Just to make a couple of guesses (that will probably be disproved in time).....
We'll see in October, but I would suspect that the new POWER derived CPU is pretty far along. I seem to recall reading that the POWER5 is due out in early-mid 2004, with a "workstation/low-end server version due in Sept of that year (this part from The Register, so read it as you like)". If that's the case, is it likely that IBM would want the POWER4 desktop chip to market for less than a year before releasing "the next big thing"? Doesn't make much financial sense does it?
My guess is that we'll see a new workstation line of Macs in spring, with a new CPU, priced starting at the current high-end (or a bit higher).....with some minor price drops on PowerMac to bring it into the "mid-range" (maybe drops on consumer, as well).....then a trickle-down of the CPU (and other tech) into the lower levels a year later (or so) when the POWER5 becomes available.
Then we would have the upper consumer (with current G4 at slightly lower cost) priced the same as the lowest tower (with G4++ - 7470? 7500?), upper tower priced the same as lowest workstation (with POWER4 derivative). Then bumped to consumer -> G4++, tower -> POWER4 desktop, workstation -> POWER5 desktop, as available.
Kinda makes sense, doesn't it? Especially when you factor in the fact that it usually seems to take Apple 'bout 9 months to get to market with new software tech they've bought (was the case with the DVD soft and FinalCut, and a few others).
This would keep Moto AND IBM happy for a couple more years as well.....gotta love "options", huh?
<strong>Just to make a couple of guesses (that will probably be disproved in time).....
We'll see in October, but I would suspect that the new POWER derived CPU is pretty far along. I seem to recall reading that the POWER5 is due out in early-mid 2004, with a "workstation/low-end server version due in Sept of that year (this part from The Register, so read it as you like)". If that's the case, is it likely that IBM would want the POWER4 desktop chip to market for less than a year before releasing "the next big thing"? Doesn't make much financial sense does it?
My guess is that we'll see a new workstation line of Macs in spring, with a new CPU, priced starting at the current high-end (or a bit higher).....with some minor price drops on PowerMac to bring it into the "mid-range" (maybe drops on consumer, as well).....then a trickle-down of the CPU (and other tech) into the lower levels a year later (or so) when the POWER5 becomes available.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what most of the rumors say (and from what common sense says), it seems clear that Apple is never going to ship a PPC chip without Altivec. So, if the Power5 does not have altivec, then there isn't going to be an Apple machine that uses the Power5.
There is NO reason why every cpu on a Power4/5 would need its own Altivec silicon. There is no way to feed that many altivec units with data. This solution is useless for a high end server.
The Power4 CPU is meant for servers where there are many many threads and they all need data. This is a great design for what it is used for, because server apps usually deal with loads of threads that aren't incredibly hungry for data, but it isn't a great design for a desktop Mac. I think that IBM's new chip will inherit alot of the Power4 design, but that it will be aimed at the desktop power user who wants Altivec.
Anyhow, this is all just conjecture until October. In my dreams, we would get a smaller die Power4 with a standard bus and an altivec unit shared amongst the processors. (I can dream, can't I?)
From what most of the rumors say (and from what common sense says), it seems clear that Apple is never going to ship a PPC chip without Altivec. So, if the Power5 does not have altivec, then there isn't going to be an Apple machine that uses the Power5.
There is NO reason why every cpu on a Power4/5 would need its own Altivec silicon. There is no way to feed that many altivec units with data. This solution is useless for a high end server.
The Power4 CPU is meant for servers where there are many many threads and they all need data. This is a great design for what it is used for, because server apps usually deal with loads of threads that aren't incredibly hungry for data, but it isn't a great design for a desktop Mac. I think that IBM's new chip will inherit alot of the Power4 design, but that it will be aimed at the desktop power user who wants Altivec.
Anyhow, this is all just conjecture until October. In my dreams, we would get a smaller die Power4 with a standard bus and an altivec unit shared amongst the processors. (I can dream, can't I?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. That's why I made a point of stating "POWER4 derived" and "POWER5 desktop". Your dream is mine as well....as, after years away, I'm contemplating getting back into the film/video industry again, and I'd like to be doing that on Mac, if possible (as opposed to the old manual editing boards I was trained on....yeah, THAT long ago).
