<strong>If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you were responding to my post about Apple and AMD then you ididn't read it. I questioned why AMD doesn't make a MAC CHIP. I said nothing about Apple moving to x86. Why can't AMD make A MAC CHIP FOR MACS THAT ARE MAC ONLY, basically taking th place of Moto and IBM?
Before these boards went into a coma, Rumors were that IBM had designed their own vector unit for the 750fx, and that they had agreed to use altivec or altivec type vector units. Now the the rumor is that IBM has a SaharaII planned for the second half of 2002 and that it would include a vector unit. Eventually, they'll have to include a vector unit, especially if they're planning on using PPC's in workstations. A good SIMD unit is no longer a luxury, it will be all the more essential for crunching large piles of data, video/audio encoding, applying effects to multi-megapixel print quality files... etc etc.
I hope they sort this out. I don't think Apple will drop SIMD from their plans, though the future may not be the altivec we know now.
[quote] Furthermore, if you look at the state of Motorola in general and their semiconductor business in particular, it ain't pretty. They're one or two more bad quarters away from going in the toilet. I think last quarter they posted something on the order of a half billion dollar *loss*? Not good, and not indicative of an organization ready to roll out a superior new product in large numbers (and on time). <hr></blockquote>
Motorola had its first loss in like 15 years this year. This was due almost entirely to the sudden slowdown in the economy. Motorola, as pissed as I am at them, is a tremendously succesful company. The reason they F**cked up the the PPC is they :
1) ran into some unexpected production/fab problems.
2) Realized they were going to have to invest a lot of money to fix it and figured out that the PPC just wasn't all that profitable. Then Apple went through the roof and stuff started happening.
<strong>The G3 to G4 transition have been a failure so far.
The two main advantages of the G4 the MERCI 5 SMP and the Altivec engine is not supported by the OS that most uses nor by any applications but a handful. Yes you have to think outside PhotoShop! Does anyone remember the AltiVec hype? It would enable PC emulation at Pentium speed and bla bla bla...Very easy to implement way better than MMX will give performance boost everywere!
An almost 3 years old B&W G3/450 might be an eminently upgradable machine but the leap is all of 50 MHz to G4/500....
Have the market upgraded the G3 computers to the "superior" G4 in large numbers?
The G4 would be a good CPU if it could be used over entire line so we would have more Altivec implemenetation and also th G4 really need OS X or an other OS with better SMP support than OS 8&9.
AltiVec might be a very elegant solution to many problems but frankly does not shear CPU speed work bette? Apple have to stop straddling the fence, either get G4 on all Macintoshes portable and stationary to get software developers to use AV and SMP, or admit that AV was a elegant failed idea and rip the AV unit out of the G5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is very true!
G4 was never a very impressing processor. I actually havent really found a reason for upgrading my B/W G3 350 mhz yet.
Another problem with altivec, is that it doesn't affect the speed of 3D rendering/ raytracing.
So a G4 equals an Atlon in 3d rendering at same mhz.
And the genneral system speed, for example Fileopening, webbrowsing, jpeg-viewing, window resizing etc, is very slow on a G4 OSX even compared to a PII 200 mhz.
I agree, but could AMD make a mac chip? Would that be a possibilty and would it be better for Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is possible, of course, since all that AMD would have to do is design a PPC compatable chip. Since the Athlon is a sorta RISC chip with two x86 translation units (which I earlier called CISC, becuase I'm a tool), I'm guessing that all that they'd need to do would be to strip out the x86 unit and replace it with a PPC translator.
Chip architecture has become pretty muddy over the past decade or so. The Pentium 4, for instance, has features of CISC, RISC, VLIW, and clockless chip design all thrown into it. Every chip out there can theoretically run any ISA, whether it be x86, PPC, or whatever. There is much to be learned from this article and others on Ars: <a href="http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html</A>;
So, yeah, it's possible, but unlikely due to corporate politics and stupid pacts.
One thing about 64-bits is that it would explain the greatest mystery surrounding OS X -- Where's Photoshop?
It would fit Jobs style to introduce a 64-bit machine, fancy new case, and an optimized version of the flagship application. And PS is one of the few apps that probably would benefit from a 64-bit CPU.
No matter how you slice it. RISC and CISC is just an ideology, not an IEEE standard. If it takes long instructions and processes them, then it is CISC. If it takes short instructions and processes them then it is RISC. If it takes long instructions and breaks them up internally into smaller instructions and then processes them, then it is still CISC. Being RISC or CISC (or VLiW) is a combination of ISA, core processing unit, and maybe compilers. If Intel and AMD take advantage of the confusion or add to it then that's their issue. You call a car a car and a plane a plane. If you put the car engine in a plane or vice versa, it doesn't change what we call the plane. It's still a plane.
