(Also, the PPC970 variants, like the POWER4/5, have their nest -- which includes the processor interface -- running at a lower frequency than their core(s).)
There's a lot more to high frequencies than power dissipation -- especially if you're talking about PCBs, not on-chip stuff.
Well, I've spent over an hour this morning trying to find ANYTHING about the memory controller, but after having gone through over 1,000 articles and multi-page PDF's, I haven't been able to find a single note about the controller.
That's the problem with Goggle, even when you know articles are out there, because you've read them, you can't always find them.
So, if you're constitutionally against believing this, fine. It is true nevertheless, and if I do find what I need, I'll post it. There's really no point in my making it up.
As I've designed hi-freq. devices, I agree with you on your last point. But, it is by no means insurmountable. The main problems other than power dissipation, which shouldn't be a problem for a part designed to run at that speed, is line capacitance, and distance from the chip and main memory. All of those problems have been solved years ago for much higher freq. designs. If Apple wanted to do it they could.
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. 'That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,' he said. 'We won't do anything to preclude that.'
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. 'We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.'"
They don't preclude anyone from running Windows on the current Mac, should they want to. It doesn't mean it's easy.
No, it won't have to be easy. Nut, if you looked at Apple's patent application for their new security scheme, it mentions selection from installations of Mac OS X Windows, and Linux.
This looks as though Apple is expecting there to be multiple installations, selectable (upon boot?).
This is from the patent. It, of course, also explains some of the security as well. Scroll down a bit to find it.
Well, I've spent over an hour this morning trying to find ANYTHING about the memory controller, but after having gone through over 1,000 articles and multi-page PDF's, I haven't been able to find a single note about the controller.
That's the problem with Goggle, even when you know articles are out there, because you've read them, you can't always find them.
So, if you're constitutionally against believing this, fine. It is true nevertheless, and if I do find what I need, I'll post it. There's really no point in my making it up.
I'm just sceptical because, as I said, to my knowledge the PPC970 variants (and POWER4/5) do not support a 1:1 nest clock, and thus having the EI be able to run at 3GHz would not seem like a very useful feature.
(I'm also not surprised you don't find much info about U3 on Google, given that it's an Apple-proprietary part and all...)
Quote:
As I've designed hi-freq. devices, I agree with you on your last point. But, it is by no means insurmountable. The main problems other than power dissipation, which shouldn't be a problem for a part designed to run at that speed, is line capacitance, and distance from the chip and main memory. All of those problems have been solved years ago for much higher freq. designs. If Apple wanted to do it they could.
I'm not aware of any digital, parallel, board-level buses that run at multi-GHz clocks on standard multi-layer PCBs...
..... Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot......I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.
yes, definitely. spot on mate. if i get an iBook pentiumM or powerbook Yonah in 2006, dual booting into windoze will be for precisely the above reasons. ...
There's no need to dual boot (which I can't imagine His Steveness would condone) if you've got virtualization technology:
Run OS X as your main OS, and run Windows in a separate virtual machine. Thus any bugs/viruses/malware on your windows virtual machine won't affect OS X at all.
Windows share is HUGE, Mac OS share is tiny. This is at the root of the problem. If software companies realize that most users run the Windows version of the software on their Intel Mac, because it is less expensive or because they got for free somewhat (work licenses etc.), be sure that the next day it will be no Mac version.
Yes, the root of the problem is a tiny market vs a large market,but the way many of you look at this is negative. It's rooted on a series of assumptions
1) that the cost of developing/supporting SW for the Mac platform is higher than the returns
2) that this is not a free market, but rather a monopoly market
3) that minimizing costs is the driving force for making money in the SW biz, rather than expanding income
4) that the Mac SW market is closed, meaning new players-companies or programs-will not come onto the field. (Especially that the expansion of Mac related hardware that inevitably will take place to meet the demand of a gowing Mac platform won't translate into a corresponding expansion in the SW realm)
5) that the computer industry remains static over the next few years, selling/supporting SW in the same manner it has up til now
6) that Apple's emphasis remains on personal computers
Ok, I'm stopping because I realize I don't know enough about computers and economics to make a cogent argument. There is one point I'm trying to make here: that this is a complicated issue and essentially a question of economics and technology. I suspect that Apple has looked at this long and hard, and has had it's own employees as well as outside consultants produce models of what might happen should they go head to head with MS. I can only guess what factors they might put into such an equation. (Actually I can't-anyone with knowledge of high tech economics want to try?)
