I'll eat my hat if there is a G5 at MacWorld/NYC... then shortly after I finish digesting it, I'll slap my credit card down and buy said machine. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh good! That will give me just enough time to get my order in first. Hmmm! I wonder if I should boost my DSL speed ahead of time?
<strong>I don't know why everybody expects a Turbo G4 instead of G5. G3 was released in 1997 and G4 was released in 1999. There has been more than enough time to bring the G5 into the picture. G4 has received a 7 pipelines enhancements with full speed L2, plus all new L3 cache. Apollo has been released and SOI has been added. I believe the G4 roadmap was fully implemented, only slight increment improvements will be coming in the future. As for the G5, I don't see why not. Motorola has Hip7 for over a year and G5 will be utilizing .13 process. Judging from Pro sales figure, Apple needs a new Tower.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we have more information than we let on
I'm with moki on this one--if a G5 comes in 2 weeks time I will get an Apple tattoo on my dick and have passionate sex with my new G5 at least thrice a day. Yeah it is that unlikely.
The G5 isn't nearly ready for commercial use, if my sources are correct. They will indeed be IBM sourced, but Apple has to wait until the yields are good enough to do it. Moto is out of the picture on the G5.
EDIT: Expect the G5 MWNY03
G4s this time, and probably next time too y'all. Sadly...my personal expectations/predictions for MWNY have fallen yet again (new info just keeps coming this close to MWNY), but publicly I will keep them mostly the same:
G4s up to 1.4 Ghz (though maybe only 1.2 or 1.26)
133 double-pumped bus (for DDR)
DDR SDRAM PC2100 (this is new. I'm fairly confident on it now)
AGP 8x (those who private messaged me before about graphics stuff...the technology I spoke of there will not be seen--it was either a rumor or a single prototype unit)
Firewire2 (all sources point to it as a go)
USB 2.0 (why not with FW2?)
and a new case, but of course only Ive and Steve and Phil know about this right now.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: The All Knowing 1 ]</p>
The G5 isn't nearly ready for commercial use, if my sources are correct. They will indeed be IBM sourced, but Apple has to wait until the yields are good enough to do it. Moto is out of the picture on the G5.
EDIT: Expect the G5 MWNY03
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
do you think that the G5 is a single core simplified version of the power4 with altivec stuff ?
I'm presently trying to accumulate all the G5 info I can, and this is one of the most often asked questions. As a PPC chip it would be *possible* to see a Power4 derivative (IIRC moki has predicted such a thing?) but I don't know how *likely* it is.
The Power4 is a huge, powerful chip. As such, it not only creates a ton of heat (puts a P4 to shame from what I hear) and costs a TON.
IBM's website shows that a pSeries 630 server (entry level Power4) starts at $12,500 for a 1 way Power4 implementation, $28,000 for a 2-way, and $50,500 for a 4-way.
Granted, these prices will come down, but I can't see anything resembling a true Power4 being put in a Mac soon (though I wish it could...)
However, IBM's semiconductor engineers are the finest in the world. The Power4 is arguable the best chip in the world right now, all things considered. So I wouldn't rule out a custom project with IBM/Apple on a new G5 with some elements on Power4 architecture, that is still way fast.
But of course, this isn't based on much.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: The All Knowing 1 ]</p>
I will eat a pro speaker, and my pro mouse if a G5 comes out at Macworld. If it is available immediately, I will eat my firewire cable and dustcloth for dessert. If the G6 is announced I will perform a intimate act with JYD. I don't think we will see a G5 until MWSF '03, and anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.
<strong>I'll suck my own dick if there is a G5 at MWNY! Then when I'm done swallowing, I'll go to the nearest Apple retailer and STEAL at least one G5 for my own personal gloating. I won't use it, I'll just look at it and maybe masturbate to it a few times each day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quick, get this man some graham crackers, before it's too late!
IBM manufatures the G5, WHY? Motorola has .13 micron? I believe IBM costs more also. The G5 will also have Altivec too. Isn' t there a license restriction also?
<strong>That's because you can increase the grain of salt to a ton of salt to emphasize, while you can increase a condom by much, after about 5 it gets unlikely you could possibly do it
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
I may be nit picking, but to emphasize caution, the quantity of salt decreases, not increases.
The phrase "take that with a grain of salt" means to "take that at the same value as you would a grain of salt".