[quote]ou call a car a car and a plane a plane. If you put the car engine in a plane or vice versa, it doesn't change what we call the plane. It's still a plane. <hr></blockquote>
Another piece of evidence which points to (though is not conclusive in itself) a January announcement (and a March release):
According to the <a href="http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1006215215128789480.djm"; target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a>, Phil Schiller said that the transition to Mac OS X is due to be completed by March 2002. This obviously means that Macs will by default boot up in X. It would make sense for the first of these to be G5's, as they will gain the biggest advantage from it.
I would hope a full-time move to OS X is more about software than hardware. March should be the time Apple expects to have 10.2 ready for prime-time and a healthy chest of big name apps native in OS X.
Who gives a crap if OS X runs well on a G5 when there's no software for it.
<strong>I would hope a full-time move to OS X is more about software than hardware. March should be the time Apple expects to have 10.2 ready for prime-time and a healthy chest of big name apps native in OS X.
Who gives a crap if OS X runs well on a G5 when there's no software for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to burst your bubble there, but that was dated September of 2000. Not what I would call new news. <hr></blockquote>
I never said it was 'new' I just said I had found some info. A lot of people don't seem to know much about the G5 and I don't remember reading that article last year. Also, it stated that the G5 has a 10 stage pipeline, I've heard since that it has a 14 stage. So anytime I hear something difeerent it's nice to hae the actual information to compare.
Comments
<strong>If Apple used x86 chips in their Macs then OS X would have to be released for x86. All the apps would need to be recompiled too. Most wont. What would make me buy Apple hardware after? Not snaxxy cases when i can build my own PC. Apple will go out of business and we'll be forced to use OS X without any support whatso ever like Linux users. Sounds great! Who's smart idea was this again?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you were responding to my post about Apple and AMD then you ididn't read it. I questioned why AMD doesn't make a MAC CHIP. I said nothing about Apple moving to x86. Why can't AMD make A MAC CHIP FOR MACS THAT ARE MAC ONLY, basically taking th place of Moto and IBM?
<strong>I wasn't responding to you but to people in general who don't understand why Apple can't just switch processors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, but could AMD make a mac chip? Would that be a possibilty and would it be better for Apple?
I hope they sort this out. I don't think Apple will drop SIMD from their plans, though the future may not be the altivec we know now.
Motorola had its first loss in like 15 years this year. This was due almost entirely to the sudden slowdown in the economy. Motorola, as pissed as I am at them, is a tremendously succesful company. The reason they F**cked up the the PPC is they :
1) ran into some unexpected production/fab problems.
2) Realized they were going to have to invest a lot of money to fix it and figured out that the PPC just wasn't all that profitable. Then Apple went through the roof and stuff started happening.
[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>The G3 to G4 transition have been a failure so far.
The two main advantages of the G4 the MERCI 5 SMP and the Altivec engine is not supported by the OS that most uses nor by any applications but a handful. Yes you have to think outside PhotoShop! Does anyone remember the AltiVec hype? It would enable PC emulation at Pentium speed and bla bla bla...Very easy to implement way better than MMX will give performance boost everywere!
An almost 3 years old B&W G3/450 might be an eminently upgradable machine but the leap is all of 50 MHz to G4/500....
Have the market upgraded the G3 computers to the "superior" G4 in large numbers?
The G4 would be a good CPU if it could be used over entire line so we would have more Altivec implemenetation and also th G4 really need OS X or an other OS with better SMP support than OS 8&9.
AltiVec might be a very elegant solution to many problems but frankly does not shear CPU speed work bette? Apple have to stop straddling the fence, either get G4 on all Macintoshes portable and stationary to get software developers to use AV and SMP, or admit that AV was a elegant failed idea and rip the AV unit out of the G5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is very true!
G4 was never a very impressing processor. I actually havent really found a reason for upgrading my B/W G3 350 mhz yet.
Another problem with altivec, is that it doesn't affect the speed of 3D rendering/ raytracing.
So a G4 equals an Atlon in 3d rendering at same mhz.
And the genneral system speed, for example Fileopening, webbrowsing, jpeg-viewing, window resizing etc, is very slow on a G4 OSX even compared to a PII 200 mhz.
