The rumours are easy to explain: "Hope springs eternal."
The denials are easy to explain: "They couldn't possible keep that a secret."
We have no true evidence, and any speculation based on the fluff thrown out on AI and the various rumour boards is worth exactly what you paid for it (less if you're actually a paying supporter of MOSR!). While Moki may represent a healthy dose of reality, I still have to hope that he's wrong... especially since I've pretty much committed to buying a new PowerMac in the next couple of months.
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-515720.html?legacy=zdnn"; target="_blank">this</a> is an interesting article. simply because of the timing involved. i've been following with keen interest and cannot but notice that everything that can be announced has been anounced prior to MWNY.
QT6, eMac, 10.1.5 (which leads me to believe that 10.2 won't be at MWNY)
which only leaves the G5 (or something damn close) at MWNY
Can AMD build a PPC variant of their new chips? I remember a discussion about using a PPC decoder instead of an x86 decoder, but again, I'm no hardware genius. I just keep reading AMDs new specs and think that is what Apple is looking for, why have to recreate it through Moto, when this is what AMD does for a living.
"Can AMD build a PPC variant of their new chips? I remember a discussion about using a PPC decoder instead of an x86 decoder, but again, I'm no hardware genius. I just keep reading AMDs new specs and think that is what Apple is looking for, why have to recreate it through Moto, when this is what AMD does for a living."
I thought about that. A PPC decoder instead of the x86 decoder in Sledghammer.
Considering that Apple have already done the 'impossible' with welding the Mac Os ontop of a Unix Core then might the equally improbable PPC decoder be the Trojan horse to a commited desktop CPU provider.
Apple doesn't discuss AMD. Their benches are always against Intel.
(...and there's the fact that even low end AMDs stomp the top end PPC chip...)
<strong>"Can AMD build a PPC variant of their new chips? I remember a discussion about using a PPC decoder instead of an x86 decoder, but again, I'm no hardware genius. I just keep reading AMDs new specs and think that is what Apple is looking for, why have to recreate it through Moto, when this is what AMD does for a living."
I thought about that. A PPC decoder instead of the x86 decoder in Sledghammer.
Considering that Apple have already done the 'impossible' with welding the Mac Os ontop of a Unix Core then might the equally improbable PPC decoder be the Trojan horse to a commited desktop CPU provider.
Apple doesn't discuss AMD. Their benches are always against Intel.
(...and there's the fact that even low end AMDs stomp the top end PPC chip...)
There are a lot of underlying architectural differences that would make this more than "just a new decoder". That said, however, AMD has a lot of design expertise, manpower, process, etc. Much of their core design could probably be canabilized and used to design a PowerPC. There is no solid evidence of this happening, however.
this article is crazy :eek: the G4 wasn't even born yet and this guy from moto talk about 7500/G5??? ... AND he said that - in september 99 - they have SOI G4 working from years in their labs <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
ok "the" combo - G5/RIO/HT/DDR/AGP8X - here i am, babe ! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
So I have a question. From the research I have done I have found that the following chips are in production and are being tested.
By production I don't meen to know if they are comercially available. I have not looked into what each chip is specifically and i am not even sure what number the current Appollo chips are (MPC7445?)
So I am hopping those of you out there could shed some light on the following Moto chip revs. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
These chips are <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> being tested. I thought the MPC750 is the G5? I Found nothing on Book E stuff. Book E was there but there was nothing written up leading me to believe that it's not in production yet.Any way.>>>>>>>>
Something strikes me as odd about all this. On one hand, there is a fair amount of evidence for a G5 soon. First of all, their is the sheer number of rumors. </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong><a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-515720.html?legacy=zdnn"; target="_blank">this</a> is an interesting article. simply because of the timing involved. i've been following with keen interest and cannot but notice that everything that can be announced has been anounced prior to MWNY.
QT6, eMac, 10.1.5 (which leads me to believe that 10.2 won't be at MWNY)
which only leaves the G5 (or something damn close) at MWNY
If there isn`t a G5 then there`s still people who claim they have seen one.
If there is one any real insider could come here and post the plain truth about the real specs and the plan when to reveal it to the public at which speeds and with whatever motherboard - NOBODY WOULD BELIEVE IT!
Either way, Apple doesn`t even have to bother for disinformation because it looks pretty simple to me.
If Apple doesn`t want reliable pre-release info to be available then they can keep it secret or give so many different info out that nobody will know what`s true... thus DISINFORMATION.
The most funny form would be Steve Jobs posting all he knows and plans at Apple-Insider while also by purpose make himself look unbelievable.
If Mr. Jobs doesn`t want this knowledge out then it won`t be.
[quote] If there is one any real insider could come here and post the plain truth about the real specs and the plan when to reveal it to the public at which speeds and with whatever motherboard - NOBODY WOULD BELIEVE IT! <hr></blockquote>
No one who knows about the G5 will know shipping times.
Test boxes are still around, and they have undergone many revisions over the last 6 months.
No two boxes are the same, so this means it's easy to catch leaks.
Also any information posted would probably be incorrect - no-one knows the final spec.
this article is crazy :eek: the G4 wasn't even born yet and this guy from moto talk about 7500/G5??? ... AND he said that - in september 99 - they have SOI G4 working from years in their labs <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd be negligent if as a company you weren't considering the next generation of a product as you release a "new" version of it. Most companies will have roadmaps well laid out for several years in advance. Timetables change but the plans need to be there.
It's important to have those goals and an understanding of where you are going if you wish to keep up.
It's quite possible they did have SOI G4s in their labs at the time of the article (although I'd be surprised by them having them for years). Getting something to exist outside the lab and mass produced is the hard part though and Motorola's fabs aren't the best renowned in the business.