Something to chew on tho'....I'm finding Programmers suggestion of IBM licensing OSX for the low-end server/workstation market more and more intriguing. Then there would be a use for AltiVec (Velocity Engine, VMX, whatever) in their markets.
"They specifically said "MPX is the way it is because that's the way the embedded system designers like it. It is a shared bus and will stay that way, and that means no DDR." Consider us lucky to get the 166 MHz version."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume you mean this only for the MPC74XX series. I don't ever expect the MPC74XX series to have anything other than the MPX bus, ever.
Question is,"Was?/is?/will? ... Motorola be working on a desktop version of the MPC85XX or the mythical MPC 75XX?? for Apple. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
And if I were a betting man, I'd bet that we will not see any improvement in the Powermac line throughout the rest of this fiscal quarter, based on Apple's statement regarding flat earnings and sales for the quarter. They would not make this statement lightly.
Hopefully, mercifly, this will be the last stealth update. But don't count on it.
Motorola is entrenching, laying off and will be concentrating on embedded processors. Only if Apple ponies up with big bucks for developement, will a real desktop cpu from Motorola appear in an Apple computer. Motorola has basically said this repeatedly in reference to the modular design of the MPC85XX series they are implementing(re: you want a special processor, we'll do it and add it to our available structure, but you develop the parts you desire.)
Checking Apple's most recent financial statement I could not find any indication that Apple is ponying up. Maybe some one else can glean a bit of insight where I failed.
Motorola should have the G4s on a .13 fab by Spring '03, and that should bump clock speeds. Hopefully they'll design the chip to sit on a true DDR mobo, which should also help a lot.
If Moto does this, then it means that Apple isn't going to ship an IBM chip anytine soon. Not that I would mind Moto doing this... but I can't see them caring very much for Apple. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I don't see Apple releasing two desktop motherboards next year (it might happen, but it isn't very cost effective. In the old days, Apple did this, but the practice was discouraged under Amelio).</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure if you're saying moto won't improve the G4 or you're saying that Apple won't improve the mobo of its non-PowerMac machines.
I don't think Apple's possible usage of the Power4 desktop means Moto will cease improvements of the G4. And Motorola has said that there's a lot of life left in the G4 - I take that to mean steady improvement of the kind we saw today for the next year.
And if Apple uses a Power4 variant next year, they'll have to do something with all the non-PowerMac machines. They're certainly not putting a Power4 into an iBook in 2003. Nor in an iMac or PowerBook or eMac. So they'll want to keep improving those machines.
If you're just referring to the DDR mobo, then maybe you're right, and we just won't see that in the consumer machines and laptops next year - we'll have 166 busses with DDR RAM, xserve-style, in the iMacs/PowerBooks/eMacs. But I think the move to .13 G4s next year is a certainty, 7470s or whatever they're called.
<strong>I'm not sure if you're saying moto won't improve the G4 or you're saying that Apple won't improve the mobo of its non-PowerMac machines.
I don't think Apple's possible usage of the Power4 desktop means Moto will cease improvements of the G4. And Motorola has said that there's a lot of life left in the G4 - I take that to mean steady improvement of the kind we saw today for the next year.
And if Apple uses a Power4 variant next year, they'll have to do something with all the non-PowerMac machines. They're certainly not putting a Power4 into an iBook in 2003. Nor in an iMac or PowerBook or eMac. So they'll want to keep improving those machines.
If you're just referring to the DDR mobo, then maybe you're right, and we just won't see that in the consumer machines and laptops next year - we'll have 166 busses with DDR RAM, xserve-style, in the iMacs/PowerBooks/eMacs. But I think the move to .13 G4s next year is a certainty, 7470s or whatever they're called.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to the motherboard. I would guess that we will have a 166MHz mpx bus for as long as we will have G4's. I would say that if the new PPC chip from IBM is coming out next year, that there is zero chance of Moto making a nee G4 with a new bus.
The powerbook argument is a good argument- I was thinking primarialy of desktop machines. I don't know if the iBook will ever use a G4 as this is one of the things that differentiates it from the TiBook. So...
Would Moto redesign the G4 for a faster bus:
If the only consumer who was interested was Apple?
If Apple was going to move its desktops over to a new non Moto CPU and bus?
If the only remaining consumer for DDR G4's would be high end powerbooks and eMac's and iMac's?