The Power4 is a huge, powerful chip. As such, it not only creates a ton of heat (puts a P4 to shame from what I hear) and costs a TON.
IBM's website shows that a pSeries 630 server (entry level Power4) starts at $12,500 for a 1 way Power4 implementation, $28,000 for a 2-way, and $50,500 for a 4-way.
Granted, these prices will come down, but I can't see anything resembling a true Power4 being put in a Mac soon (though I wish it could...)
However, IBM's semiconductor engineers are the finest in the world. The Power4 is arguable the best chip in the world right now, all things considered. So I wouldn't rule out a custom project with IBM/Apple on a new G5 with some elements on Power4 architecture, that is still way fast.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once upon a time, there was Power. It was a 6 chip set (6 chips made up the one 'processor'). Power evolved into a 3 chip set eventually.
Then, AIM formed. They took Power and mixed it with bits of existing Motorola technology to create PowerPC. The byte code was similar but PPC was a different breed. It had bits of Power in it, but not all of Power. PPC also had things that Power did not. It was more of a child of Power than an extension.
Power (and PPC) also begat a NEW Power at IBM. This is what the Power3 and Power4 are based off of. The instruction set used to code for a Power3 or a Power4 is not the same as the Old Power. It also Isn't the same as PowerPC.
To put a Power4 in a Mac, you would have rewrite, or at least severely Tweak OSX to run on it. It would require a complete re-compile with the associated re-write/debugging. It wouldn't be easy. Apple would also have to support two code bases, Power4 and PPC.
Now, about the price thing... The cost of an IBM server has very little to do with the cost of the Power4. There is soooo much more to a server than the processor.
Not only that, but you are paying for enterprise support.
You can not go by the server cost when trying to determine the processor cost. The Actual cost of the Power4 (in 1,000 or 10,000 unit batches) should be available from IBM's web site.
Power4 is expensive because it is big, but it isn't 6 or 10 times more than a G4.
What helpful tidbits. I now know more about salt than I care to. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but sometimes there's no use flogging a dead horse. I wish these insiders would stop beating around the bush, going off half-cocked. They should call a spade a spade if there's really a G5. But maybe no news is good news.
And then again, is a G4 in hand worth two G5s in a rumor? Indeed, to many people the grass on the Intel side is greener, and Intel has been making hay while the sun shines in terms of mega-hurts. But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Apple has to strike while the iron's hot! He who hesitates is lost!
Unfortunately Apple made their bed with Motorola and now they must lie in it. I don't see Motorola changing spots soon. Well, patience is a virtue. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the G5. All we can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
I, for one, remain optimistic. After all, every cloud has a silver-cathode lining. And in the end, the meekly 5% will inherit the computer world. The bigger they are, the harder they fall!
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
What helpful tidbits. I now know more about salt than I care to. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but sometimes there's no use flogging a dead horse. I wish these insiders would stop beating around the bush, going off half-cocked. They should call a spade a spade if there's really a G5. But maybe no news is good news.
And then again, is a G4 in hand worth two G5s in a rumor? Indeed, to many people the grass on the Intel side is greener, and Intel has been making hay while the sun shines in terms of mega-hurts. But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Apple has to strike while the iron's hot! He who hesitates is lost!
Unfortunately Apple made their bed with Motorola and now they must lie in it. I don't see Motorola changing spots soon. Well, patience is a virtue. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the G5. All we can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
I, for one, remain optimistic. After all, every cloud has a silver-cathode lining. And in the end, the meekly 5% will inherit the computer world. The bigger they are, the harder they fall!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can anyone tell me in what ways a hypothetical G5 is supposed to be better than a hypothetical faster clocked, faster FSB, DDR-supporting G4?
I want to see a decent leap in performance for the Power Mac line. I'm not very concerned about what nomenclature is affixed to the new technology.
Does anyone have specific knowledge of what a G5 is supposed to be such that "only" getting a much improved G4 would be disappointing by comparison?<hr></blockquote>
I think there are many people here, I being one of them, that would agree with you. I don't need a G5. I don't have a 64-bit OS with 64-bit programs to take advantage of it.
A "souped-up" G4 (well, its motherboard) would be welcomed with open arms, er... a lot of people would really like it.
