any toughts on this article?

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
<a href=""; target="_blank"></a>;

I hope it's right here, else it can be moved to another forum. In my opinion that put IBM on top for the G5.


  • Reply 1 of 12
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Sounds about right.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    Dang. That stuff is nuts... What machines was the 604 processor used in btw? I just hope Apple gets smart and moves over to IBM or SOME better chip maker and FAST.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    "Presently, I believe that Motorola's apparent plan has almost reached fruition. Apple only recently reached 1000 MHz, while Intel (and AMD) attained clock speeds of 2400 MHz in the same time frame.

    Motorola injected additional roadblocks into Apple's plans by not letting it move away from the abysmally performing 603 core. The G4 was just a hacked-up G3 with AltiVec and an FPU (floating point unit) borrowed from the outdated 604!

    It is clear that in order for Apple to survive, it must look beyond Motorola's PowerPC: IBM's own processors would be a good choice, and a logical one at that. One thing remains plain: Motorola is slowly killing Apple -- from the inside."

    I can't see Steve taking it up the ass indefinately before Moto' gets a good hosing in return...

    Lemon Bon Bon

  • Reply 4 of 12
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    wasn't Steve actually away from Apple when this stuff was happening? maybe he "doesn't even know".
  • Reply 5 of 12
    "doesn't even know".


    "Maybe" he's Apple's "iCEO" who "doesn't even know" about things like that...

    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 6 of 12
    xypexype Posts: 672member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>"Maybe" he's Apple's "iCEO" who "doesn't even know" about things like that...</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Surely if he was not at Apple when those decision were made he didn't have a say. Of course he _does_ know that Apple lacks in the CPU department. Either that or he's a complete idiot. I have yet to se a complete idiot who's woth a few hundret millions though.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Two problems with that article:

    1) The specs of the 68060 were well known.

    2) The fastest Amiga was the A4000/40 which used a 25Mhz 68040. Commodore-Amiga folded long before the mythical A5000 was released, by which time Apple were using PPC603.

    I'm pretty sure the whole thing is rubbish actually.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    synsyn Posts: 329member
    the article is full of shyte.

    [quote]By the end of 1997, Apple was selling Power Macs that ran at 233 and 266 MHz, but the last of its PowerPC 604-based line had been running at 350 MHz!

    Aside from the obvious fabrication limitations of the G3, it also ran slower per clock than the 604 had. Of course, with Apple interim CEO Steve Jobs at the helm, Mac users did not question this blatant paradox. As a result, G3 systems were snatched up by the thousands. <hr></blockquote>

    yeah, sure. the 233MHz G3 trounced the 350MHz 604e.
  • Reply 9 of 12
    I'm not very impressed by this article as it contains a number of statements that are definately not correct. Some have already been mentioned here, here are some other points:

    - The PowerPC 602 was never used in the Nintendo64. The N64 used a board which had been developed by MIPS (aka Silicon Graphics / SGI), and it was powered by an MIPS R4xxx class processor (the R4300i if I remember well)

    - Apple did never 'reject' the Motorola 88k architecture, and IBM did not develop the PowerPC 601 all alone. In fact the 601 (and later CPUs too) used a memory interface developed by Motorola which was based on the 88k memory controller.

    To me this entire article sounds not very credible.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    hmm, I don't know that Moto would deliberately mess up a entire line of processors just because the 68k line was passed up for another architecture.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    [quote]Originally posted by xype:


    I have yet to se a complete idiot who's woth a few hundret millions though.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I can give you one... Steve Balmer.. Wait, also Bill Gates.. But they are worth billions.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    That article is so full of inaccuracies that I don't know where to begin.

    I'll start by moving it to General Discussion, though, since this has nothing really to do with Future Hardware.
Sign In or Register to comment.