We are handicapped in that we don't have access to either the big picture, nor the small details. Is Apple going head to head with MS? We don't know. Wlll Apple's prinicple source of income 5 years from now be from sales of personal computers/SW? We don't know. We are also looking at this from a really narrow point of view because this is a very secretive company that in many ways appears to be run more like a privately held family business than a large corporation. What would be the impact on Apple should Steve Jobs suddenly die? We don't know. The one thing we do know is, as a few of you have noted, compared to times in the past where Apple ran into CPU-related hardware crises, Apple's position relative to MS is much improved. Their income and market share are increasing. They are a company on the upswing, whereas MS has been struggling to redefine itself. That has to have an impact on the decisions of SW makers.
Run OS X as your main OS, and run Windows in a separate virtual machine. Thus any bugs/viruses/malware on your windows virtual machine won't affect OS X at all.
Best of both worlds.
I agree with having best of both world, but why does Windows have to load?... I think OS X will run windows apps w/out loading windows.... As long as window's apps run natively/non-natively, this option will lure in pc'ers to macworld.
I can see the new add for Leopard. "Convert to mac and bring your windows apps with you"
I'm just sceptical because, as I said, to my knowledge the PPC970 variants (and POWER4/5) do not support a 1:1 nest clock, and thus having the EI be able to run at 3GHz would not seem like a very useful feature.
(I'm also not surprised you don't find much info about U3 on Google, given that it's an Apple-proprietary part and all...)
I'm not aware of any digital, parallel, board-level buses that run at multi-GHz clocks on standard multi-layer PCBs...
Well, parallel buss's have been on the way out for several years now. anyway, it doesn't matter if it's parallel or not, all major bus systems that have been coming in are working in the GHz range. iSCSI, SATA, Express, etc. cell and portable phones both digital and analog, work in the multiple GHz range. One of the scopes I was using has a clock in the 5GHz range. Signal analysers also run at that speed.
The point is that the technology is well understood and implemented. The difficult range is now 10GHz and above.
Maybe you would have better luck than me. Try and find it. Sometimes you can work the search in numerous ways, and only one, just by luck, will find it.This information was out years ago. The controller could have explicitly been designed for dual core chips. IBM had them before the 970 even came out to market.
No the current ratio is only 1/2, but the memory controller of the G5 is 2 bidirectionnal 32 bit busses moving 4GB/sec in each direction for the G5 dual 2 ghz.
The 1/3 ratio is used for the Imac.
No!
The ratio CPU to memory controller is 4:1.
What you mean is the ratio CPU to bus data rate which is 1:2 as the bus is DDR.
And bandwidth on the bus is raw transfer rate minus overhead for the packeges. IBM claimed 8:9 for throughput:raw transfer rate.
What you mean is the ratio CPU to bus data rate which is 1:2 as the bus is DDR.
And bandwidth on the bus is raw transfer rate minus overhead for the packeges. IBM claimed 8:9 for throughput:raw transfer rate.
No, it's not. It's a bi-directional bue. Each direction is 1/4 speed, if you like to think of it that way, but the total speed of the bus is 1/2, or 1/3rd.
The G5 bus is double pumped. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.
All bus's have inefficencies, this one is no different.
I agree with having best of both world, but why does Windows have to load?... I think OS X will run windows apps w/out loading windows.... As long as window's apps run natively/non-natively, this option will lure in pc'ers to macworld.
I can see the new add for Leopard. "Convert to mac and bring your windows apps with you"
Ah, can you say "OS/2"?
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on their Mac other than Adobe, Microsoft, & Intuit apps.
Really, other than utilities and shareware/freeware apps, what other software do most people run? (There used to be hundreds of companies producing consumer software; now it's mainly down to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit.) It's mostly Apple software that people run on their Macs, and the percentage of Apple software is growing every year.
In contrast to people who say the Mac experience is the hardware or the hardware/software combination, the Mac experience is clearly becoming a mainly software experience.
No one does software like Apple.
(That's not to say the hardware doesn't count; I just don't think it's quite as important as it used to be. The Mac hardware advantage is mostly style and ease-of-use, rather than technology, IMHO, whereas Apple's advantage in software is style, ease of use, and technology.)
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on their Mac other than Adobe, Microsoft, & Intuit apps.
Really, other than utilities and shareware/freeware apps, what other software do most people run? (There used to be hundreds of companies producing consumer software; now it's mainly down to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit.) It's mostly Apple software that people run on their Macs, and the percentage of Apple software is growing every year.