Im buying a new mac when the G5 comes.
ap
<strong>
I agree, but could AMD make a mac chip? Would that be a possibilty and would it be better for Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is possible, of course, since all that AMD would have to do is design a PPC compatable chip. Since the Athlon is a sorta RISC chip with two x86 translation units (which I earlier called CISC, becuase I'm a tool), I'm guessing that all that they'd need to do would be to strip out the x86 unit and replace it with a PPC translator.
Chip architecture has become pretty muddy over the past decade or so. The Pentium 4, for instance, has features of CISC, RISC, VLIW, and clockless chip design all thrown into it. Every chip out there can theoretically run any ISA, whether it be x86, PPC, or whatever. There is much to be learned from this article and others on Ars: <a href="http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html</A>;
So, yeah, it's possible, but unlikely due to corporate politics and stupid pacts.
It would fit Jobs style to introduce a 64-bit machine, fancy new case, and an optimized version of the flagship application. And PS is one of the few apps that probably would benefit from a 64-bit CPU.
I have seen people doing rendering in Lightwave using Sun Ultrasparc stations. All I can say is - WOW :eek:
But I really wonder how much benefit Photshop will get. Too bad the IRIX version of PS is still only version 3.......so I can't make any judgement
Pentium, Athlon = CISC
No matter how you slice it. RISC and CISC is just an ideology, not an IEEE standard. If it takes long instructions and processes them, then it is CISC. If it takes short instructions and processes them then it is RISC. If it takes long instructions and breaks them up internally into smaller instructions and then processes them, then it is still CISC. Being RISC or CISC (or VLiW) is a combination of ISA, core processing unit, and maybe compilers. If Intel and AMD take advantage of the confusion or add to it then that's their issue. You call a car a car and a plane a plane. If you put the car engine in a plane or vice versa, it doesn't change what we call the plane. It's still a plane.
Unless it's a <a href="http://www.moller.com/skycar/"; target="_blank">carplane</a>.
According to the <a href="http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/retrieve.cgi?id=SB1006215215128789480.djm"; target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a>, Phil Schiller said that the transition to Mac OS X is due to be completed by March 2002. This obviously means that Macs will by default boot up in X. It would make sense for the first of these to be G5's, as they will gain the biggest advantage from it.
Who gives a crap if OS X runs well on a G5 when there's no software for it.
<strong>I would hope a full-time move to OS X is more about software than hardware. March should be the time Apple expects to have 10.2 ready for prime-time and a healthy chest of big name apps native in OS X.
Who gives a crap if OS X runs well on a G5 when there's no software for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do!! Hell, 9.2 would flllyyyyy on a G5
Moto intros the G5 <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/27.mot.shtml"; target="_blank">here</a>
Basic feature set of the G5 <a href="http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>
Just some more info/juice to breath some life back into this thread
<strong>I just thought I'd get this topic going with some info I found -
Moto intros the G5 <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0009/27.mot.shtml"; target="_blank">here</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to burst your bubble there, but that was dated September of 2000. Not what I would call new news.
[quote]<strong>Basic feature set of the G5 <a href="http://www.geek.com/procspec/apple/g5.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now this article was worth the read. Also it plays into the idea that the G5 will come out in January. That would be very cool!!
[quote]<strong>Just some more info/juice to breath some life back into this thread
I agree. This thread needed some life in it again!!
I just thought I'd get this topic going with some info I found -
Moto intros the G5 here
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to burst your bubble there, but that was dated September of 2000. Not what I would call new news. <hr></blockquote>
I never said it was 'new' I just said I had found some info. A lot of people don't seem to know much about the G5 and I don't remember reading that article last year. Also, it stated that the G5 has a 10 stage pipeline, I've heard since that it has a 14 stage. So anytime I hear something difeerent it's nice to hae the actual information to compare.
Plus, I wanted to bump the thread
G5 = not cheap, therefore, not going into iMac, also, large and very hot, therefore not going into PowerBook.
7460 "Apollo". Cool, big mhz, too expensive for iStuff. PowerBook chip.
Sahara (750FX) G3 = Cheap. Big mhz, cool. Going into iMac and iBook.
<strong>i'd just like to interject a little sense into this discussion..
G5 = not cheap, therefore, not going into iMac, also, large and very hot, therefore not going into PowerBook.
7460 "Apollo". Cool, big mhz, too expensive for iStuff. PowerBook chip.
Sahara (750FX) G3 = Cheap. Big mhz, cool. Going into iMac and iBook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So then are you saying that the Apollo is meant for the portables? That's my belief.