If all the above machines could get along with mpx because they aren't pro machines? (no offense to TiBook users here)
My guess is that no, moto would not redesign the G4. They don't seem to be too accomodating. This would mean mpx for everything but Pro machines for all of next year.
Mind you, if IBM's chip is due out in two years, then it might happen that moto could grow a heart and do some design work for Apple.
All of the above is my own specualtion on the basis of zero insider knowledge (in contrast to all of my other posts which were told to me directly by Steve Jobs and should be granted the status of "revelations form the great, wise, powerful, and benevolent oracle").
If Moto does this, then it means that Apple isn't going to ship an IBM chip anytine soon. Not that I would mind Moto doing this... but I can't see them caring very much for Apple. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I don't see Apple releasing two desktop motherboards next year (it might happen, but it isn't very cost effective. In the old days, Apple did this, but the practice was discouraged under Amelio).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're forgetting that the G4 will die a slow, painful death in Apple's consumer products and maybe laptops. The POWER 5 isn't going to be announced and suddenly every single mac is running a Power 5, it doesn't work that way with Apple.
Expect it to take several years for the "Power 5" to trickle down through Apple's entire lineup. Forget about a $999 POWER 5 eMac, it's not happening.
As for why Moto isn't doing more with the G4, I think sometimes people forget that it's not an easy thing to fab CPUs. .13 µm, 130 nm, is FSCKING SMALL! It's on a molecular scale, smaller than individual cells in your body. Without great expertise and experience, nobody is going to fab a good CPU. Moto just doesn't have what it takes...certainly they could design a good CPU, but they can't fab one. I've heard the rumors about Moto's fabs (cleanrooms) being nasty-ass dirty, incompetent management at the fabs, on and on and on. We should actually be AMAZED that Moto can supply the current G4!
As far as the Power 5, this chip sounds like it's virtually done. One year AT MOST seems like a good time table for Powermacs to be updated. This isn't Moto, this is IBM, and when IBM is committed to something, it gets done. This isn't even an entirely new chip, it's derived from the Power 4, which IBM has been fabbing for what, about a year already? That means they've got experience and moving it into production will be relatively smooth and uneventful (as much as it can be for anything so complex).
You're forgetting that the G4 will die a slow, painful death in Apple's consumer products and maybe laptops. The POWER 5 isn't going to be announced and suddenly every single mac is running a Power 5, it doesn't work that way with Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, we agree. I am predicting a slow, painful, miserable death for the G4 in everything but the pro desktops. I wish it weren't true, and it would ne nice to be wrong, but this is what I think will happen if Apple is shipping an IBM chip within one year.
Probably, the death would be most painful in the TiBook where users do want some power, but would be stuck with a mpx bus.
Heh, maybe the G4 will live out it's last days in the iBook. Wouldn't that be great? All Apple's other hardware is running at 2-3 GHz and octa-pumped system busses, and there's the sorry-ass iBook, running at 1.5 GHz on a 166 MHz single-pumped bus with everyone pissing and moaning about it.
Motorola is really the butt of the high tech world. The ass end. It's where the solid wastes are excreted.
<strong>Heh, maybe the G4 will live out it's last days in the iBook. Wouldn't that be great? All Apple's other hardware is running at 2-3 GHz and octa-pumped system busses, and there's the sorry-ass iBook, running at 1.5 GHz on a 166 MHz single-pumped bus with everyone pissing and moaning about it.
Motorola is really the butt of the high tech world. The ass end. It's where the solid wastes are excreted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If in a year and a half, if the ibook is the only machine with a 1.66 GHz G4 on a 166MHz bus, then it isn't the worst thing in the world. The real question would be if such an iBook costs $999. I am more worried about the TiBook and the iMac.
Yes, Moto is the laughingstock of the desktop chip market. It is a shame- the G4 is a good chip with a cheap FSB.
It must be a technical and financial consideration. Would Moto actually come out and say, "Well yes, our customers would like faster FSB but as long as we can milk them we're not going to spend the money to fix the problem?" I say this not only because I've had enough of the AIM spin doctoring shenanagins (sp?) but also because I recal reading that DDR is actually less hungry than SDR (besides being faster). I don't see how other embedded customers wouldn't also want this. The our customers don't need DDR line is pure bull. Highend communications needs big throughput numbers just as badly as desktop computers.