In contrast to people who say the Mac experience is the hardware or the hardware/software combination, the Mac experience is clearly becoming a mainly software experience.
No one does software like Apple.
(That's not to say the hardware doesn't count; I just don't think it's quite as important as it used to be. The Mac hardware advantage is mostly style and ease-of-use, rather than technology, IMHO, whereas Apple's advantage in software is style, ease of use, and technology.)
The point about OS/2 is correct. There were other issues as well.
IBM's software division wanted the hardware division to install OS/2 on all IBM machines by default, and offer Windows instead as an option, rather than the other way around, which is the way they were doing it.
The hardawre division balked because they were afraid that most customers, not being familliar with OS/2, would pass on the machines.
So IBM lost their chance.
That was, by the way, when IBM and Apple were collaborating on "Pink" and Taligent.
While Apple does make more software than they ever did, the fact that over 3,000 developers showed up at the conference in June shows that there are many developers.
We really don't want to lose them.
There are far more programs out there than most people think. Most are specialized, but all are important.
No, it's not. It's a bi-directional bue. Each direction is 1/4 speed, if you like to think of it that way, but the total speed of the bus is 1/2, or 1/3rd.
The G5 bus is double pumped. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.
All bus's have inefficencies, this one is no different.
Yes I know the difference between data rate and bus clock.
"bi-directional bus"? The bus is dual unidirectional!
One way is 1/4 CPU (=clock of the memory controller) *2 (double pumped bus) *4 (32bit width bus) *8/9 (packeging overhead) = 4.4 GB/s bandwidth in each direction for the 2.5GHz PM.
Hope that makes it clear for you what I mean. Sorry, english was only my third foreign language in school....
Yes I know the difference between data rate and bus clock.
"bi-directional bus"? The bus is dual unidirectional!
One way is 1/4 CPU (=clock of the memory controller) *2 (double pumped bus) *4 (32bit width bus) *8/9 (packeging overhead) = 4.4 GB/s bandwidth in each direction for the 2.5GHz PM.
Hope that makes it clear for you what I mean. Sorry, english was only my third foreign language in school....
That's what we were saying. A bus's speed isn't measured by one direction.
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on their Mac other than Adobe, Microsoft, & Intuit apps.
Really, other than utilities and shareware/freeware apps, what other software do most people run? (There used to be hundreds of companies producing consumer software; now it's mainly down to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit.) It's mostly Apple software that people run on their Macs, and the percentage of Apple software is growing every year.
In contrast to people who say the Mac experience is the hardware or the hardware/software combination, the Mac experience is clearly becoming a mainly software experience.
No one does software like Apple.
(That's not to say the hardware doesn't count; I just don't think it's quite as important as it used to be. The Mac hardware advantage is mostly style and ease-of-use, rather than technology, IMHO, whereas Apple's advantage in software is style, ease of use, and technology.)
Very good point on OS/2....
The new MacIntel hardware with Leopard being released right around the Vista, where windows users and apps may also need updates to work on Vista.... Everyone will need to go through transitions..... and one on the MS end will predictably be a nightmare.
It will be interesting if Apple can make old window apps run better/stabler on Leopard than the Vista can. At this point in time, all old window apps have to go through emulated process on the Vista as well as if they were to run on Leopard. I'm not even sure if Vista will run old window apps.
In anyrate, it's about gaining market shares on the OS installed base and the developers will follow when that happens.
The new MacIntel hardware with Leopard being released right around the Vista, where windows users and apps may also need updates to work on Vista.... Everyone will need to go through transitions..... and one on the MS end will predictably be a nightmare.
It will be interesting if Apple can make old window apps run better/stabler on Leopard than the Vista can. At this point in time, all old window apps have to go through emulated process on the Vista as well as if they were to run on Leopard. I'm not even sure if Vista will run old window apps.
In anyrate, it's about gaining market shares on the OS installed base and the developers will follow when that happens.
It depends on what yoummean by "old". Current apps will run.
Apple has the same problem with the Mactels. OS 9 and earlier won't run. It's one way to get Mac users onto OS X for good.
bikertwin and dojobi: yes, virtualization without dual booting means a thin layer that handles virtual x86 machines, without emulation. that would be sweet for windows apps and other legacy rubbish eg. Freecell currently vmware on x86 linux/windows support for 3D acceleration is experimental but eventually developers, maybe with a helping hand from ati/nvidia, will be able to present Directx9.0c & OpenGL2.0 support in virtualization.
this would mean a dearth of mac game development in the short term but i believe as the installed base of x86 mac users grows considerably, new, unimagined-before possibilities will open up after a year or so.