Article still doesn't say much but generally there isn't much wrong with it considering when it was written.
Hell, motorola has enough design details laid out for the G6 that they included it in their raodmap 2 years ago. If they didn't then i would be truly worried about them.
Comments
The denials are easy to explain: "They couldn't possible keep that a secret."
We have no true evidence, and any speculation based on the fluff thrown out on AI and the various rumour boards is worth exactly what you paid for it (less if you're actually a paying supporter of MOSR!). While Moki may represent a healthy dose of reality, I still have to hope that he's wrong... especially since I've pretty much committed to buying a new PowerMac in the next couple of months.
QT6, eMac, 10.1.5 (which leads me to believe that 10.2 won't be at MWNY)
which only leaves the G5 (or something damn close) at MWNY
well we can but hope anyways
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: g::masta ]</p>
I thought about that. A PPC decoder instead of the x86 decoder in Sledghammer.
Considering that Apple have already done the 'impossible' with welding the Mac Os ontop of a Unix Core then might the equally improbable PPC decoder be the Trojan horse to a commited desktop CPU provider.
Apple doesn't discuss AMD. Their benches are always against Intel.
(...and there's the fact that even low end AMDs stomp the top end PPC chip...)
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>"Can AMD build a PPC variant of their new chips? I remember a discussion about using a PPC decoder instead of an x86 decoder, but again, I'm no hardware genius. I just keep reading AMDs new specs and think that is what Apple is looking for, why have to recreate it through Moto, when this is what AMD does for a living."
I thought about that. A PPC decoder instead of the x86 decoder in Sledghammer.
Considering that Apple have already done the 'impossible' with welding the Mac Os ontop of a Unix Core then might the equally improbable PPC decoder be the Trojan horse to a commited desktop CPU provider.
Apple doesn't discuss AMD. Their benches are always against Intel.
(...and there's the fact that even low end AMDs stomp the top end PPC chip...)
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
There are a lot of underlying architectural differences that would make this more than "just a new decoder". That said, however, AMD has a lot of design expertise, manpower, process, etc. Much of their core design could probably be canabilized and used to design a PowerPC. There is no solid evidence of this happening, however.
<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-515720.html?legacy=zdnn"; target="_blank">this</a> is an interesting article. simply because of the timing involved. <hr></blockquote>
this article is crazy :eek: the G4 wasn't even born yet and this guy from moto talk about 7500/G5??? ... AND he said that - in september 99 - they have SOI G4 working from years in their labs <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
ok "the" combo - G5/RIO/HT/DDR/AGP8X - here i am, babe ! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
By production I don't meen to know if they are comercially available. I have not looked into what each chip is specifically and i am not even sure what number the current Appollo chips are (MPC7445?)
So I am hopping those of you out there could shed some light on the following Moto chip revs. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
These chips are <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> being tested. I thought the MPC750 is the G5? I Found nothing on Book E stuff. Book E was there but there was nothing written up leading me to believe that it's not in production yet.Any way.>>>>>>>>
MPC7445(Appollo6), 745MPC(Goldfinger), MPC740,MPC7451,MPC7455(Appollo6), MPC750, MPC750A, & MPC755(Goldfinger.
thanks,
Tink
[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
<strong>I thought the MPC750 is the G5? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, the750 is the G3, the 7500 would be the G5
<strong>
Something strikes me as odd about all this. On one hand, there is a fair amount of evidence for a G5 soon. First of all, their is the sheer number of rumors. </strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
<strong><a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-515720.html?legacy=zdnn"; target="_blank">this</a> is an interesting article. simply because of the timing involved. i've been following with keen interest and cannot but notice that everything that can be announced has been anounced prior to MWNY.
QT6, eMac, 10.1.5 (which leads me to believe that 10.2 won't be at MWNY)
which only leaves the G5 (or something damn close) at MWNY
well we can but hope anyways
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: g::masta ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
This article is a hoot! That guy even says that Moto has had SOI chips running in their labs for several years! Back in 99!
Moto are such losers.
If there is one any real insider could come here and post the plain truth about the real specs and the plan when to reveal it to the public at which speeds and with whatever motherboard - NOBODY WOULD BELIEVE IT!
Either way, Apple doesn`t even have to bother for disinformation because it looks pretty simple to me.
If Apple doesn`t want reliable pre-release info to be available then they can keep it secret or give so many different info out that nobody will know what`s true... thus DISINFORMATION.
The most funny form would be Steve Jobs posting all he knows and plans at Apple-Insider while also by purpose make himself look unbelievable.
If Mr. Jobs doesn`t want this knowledge out then it won`t be.
No one who knows about the G5 will know shipping times.
Test boxes are still around, and they have undergone many revisions over the last 6 months.
No two boxes are the same, so this means it's easy to catch leaks.
Also any information posted would probably be incorrect - no-one knows the final spec.
<strong>
this article is crazy :eek: the G4 wasn't even born yet and this guy from moto talk about 7500/G5??? ... AND he said that - in september 99 - they have SOI G4 working from years in their labs <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You'd be negligent if as a company you weren't considering the next generation of a product as you release a "new" version of it. Most companies will have roadmaps well laid out for several years in advance. Timetables change but the plans need to be there.
It's important to have those goals and an understanding of where you are going if you wish to keep up.
It's quite possible they did have SOI G4s in their labs at the time of the article (although I'd be surprised by them having them for years). Getting something to exist outside the lab and mass produced is the hard part though and Motorola's fabs aren't the best renowned in the business.
Article still doesn't say much but generally there isn't much wrong with it considering when it was written.