Everything done to the G4 has been incremental with the exception of the deeper (7 stage) pipe. SOI? Yes a nice improvement, but they seem to have implemented it as much to stave off a process shrink, as to gain a little speed and efficiency.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that Moto wants to put DDR FSB's on the G4 and that MANY of their customers (not just Apple) want it too. However, there must have been problems such that Moto missed opportunities to role this change in with other changes (the deeper pipe, or the SOI fab) Maybe they just want to save some dosh by doing a few things at once, perhaps a .13u process, a longer pipe, higher clock, bigger L2, and faster FSB all in one shot. Basically, a process shrink and some design changes all at once.
Then again, I don't know much about this. Maybe the G5 is a better embedded product than the G4 (I've read that it isn't much faster for [int] of [fp] )
Whatever else happens I simply don't understand the lack of a die shrink, it's the one thing that jives with both computer and embedded needs. It could simply mean that Moto is suffering a severe case of recto-cranial inversion, and I'm babeling fruitlessly in an attempt to rationalize it.
<strong>It must be a technical and financial consideration. Would Moto actually come out and say, "Well yes, our customers would like faster FSB but as long as we can milk them we're not going to spend the money to fix the problem?" I say this not only because I've had enough of the AIM spin doctoring shenanagins (sp?) but also because I recal reading that DDR is actually less hungry than SDR (besides being faster). I don't see how other embedded customers wouldn't also want this. The our customers don't need DDR line is pure bull. Highend communications needs big throughput numbers just as badly as desktop computers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would Moto take this long to redesign the G4 for a bus that has been out for some time? Maybe. If Apple is going to make a motherboard for a new Moto chip, then the XServe and the current desktops are amazing stopgap measures and anyone who buys one of the new desktops is going to be pretty angry in a few months. I don't think that this is the case- the current mobo is here for something like a year.
Apple has certainly had to come up with motherboards on relatively short notice (remember "Yikes!" ?), but unless Apple and moto have had something in development for a while, it isn't going to get out anytime soon.
Now I'm really looking forward to October and what IBM has to say then. If they have already obtained first silicon, then they are definitely on the fast track.
Certainly, and I think the case will be with us for a couple of years too (as it should) but it's very possible that a new chip will run on this motherboard when such a beast is ready. Would would it really take to make minor MoBo changes like 8X AGP, 4GB RAM, or PCI-X, or faster firewire/usb ??? Nothing more than a few minor trace re-adjustments, ROM flashing, and a new control chip/transistor here or there. I'm sure Apple re-arranged the guts with an eye on the future of all the I/O and not just the CPU's.
Two things point to something bigger sooner rather than later, I think:
1. We just had the biggest change to the G4 tower EVER (new case, new CPUs, all dual, misc. features like dual optical bays, and new motherboard with DDR). And yet Apple didn't even have a press event for it, much less show it at MacWorld. Why so low-key? Because they know that it's still not our dream come true, and instead of hyping it so much, they are holding back their hype to make something LATER hit harder.
2. Chrome logos on the Cinema HD 23 display. This suggests that the white-and-chrome look is the future for all Macs. (Well, PowerBooks have always had their own unique look.) Rather than making an altered 23" later with chrome, they just did it to start with. (But they used silver paint--easy to change to white later.) But regardless of silver vs. white, the new Macs today DON'T have a chrome logo, even though it would match the newest display AND the front CD panel. I think the new mobo needed the new case, but Apple is intentionally keeping it as close to the old as possible. Then, they can go white-and-chrome with it for maximum visible change in a new Power Mac to come.
3. We didn't see new mice. Another thing Apple can hold for MWSF or whenever the next PowerMacs may come. Likewise with Bluetooth and more display options.
So why have a new mobo and case at all now? Well, it clearly IS better and faster, and Apple needs to sell Macs even if the "big" thing is yet to come. And I'm guessing the new design is intended to be ready for the next big processor change WITHOUT another major mobo or case change. Which means... Apple need not wait a full year if these new CPUs are ready sooner!
Superfast IBM CPUs by spring seems very likely to me, along the a white-and-chrome makeover, Bluetooth, new mice, and new displays. Even January does not sound impossible.
As for Apple and their decision to forgo AGP-8x and USB-2, Wired has an iinterview with Marc Andressen in its current issue, and one of the exchanges was pretty interesting:
You started Netscape, which was swallowed up by AOL. Then Loudcloud, which is almost disappearing. What have you learned?