The G5 is more of a mental, psychological victory for many people. I think Mac users tend to have an inferiority complex to some extent, and need something to compensate. Apple is not "doomed" if it doesn't release a G5 in a couple of weeks. Apple will be doomed if it lags behind in salient technologies as a whole.
But I don't want to put the horse in front of the cart.
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>I think there are many people here, I being one of them, that would agree with you. I don't need a G5. I don't have a 64-bit OS with 64-bit programs to take advantage of it.
A "souped-up" G4 (well, its motherboard) would be welcomed with open arms, er... a lot of people would really like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, becoming a 64-bit processor is considered a hallmark of G5-ishness?
As for a souped-up G4: From what I understand so far about the current G4 (and what know about chip architecture could fit neatly between two 0.13 micron traces) doesn't it need more than a new mobo to take full advantage (i.e., not like the Xserver) of DDR?
So, becoming a 64-bit processor is considered a hallmark of G5-ishness?
As for a souped-up G4: From what I understand so far about the current G4 (and what know about chip architecture could fit neatly between two 0.13 micron traces) doesn't it need more than a new mobo to take full advantage (i.e., not like the Xserver) of DDR?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some benchmarks clearly shows that the Xserve is far superior than the dual ghz G4 in some tasks. So the DDR Mobo of the Xserve as is utility : it's not only a marketing trick.
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but sometimes there's no use flogging a dead horse. I wish these insiders would stop beating around the bush, going off half-cocked. They should call a spade a spade if there's really a G5. But maybe no news is good news.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Impromptu CLutch-a-Caption contest
1. There's more cliches in this paragraph that the G4 has pipelines!
2. Holy Mixed Metaphors, Batman!
3. Are there times when it is some use to flog a dead horse?
Comments
<strong>
I'll eat my hat if there is a G5 at MacWorld/NYC... then shortly after I finish digesting it, I'll slap my credit card down and buy said machine.
Oh good! That will give me just enough time to get my order in first. Hmmm! I wonder if I should boost my DSL speed ahead of time?
You *will* make an iMovie of that, won't you?
<strong>I don't know why everybody expects a Turbo G4 instead of G5. G3 was released in 1997 and G4 was released in 1999. There has been more than enough time to bring the G5 into the picture. G4 has received a 7 pipelines enhancements with full speed L2, plus all new L3 cache. Apollo has been released and SOI has been added. I believe the G4 roadmap was fully implemented, only slight increment improvements will be coming in the future. As for the G5, I don't see why not. Motorola has Hip7 for over a year and G5 will be utilizing .13 process. Judging from Pro sales figure, Apple needs a new Tower.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we have more information than we let on
I'm with moki on this one--if a G5 comes in 2 weeks time I will get an Apple tattoo on my dick and have passionate sex with my new G5 at least thrice a day. Yeah it is that unlikely.
The G5 isn't nearly ready for commercial use, if my sources are correct. They will indeed be IBM sourced, but Apple has to wait until the yields are good enough to do it. Moto is out of the picture on the G5.
EDIT: Expect the G5 MWNY03
G4s this time, and probably next time too y'all. Sadly...my personal expectations/predictions for MWNY have fallen yet again (new info just keeps coming this close to MWNY), but publicly I will keep them mostly the same:
G4s up to 1.4 Ghz (though maybe only 1.2 or 1.26)
133 double-pumped bus (for DDR)
DDR SDRAM PC2100 (this is new. I'm fairly confident on it now)
AGP 8x (those who private messaged me before about graphics stuff...the technology I spoke of there will not be seen--it was either a rumor or a single prototype unit)
Firewire2 (all sources point to it as a go)
USB 2.0 (why not with FW2?)
and a new case, but of course only Ive and Steve and Phil know about this right now.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: The All Knowing 1 ]</p>
<strong>
Maybe we have more information than we let on
The G5 isn't nearly ready for commercial use, if my sources are correct. They will indeed be IBM sourced, but Apple has to wait until the yields are good enough to do it. Moto is out of the picture on the G5.
EDIT: Expect the G5 MWNY03
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
do you think that the G5 is a single core simplified version of the power4 with altivec stuff ?
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
We won't get the "real" G5 this summer.
We will get good news from IBM this fall at the Microprocessor Forum (or what ever it is called).
The "real" G5 will be next summer.
Sooner would definitely be better. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
do you think that the G5 is a single core simplified version of the power4 with altivec stuff ?