PS. anyone know good freeware Freecell or Solitare for mac os X PPC? i'm serious, its for my aunt that just Switched.
edit: found this freeware. might be good, nice evolution from windoze solitaire to 3D solitaire with freecell, solitaire standard and a lot of other modes!!
I like the sound of this virtualisation. I hadn't read much on it to be honest, but if it's as seamless as you say, then I'm all for it.
Can't help you on the freecell front, unfortunately. I understand her addiction, though
heh. yeah. i'm fairly impressed with vmware, compared with just virtual PC in the past. also the Wine open source project has even more potential, as there is no thin client layer at all.
imagine if you could put onto mac os X86 a directx9.0+ library and PC games run seamlessly on it. yes, death of Mac PPC games, but think of the possibilities, everyone....
now think of openGL 2.0 library on mac os X86. now think of game developers going, hmm.. if i write for openGL 2.0 on windows x86, writing for linux x86 and mac x86 is not too much of a stretch... yeah, excellent, f** directX. YEAH.
virtualisation is somewhat in its infancy with regards to games, but for standard apps it is pretty sweet. vmware workstation 5 "multiple snapshot" feature is a million times better and more efficient than the old technique of "ghosting"
I like the sound of this virtualisation. I hadn't read much on it to be honest, but if it's as seamless as you say, then I'm all for it.
Can't help you on the freecell front, unfortunately. I understand her addiction, though
heh. yeah. i'm fairly impressed with vmware, compared with just virtual PC in the past. also the Wine open source project has even more potential, as there is no thin client layer at all.
imagine if you could put onto mac os X86 a directx9.0+ library and PC games run seamlessly on it. yes, death of Mac PPC games, but think of the possibilities, everyone....
now think of openGL 2.0 library on mac os X86. now think of game developers going, hmm.. if i write for openGL 2.0 on windows x86, writing for linux x86 and mac x86 is not too much of a stretch... yeah, excellent, f** directX. YEAH.
virtualisation is somewhat in its infancy with regards to games, but for standard apps it is pretty sweet. vmware workstation 5 "multiple snapshot" feature is a million times better and more efficient than the old technique of "ghosting"
It all sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?
Don't forget though that virtualization doesn't come without cost. It's like partitioning your cpu. There's a question of how efficient it will be. How powerful each partition will be.
So we could have a virtual OS X partition, and a Vista partition. Each will occupy perhaps 40% of the cpu's power. Whoop de do.
There are times when that might work well, and times when it won't.
Darwine is also great, but it doesn't run all programs, and even less games. It's a long way to all of the Windows API's, and they will have to do more for Vista. If your program needs an API that hasn't been brought over, you're out of luck. You have to write in, and hope that they will work on it. The Crossover project that coming over to OS X from Linux is great too, but it suffers from the same problems.
A VPC will work better than any of those other schemes. With the Mac on the same type of cpu, the speed loss is minimal, and graphics and sound drivers are fairly easy. Pretty close to full speed can be attained, as the other OS (X) is mostly running on idle when this is working ( I mean that it doesn't see this as a heavy workload, just another program). With a dual cpu machine, you may hardly notice the difference, while still retaining the advantages.
Dual booting, which was a very easy thing to do in X is not so onerous. If Windows will run on these machines without any schannigans, then you might get a full speed experience, with all drivers.
Each one has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Several different methods could be used on one machine. They are not mutually exclusive. Depending on what you want to do and the level of convenience for the task.
You might want to run Office on Darwine or Crossover. Games on a dual booted Windows. Drag and drop Access files from Windows Office into inDesign on the Mac OS in a VPC.
Comments
Originally posted by RazzFazz
Care to back that up?
(Also, the PPC970 variants, like the POWER4/5, have their nest -- which includes the processor interface -- running at a lower frequency than their core(s).)
There's a lot more to high frequencies than power dissipation -- especially if you're talking about PCBs, not on-chip stuff.
Well, I've spent over an hour this morning trying to find ANYTHING about the memory controller, but after having gone through over 1,000 articles and multi-page PDF's, I haven't been able to find a single note about the controller.
That's the problem with Goggle, even when you know articles are out there, because you've read them, you can't always find them.
So, if you're constitutionally against believing this, fine. It is true nevertheless, and if I do find what I need, I'll post it. There's really no point in my making it up.
