subject to much speculation.
Actually your the one speculating my friend. Sony, IBM, and Freescale have already said the purpose of the cell is to be a native SMP Processor or is made to be installed in SMP confiurations. In addition Sony's official statement is that the PS3 will hav an MSRP of about $500 and contain four (not one) Cell processors. Again this information is from official statements, and not an alleged release like is being discussed here. So it is you my friend who is very much mistaken. [/B][/QUOTE]
We all ready know the specs of the PS3, and it will contain ONE Cell. If you can find this Sony document that you are referring to, then please provide a link to it, as it goes against what is already known, and written about.
Sony has said that the PS3 will contain 1 Cell, the Cell in this case being defined as one PPE, and 8 SPEs (with one disabled to improve yields). Later uses of the Cell will probably vary the amounts of SPEs - and maybe PPEs - as regards their needs for HDTV, servers, and so forth.
Similarly the Xbox360 is using a 3 PPE design, Xeon. Which is not Cell (having none of the software, memory, bandwidth, or SPE elements that it has) but does use the same IBM designed processor, albeit with some custom modifications.
Both the Xbox360's and the PS3's PPE's will be running at 3.2 GHz which is roughly comparable on out-of-order-code to a G4 (NOT a G4+ like current G4s) at 1.6 GHz.
At least one company is building a Cell server, although I don't know offhand how many Cells they may or may not be using in each server. I do know that linking together multiple Cells, beyond 4 I believe, requires more work then originally envisioned.
And just to nitpick a little arttwist55, Freescale doesn't have anything to do with the Cell. Toshiba on the other hand...
All this merely to back up you up of course, melgross.
Originally posted by Electric Monk
All this merely to back up you up of course, melgross.
And I thank you for that.
So why I could be wrong about some of this, Freescales involvement is not one of the facts I am wrong about. So not for nothing the nitpick at the end was sort of a bad thing to nitpick about. If you re-read any of the original pre-releases you would see.
Cell is a future PPC architecture developed by the alliance of Sony, IBM, and Freescale. All of this is just meant to enlighten.
Arttwist
Originally posted by Electric Monk
There was some speculation a long time ago that the PS3 might be using 2 or more Cells linked together. That was based purely on estimates from patent applications though.
Sony has said that the PS3 will contain 1 Cell, the Cell in this case being defined as one PPE, and 8 SPEs (with one disabled to improve yields). Later uses of the Cell will probably vary the amounts of SPEs - and maybe PPEs - as regards their needs for HDTV, servers, and so forth.
Similarly the Xbox360 is using a 3 PPE design, Xeon. Which is not Cell (having none of the software, memory, bandwidth, or SPE elements that it has) but does use the same IBM designed processor, albeit with some custom modifications.
Both the Xbox360's and the PS3's PPE's will be running at 3.2 GHz which is roughly comparable on out-of-order-code to a G4 (NOT a G4+ like current G4s) at 1.6 GHz.
At least one company is building a Cell server, although I don't know offhand how many Cells they may or may not be using in each server. I do know that linking together multiple Cells, beyond 4 I believe, requires more work then originally envisioned.
And just to nitpick a little arttwist55, Freescale doesn't have anything to do with the Cell. Toshiba on the other hand...
All this merely to back up you up of course, melgross.