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm presently trying to accumulate all the G5 info I can, and this is one of the most often asked questions. As a PPC chip it would be *possible* to see a Power4 derivative (IIRC moki has predicted such a thing?) but I don't know how *likely* it is.
The Power4 is a huge, powerful chip. As such, it not only creates a ton of heat (puts a P4 to shame from what I hear) and costs a TON.
IBM's website shows that a pSeries 630 server (entry level Power4) starts at $12,500 for a 1 way Power4 implementation, $28,000 for a 2-way, and $50,500 for a 4-way.
Granted, these prices will come down, but I can't see anything resembling a true Power4 being put in a Mac soon (though I wish it could...)
However, IBM's semiconductor engineers are the finest in the world. The Power4 is arguable the best chip in the world right now, all things considered. So I wouldn't rule out a custom project with IBM/Apple on a new G5 with some elements on Power4 architecture, that is still way fast.
But of course, this isn't based on much.
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: The All Knowing 1 ]</p>
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:<strong>
I'll suck my own dick if there is a G5 at MWNY!
And everybody thought you were an inflexible Mac fanatic. That'll prove everyone wrong!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Long-time AI residents know he'll use ANY pretext to twist things around for his own entertainment....
<strong>I'll suck my own dick if there is a G5 at MWNY! Then when I'm done swallowing, I'll go to the nearest Apple retailer and STEAL at least one G5 for my own personal gloating. I won't use it, I'll just look at it and maybe masturbate to it a few times each day.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quick, get this man some graham crackers, before it's too late!
<strong>That's because you can increase the grain of salt to a ton of salt to emphasize, while you can increase a condom by much, after about 5 it gets unlikely you could possibly do it
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
I may be nit picking, but to emphasize caution, the quantity of salt decreases, not increases.
The phrase "take that with a grain of salt" means to "take that at the same value as you would a grain of salt".
<strong>
The phrase "take that with a grain of salt" means to "take that at the same value as you would a grain of salt".</strong><hr></blockquote>
No that is not what the phrase means.
Here is a link to one of many many sites that explain the meaning and origin of the phrase:
<a href="http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/345700.html"; target="_blank">http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/345700.html</a>;
<strong>
The Power4 is a huge, powerful chip. As such, it not only creates a ton of heat (puts a P4 to shame from what I hear) and costs a TON.
IBM's website shows that a pSeries 630 server (entry level Power4) starts at $12,500 for a 1 way Power4 implementation, $28,000 for a 2-way, and $50,500 for a 4-way.
Granted, these prices will come down, but I can't see anything resembling a true Power4 being put in a Mac soon (though I wish it could...)
However, IBM's semiconductor engineers are the finest in the world. The Power4 is arguable the best chip in the world right now, all things considered. So I wouldn't rule out a custom project with IBM/Apple on a new G5 with some elements on Power4 architecture, that is still way fast.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once upon a time, there was Power. It was a 6 chip set (6 chips made up the one 'processor'). Power evolved into a 3 chip set eventually.
Then, AIM formed. They took Power and mixed it with bits of existing Motorola technology to create PowerPC. The byte code was similar but PPC was a different breed. It had bits of Power in it, but not all of Power. PPC also had things that Power did not. It was more of a child of Power than an extension.
Power (and PPC) also begat a NEW Power at IBM. This is what the Power3 and Power4 are based off of. The instruction set used to code for a Power3 or a Power4 is not the same as the Old Power. It also Isn't the same as PowerPC.
To put a Power4 in a Mac, you would have rewrite, or at least severely Tweak OSX to run on it. It would require a complete re-compile with the associated re-write/debugging. It wouldn't be easy. Apple would also have to support two code bases, Power4 and PPC.
Now, about the price thing... The cost of an IBM server has very little to do with the cost of the Power4. There is soooo much more to a server than the processor.
Not only that, but you are paying for enterprise support.
You can not go by the server cost when trying to determine the processor cost. The Actual cost of the Power4 (in 1,000 or 10,000 unit batches) should be available from IBM's web site.
Power4 is expensive because it is big, but it isn't 6 or 10 times more than a G4.
JMHO...
Ffakr.
No that is not what the phrase means.
Here is a link to one of many many sites that explain the meaning and origin of the phrase:
<a href="http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/345700.html"; target="_blank">http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/345700.html</a><hr></blockquote>;
What helpful tidbits. I now know more about salt than I care to. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but sometimes there's no use flogging a dead horse. I wish these insiders would stop beating around the bush, going off half-cocked. They should call a spade a spade if there's really a G5. But maybe no news is good news.