As I've designed hi-freq. devices, I agree with you on your last point. But, it is by no means insurmountable. The main problems other than power dissipation, which shouldn't be a problem for a part designed to run at that speed, is line capacitance, and distance from the chip and main memory. All of those problems have been solved years ago for much higher freq. designs. If Apple wanted to do it they could.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Actually, he was more subtle than that...
"After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. 'That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,' he said. 'We won't do anything to preclude that.'
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. 'We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.'"
They don't preclude anyone from running Windows on the current Mac, should they want to. It doesn't mean it's easy.
No, it won't have to be easy. Nut, if you looked at Apple's patent application for their new security scheme, it mentions selection from installations of Mac OS X Windows, and Linux.
This looks as though Apple is expecting there to be multiple installations, selectable (upon boot?).
This is from the patent. It, of course, also explains some of the security as well. Scroll down a bit to find it.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...esistant_code/
Originally posted by melgross
Well, I've spent over an hour this morning trying to find ANYTHING about the memory controller, but after having gone through over 1,000 articles and multi-page PDF's, I haven't been able to find a single note about the controller.
That's the problem with Goggle, even when you know articles are out there, because you've read them, you can't always find them.
So, if you're constitutionally against believing this, fine. It is true nevertheless, and if I do find what I need, I'll post it. There's really no point in my making it up.
I'm just sceptical because, as I said, to my knowledge the PPC970 variants (and POWER4/5) do not support a 1:1 nest clock, and thus having the EI be able to run at 3GHz would not seem like a very useful feature.
(I'm also not surprised you don't find much info about U3 on Google, given that it's an Apple-proprietary part and all...)
As I've designed hi-freq. devices, I agree with you on your last point. But, it is by no means insurmountable. The main problems other than power dissipation, which shouldn't be a problem for a part designed to run at that speed, is line capacitance, and distance from the chip and main memory. All of those problems have been solved years ago for much higher freq. designs. If Apple wanted to do it they could.
I'm not aware of any digital, parallel, board-level buses that run at multi-GHz clocks on standard multi-layer PCBs...
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
..... Many PC'ers I know regularly dual boot......I'll use it to try out some games, though I'm not a game player these days, I always do that to check out the graphics, playability, etc. I will also run those programs that have never been on a Mac, and are likely never to be on a Mac, but that I find useful.
yes, definitely. spot on mate. if i get an iBook pentiumM or powerbook Yonah in 2006, dual booting into windoze will be for precisely the above reasons. ...
There's no need to dual boot (which I can't imagine His Steveness would condone) if you've got virtualization technology:
http://news.com.com/Intel+brings+vir...l?tag=nefd.top
Run OS X as your main OS, and run Windows in a separate virtual machine. Thus any bugs/viruses/malware on your windows virtual machine won't affect OS X at all.
Best of both worlds.
Originally posted by PB
MS Monopoly is the keyword.
Windows share is HUGE, Mac OS share is tiny. This is at the root of the problem. If software companies realize that most users run the Windows version of the software on their Intel Mac, because it is less expensive or because they got for free somewhat (work licenses etc.), be sure that the next day it will be no Mac version.
Yes, the root of the problem is a tiny market vs a large market,but the way many of you look at this is negative. It's rooted on a series of assumptions
1) that the cost of developing/supporting SW for the Mac platform is higher than the returns
2) that this is not a free market, but rather a monopoly market
3) that minimizing costs is the driving force for making money in the SW biz, rather than expanding income
4) that the Mac SW market is closed, meaning new players-companies or programs-will not come onto the field. (Especially that the expansion of Mac related hardware that inevitably will take place to meet the demand of a gowing Mac platform won't translate into a corresponding expansion in the SW realm)
5) that the computer industry remains static over the next few years, selling/supporting SW in the same manner it has up til now
6) that Apple's emphasis remains on personal computers
Ok, I'm stopping because I realize I don't know enough about computers and economics to make a cogent argument. There is one point I'm trying to make here: that this is a complicated issue and essentially a question of economics and technology. I suspect that Apple has looked at this long and hard, and has had it's own employees as well as outside consultants produce models of what might happen should they go head to head with MS. I can only guess what factors they might put into such an equation. (Actually I can't-anyone with knowledge of high tech economics want to try?)
We are handicapped in that we don't have access to either the big picture, nor the small details. Is Apple going head to head with MS? We don't know. Wlll Apple's prinicple source of income 5 years from now be from sales of personal computers/SW? We don't know. We are also looking at this from a really narrow point of view because this is a very secretive company that in many ways appears to be run more like a privately held family business than a large corporation. What would be the impact on Apple should Steve Jobs suddenly die? We don't know. The one thing we do know is, as a few of you have noted, compared to times in the past where Apple ran into CPU-related hardware crises, Apple's position relative to MS is much improved. Their income and market share are increasing. They are a company on the upswing, whereas MS has been struggling to redefine itself. That has to have an impact on the decisions of SW makers.
Originally posted by bikertwin
There's no need to dual boot (which I can't imagine His Steveness would condone) if you've got virtualization technology:
http://news.com.com/Intel+brings+vir...l?tag=nefd.top
Run OS X as your main OS, and run Windows in a separate virtual machine. Thus any bugs/viruses/malware on your windows virtual machine won't affect OS X at all.
Best of both worlds.
I agree with having best of both world, but why does Windows have to load?... I think OS X will run windows apps w/out loading windows.... As long as window's apps run natively/non-natively, this option will lure in pc'ers to macworld.
I can see the new add for Leopard. "Convert to mac and bring your windows apps with you"
Originally posted by RazzFazz
I'm just sceptical because, as I said, to my knowledge the PPC970 variants (and POWER4/5) do not support a 1:1 nest clock, and thus having the EI be able to run at 3GHz would not seem like a very useful feature.
(I'm also not surprised you don't find much info about U3 on Google, given that it's an Apple-proprietary part and all...)
I'm not aware of any digital, parallel, board-level buses that run at multi-GHz clocks on standard multi-layer PCBs...
Well, parallel buss's have been on the way out for several years now. anyway, it doesn't matter if it's parallel or not, all major bus systems that have been coming in are working in the GHz range. iSCSI, SATA, Express, etc. cell and portable phones both digital and analog, work in the multiple GHz range. One of the scopes I was using has a clock in the 5GHz range. Signal analysers also run at that speed.
The point is that the technology is well understood and implemented. The difficult range is now 10GHz and above.
Maybe you would have better luck than me. Try and find it. Sometimes you can work the search in numerous ways, and only one, just by luck, will find it.This information was out years ago. The controller could have explicitly been designed for dual core chips. IBM had them before the 970 even came out to market.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
No the current ratio is only 1/2, but the memory controller of the G5 is 2 bidirectionnal 32 bit busses moving 4GB/sec in each direction for the G5 dual 2 ghz.
The 1/3 ratio is used for the Imac.
No!
The ratio CPU to memory controller is 4:1.
What you mean is the ratio CPU to bus data rate which is 1:2 as the bus is DDR.
And bandwidth on the bus is raw transfer rate minus overhead for the packeges. IBM claimed 8:9 for throughput:raw transfer rate.
Originally posted by smalM
No!
The ratio CPU to memory controller is 4:1.
What you mean is the ratio CPU to bus data rate which is 1:2 as the bus is DDR.
And bandwidth on the bus is raw transfer rate minus overhead for the packeges. IBM claimed 8:9 for throughput:raw transfer rate.
No, it's not. It's a bi-directional bue. Each direction is 1/4 speed, if you like to think of it that way, but the total speed of the bus is 1/2, or 1/3rd.
The G5 bus is double pumped. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.
All bus's have inefficencies, this one is no different.
Originally posted by bitemymac
I agree with having best of both world, but why does Windows have to load?... I think OS X will run windows apps w/out loading windows.... As long as window's apps run natively/non-natively, this option will lure in pc'ers to macworld.
I can see the new add for Leopard. "Convert to mac and bring your windows apps with you"
Ah, can you say "OS/2"?
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on their Mac other than Adobe, Microsoft, & Intuit apps.
Really, other than utilities and shareware/freeware apps, what other software do most people run? (There used to be hundreds of companies producing consumer software; now it's mainly down to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit.) It's mostly Apple software that people run on their Macs, and the percentage of Apple software is growing every year.
In contrast to people who say the Mac experience is the hardware or the hardware/software combination, the Mac experience is clearly becoming a mainly software experience.
No one does software like Apple.
(That's not to say the hardware doesn't count; I just don't think it's quite as important as it used to be. The Mac hardware advantage is mostly style and ease-of-use, rather than technology, IMHO, whereas Apple's advantage in software is style, ease of use, and technology.)
Originally posted by bikertwin
Ah, can you say "OS/2"?
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on their Mac other than Adobe, Microsoft, & Intuit apps.