And then again, is a G4 in hand worth two G5s in a rumor? Indeed, to many people the grass on the Intel side is greener, and Intel has been making hay while the sun shines in terms of mega-hurts. But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Apple has to strike while the iron's hot! He who hesitates is lost!
Unfortunately Apple made their bed with Motorola and now they must lie in it. I don't see Motorola changing spots soon. Well, patience is a virtue. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the G5. All we can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
I, for one, remain optimistic. After all, every cloud has a silver-cathode lining. And in the end, the meekly 5% will inherit the computer world. The bigger they are, the harder they fall!
<strong>
What helpful tidbits. I now know more about salt than I care to. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but sometimes there's no use flogging a dead horse. I wish these insiders would stop beating around the bush, going off half-cocked. They should call a spade a spade if there's really a G5. But maybe no news is good news.
And then again, is a G4 in hand worth two G5s in a rumor? Indeed, to many people the grass on the Intel side is greener, and Intel has been making hay while the sun shines in terms of mega-hurts. But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Apple has to strike while the iron's hot! He who hesitates is lost!
Unfortunately Apple made their bed with Motorola and now they must lie in it. I don't see Motorola changing spots soon. Well, patience is a virtue. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was the G5. All we can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
I, for one, remain optimistic. After all, every cloud has a silver-cathode lining. And in the end, the meekly 5% will inherit the computer world. The bigger they are, the harder they fall!</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL
I want to see a decent leap in performance for the Power Mac line. I'm not very concerned about what nomenclature is affixed to the new technology.
Does anyone have specific knowledge of what a G5 is supposed to be such that "only" getting a much improved G4 would be disappointing by comparison?
Can anyone tell me in what ways a hypothetical G5 is supposed to be better than a hypothetical faster clocked, faster FSB, DDR-supporting G4?
I want to see a decent leap in performance for the Power Mac line. I'm not very concerned about what nomenclature is affixed to the new technology.
Does anyone have specific knowledge of what a G5 is supposed to be such that "only" getting a much improved G4 would be disappointing by comparison?<hr></blockquote>
I think there are many people here, I being one of them, that would agree with you. I don't need a G5. I don't have a 64-bit OS with 64-bit programs to take advantage of it.
A "souped-up" G4 (well, its motherboard) would be welcomed with open arms, er... a lot of people would really like it.
The G5 is more of a mental, psychological victory for many people. I think Mac users tend to have an inferiority complex to some extent, and need something to compensate. Apple is not "doomed" if it doesn't release a G5 in a couple of weeks. Apple will be doomed if it lags behind in salient technologies as a whole.
But I don't want to put the horse in front of the cart.
<strong>I think there are many people here, I being one of them, that would agree with you. I don't need a G5. I don't have a 64-bit OS with 64-bit programs to take advantage of it.
A "souped-up" G4 (well, its motherboard) would be welcomed with open arms, er... a lot of people would really like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, becoming a 64-bit processor is considered a hallmark of G5-ishness?
As for a souped-up G4: From what I understand so far about the current G4 (and what know about chip architecture could fit neatly between two 0.13 micron traces) doesn't it need more than a new mobo to take full advantage (i.e., not like the Xserver) of DDR?
<strong>
So, becoming a 64-bit processor is considered a hallmark of G5-ishness?
As for a souped-up G4: From what I understand so far about the current G4 (and what know about chip architecture could fit neatly between two 0.13 micron traces) doesn't it need more than a new mobo to take full advantage (i.e., not like the Xserver) of DDR?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some benchmarks clearly shows that the Xserve is far superior than the dual ghz G4 in some tasks. So the DDR Mobo of the Xserve as is utility : it's not only a marketing trick.
Here is the link : <a href="http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html</a>;
[ 07-02-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but sometimes there's no use flogging a dead horse. I wish these insiders would stop beating around the bush, going off half-cocked. They should call a spade a spade if there's really a G5. But maybe no news is good news.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Impromptu CLutch-a-Caption contest
1. There's more cliches in this paragraph that the G4 has pipelines!
2. Holy Mixed Metaphors, Batman!
3. Are there times when it is some use to flog a dead horse?