Really, other than utilities and shareware/freeware apps, what other software do most people run? (There used to be hundreds of companies producing consumer software; now it's mainly down to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit.) It's mostly Apple software that people run on their Macs, and the percentage of Apple software is growing every year.
In contrast to people who say the Mac experience is the hardware or the hardware/software combination, the Mac experience is clearly becoming a mainly software experience.
No one does software like Apple.
(That's not to say the hardware doesn't count; I just don't think it's quite as important as it used to be. The Mac hardware advantage is mostly style and ease-of-use, rather than technology, IMHO, whereas Apple's advantage in software is style, ease of use, and technology.)
The point about OS/2 is correct. There were other issues as well.
IBM's software division wanted the hardware division to install OS/2 on all IBM machines by default, and offer Windows instead as an option, rather than the other way around, which is the way they were doing it.
The hardawre division balked because they were afraid that most customers, not being familliar with OS/2, would pass on the machines.
So IBM lost their chance.
That was, by the way, when IBM and Apple were collaborating on "Pink" and Taligent.
While Apple does make more software than they ever did, the fact that over 3,000 developers showed up at the conference in June shows that there are many developers.
We really don't want to lose them.
There are far more programs out there than most people think. Most are specialized, but all are important.
Originally posted by melgross
No, it's not. It's a bi-directional bue. Each direction is 1/4 speed, if you like to think of it that way, but the total speed of the bus is 1/2, or 1/3rd.
The G5 bus is double pumped. Maybe that's what you're thinking about.
All bus's have inefficencies, this one is no different.
Yes I know the difference between data rate and bus clock.
"bi-directional bus"? The bus is dual unidirectional!
One way is 1/4 CPU (=clock of the memory controller) *2 (double pumped bus) *4 (32bit width bus) *8/9 (packeging overhead) = 4.4 GB/s bandwidth in each direction for the 2.5GHz PM.
Hope that makes it clear for you what I mean. Sorry, english was only my third foreign language in school....
Originally posted by smalM
Yes I know the difference between data rate and bus clock.
"bi-directional bus"? The bus is dual unidirectional!
One way is 1/4 CPU (=clock of the memory controller) *2 (double pumped bus) *4 (32bit width bus) *8/9 (packeging overhead) = 4.4 GB/s bandwidth in each direction for the 2.5GHz PM.
Hope that makes it clear for you what I mean. Sorry, english was only my third foreign language in school....
That's what we were saying. A bus's speed isn't measured by one direction.
Originally posted by bikertwin
Ah, can you say "OS/2"?
IBM made OS/2 run Windows 3.x apps natively under OS/2 2.x in the early-to-mid 1990's. Nobody wrote OS/2 apps, since Windows apps ran just fine under OS/2. It's this very case that is probably prompting many people to warn about running Windows apps too conveniently.
The huge difference here, though, is that IBM never wrote any OS/2 software--not consumer software, in any case.
Apple, on the other hand, makes most of the software that users have on their Mac other than Adobe, Microsoft, & Intuit apps.
Really, other than utilities and shareware/freeware apps, what other software do most people run? (There used to be hundreds of companies producing consumer software; now it's mainly down to Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, and Intuit.) It's mostly Apple software that people run on their Macs, and the percentage of Apple software is growing every year.
In contrast to people who say the Mac experience is the hardware or the hardware/software combination, the Mac experience is clearly becoming a mainly software experience.
No one does software like Apple.
(That's not to say the hardware doesn't count; I just don't think it's quite as important as it used to be. The Mac hardware advantage is mostly style and ease-of-use, rather than technology, IMHO, whereas Apple's advantage in software is style, ease of use, and technology.)
Very good point on OS/2....
The new MacIntel hardware with Leopard being released right around the Vista, where windows users and apps may also need updates to work on Vista.... Everyone will need to go through transitions..... and one on the MS end will predictably be a nightmare.
It will be interesting if Apple can make old window apps run better/stabler on Leopard than the Vista can. At this point in time, all old window apps have to go through emulated process on the Vista as well as if they were to run on Leopard. I'm not even sure if Vista will run old window apps.
In anyrate, it's about gaining market shares on the OS installed base and the developers will follow when that happens.
Originally posted by bitemymac
Very good point on OS/2....
The new MacIntel hardware with Leopard being released right around the Vista, where windows users and apps may also need updates to work on Vista.... Everyone will need to go through transitions..... and one on the MS end will predictably be a nightmare.
It will be interesting if Apple can make old window apps run better/stabler on Leopard than the Vista can. At this point in time, all old window apps have to go through emulated process on the Vista as well as if they were to run on Leopard. I'm not even sure if Vista will run old window apps.
In anyrate, it's about gaining market shares on the OS installed base and the developers will follow when that happens.
It depends on what yoummean by "old". Current apps will run.
Apple has the same problem with the Mactels. OS 9 and earlier won't run. It's one way to get Mac users onto OS X for good.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You sound like you actually believe that a piece of software will be impossible to crack.
Anyone read digital fortress?
this would mean a dearth of mac game development in the short term but i believe as the installed base of x86 mac users grows considerably, new, unimagined-before possibilities will open up after a year or so.
PS. anyone know good freeware Freecell or Solitare for mac os X PPC? i'm serious, its for my aunt that just Switched.
edit: found this freeware. might be good, nice evolution from windoze solitaire to 3D solitaire with freecell, solitaire standard and a lot of other modes!!
http://www.grassgames.com/solitaire/index.html
Can't help you on the freecell front, unfortunately. I understand her addiction, though
I like the sound of this virtualisation. I hadn't read much on it to be honest, but if it's as seamless as you say, then I'm all for it.
Can't help you on the freecell front, unfortunately. I understand her addiction, though
heh. yeah. i'm fairly impressed with vmware, compared with just virtual PC in the past. also the Wine open source project has even more potential, as there is no thin client layer at all.
imagine if you could put onto mac os X86 a directx9.0+ library and PC games run seamlessly on it. yes, death of Mac PPC games, but think of the possibilities, everyone....
now think of openGL 2.0 library on mac os X86. now think of game developers going, hmm.. if i write for openGL 2.0 on windows x86, writing for linux x86 and mac x86 is not too much of a stretch... yeah, excellent, f** directX. YEAH.
virtualisation is somewhat in its infancy with regards to games, but for standard apps it is pretty sweet. vmware workstation 5 "multiple snapshot" feature is a million times better and more efficient than the old technique of "ghosting"
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by dojobi
I like the sound of this virtualisation. I hadn't read much on it to be honest, but if it's as seamless as you say, then I'm all for it.
Can't help you on the freecell front, unfortunately. I understand her addiction, though
heh. yeah. i'm fairly impressed with vmware, compared with just virtual PC in the past. also the Wine open source project has even more potential, as there is no thin client layer at all.
imagine if you could put onto mac os X86 a directx9.0+ library and PC games run seamlessly on it. yes, death of Mac PPC games, but think of the possibilities, everyone....
now think of openGL 2.0 library on mac os X86. now think of game developers going, hmm.. if i write for openGL 2.0 on windows x86, writing for linux x86 and mac x86 is not too much of a stretch... yeah, excellent, f** directX. YEAH.
virtualisation is somewhat in its infancy with regards to games, but for standard apps it is pretty sweet. vmware workstation 5 "multiple snapshot" feature is a million times better and more efficient than the old technique of "ghosting"
It all sounds pretty ideal, doesn't it?
Don't forget though that virtualization doesn't come without cost. It's like partitioning your cpu. There's a question of how efficient it will be. How powerful each partition will be.
So we could have a virtual OS X partition, and a Vista partition. Each will occupy perhaps 40% of the cpu's power. Whoop de do.
There are times when that might work well, and times when it won't.
Darwine is also great, but it doesn't run all programs, and even less games. It's a long way to all of the Windows API's, and they will have to do more for Vista. If your program needs an API that hasn't been brought over, you're out of luck. You have to write in, and hope that they will work on it. The Crossover project that coming over to OS X from Linux is great too, but it suffers from the same problems.
A VPC will work better than any of those other schemes. With the Mac on the same type of cpu, the speed loss is minimal, and graphics and sound drivers are fairly easy. Pretty close to full speed can be attained, as the other OS (X) is mostly running on idle when this is working ( I mean that it doesn't see this as a heavy workload, just another program). With a dual cpu machine, you may hardly notice the difference, while still retaining the advantages.
Dual booting, which was a very easy thing to do in X is not so onerous. If Windows will run on these machines without any schannigans, then you might get a full speed experience, with all drivers.
Each one has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Several different methods could be used on one machine. They are not mutually exclusive. Depending on what you want to do and the level of convenience for the task.
You might want to run Office on Darwine or Crossover. Games on a dual booted Windows. Drag and drop Access files from Windows Office into inDesign on the Mac OS in a VPC.
And then there's Linux.
It could be interesting.