Half the job of an entrepreneur is telling the market what it wants. The other half is listening to what it wants. Nobody ever asked for a Mac or a Web browser. Once you do the product, then you have to listen. The market told Microsoft we don?t want tools, we want an operating system. It told Intel we don?t want memory chips, we want a microprocessor. When changes in the environment have been as cataclysmic as they have for the past three years, you have to adapt.
Anyone care to comment on whether Apple will simply put a single, higher-clock-speed G5 in this PowerMac, when the G5 is in full production? Â*And it could be soon. Apple may have designed this box to be ready for a G5. Â*In the mean time, Apple has to use the best Motorola can come up with, no? Â*A single G5 will likely cost no more than two G4s. Â*Those leaked pictures were right on, the real thing. Â*But they only had a single PPC processor, at a 45 degree angle. Â*That was likely a test box with an IBM G5 in it. Comments?
<strong>Anyone care to comment on whether Apple will simply put a single, higher-clock-speed G5 in this PowerMac, when the G5 is in full production? Â*And it could be soon. Apple may have designed this box to be ready for a G5. Â*In the mean time, Apple has to use the best Motorola can come up with, no? Â*A single G5 will likely cost no more than two G4s. Â*Those leaked pictures were right on, the real thing. Â*But they only had a single PPC processor, at a 45 degree angle. Â*That was likely a test box with an IBM G5 in it. Comments?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they can get a dual core processor from IBM, then Apple will probably release single processor models (2 chips in one). If they are single core, then they would take another PR hit, and possibly a loss of developer confidence in MP's if they move back to single chips again.
<strong>Heh, maybe the G4 will live out it's last days in the iBook. Wouldn't that be great? All Apple's other hardware is running at 2-3 GHz and octa-pumped system busses, and there's the sorry-ass iBook, running at 1.5 GHz on a 166 MHz single-pumped bus with everyone pissing and moaning about it.
Motorola is really the butt of the high tech world. The ass end. It's where the solid wastes are excreted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
We'll see in October, but I would suspect that the new POWER derived CPU is pretty far along. I seem to recall reading that the POWER5 is due out in early-mid 2004, with a "workstation/low-end server version due in Sept of that year (this part from The Register, so read it as you like)". If that's the case, is it likely that IBM would want the POWER4 desktop chip to market for less than a year before releasing "the next big thing"? Doesn't make much financial sense does it?
My guess is that we'll see a new workstation line of Macs in spring, with a new CPU, priced starting at the current high-end (or a bit higher).....with some minor price drops on PowerMac to bring it into the "mid-range" (maybe drops on consumer, as well).....then a trickle-down of the CPU (and other tech) into the lower levels a year later (or so) when the POWER5 becomes available.
Then we would have the upper consumer (with current G4 at slightly lower cost) priced the same as the lowest tower (with G4++ - 7470? 7500?), upper tower priced the same as lowest workstation (with POWER4 derivative). Then bumped to consumer -> G4++, tower -> POWER4 desktop, workstation -> POWER5 desktop, as available.
Kinda makes sense, doesn't it? Especially when you factor in the fact that it usually seems to take Apple 'bout 9 months to get to market with new software tech they've bought (was the case with the DVD soft and FinalCut, and a few others).
This would keep Moto AND IBM happy for a couple more years as well.....gotta love "options", huh?
Just some thoughts.
<strong>Just to make a couple of guesses (that will probably be disproved in time).....
We'll see in October, but I would suspect that the new POWER derived CPU is pretty far along. I seem to recall reading that the POWER5 is due out in early-mid 2004, with a "workstation/low-end server version due in Sept of that year (this part from The Register, so read it as you like)". If that's the case, is it likely that IBM would want the POWER4 desktop chip to market for less than a year before releasing "the next big thing"? Doesn't make much financial sense does it?
My guess is that we'll see a new workstation line of Macs in spring, with a new CPU, priced starting at the current high-end (or a bit higher).....with some minor price drops on PowerMac to bring it into the "mid-range" (maybe drops on consumer, as well).....then a trickle-down of the CPU (and other tech) into the lower levels a year later (or so) when the POWER5 becomes available.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what most of the rumors say (and from what common sense says), it seems clear that Apple is never going to ship a PPC chip without Altivec. So, if the Power5 does not have altivec, then there isn't going to be an Apple machine that uses the Power5.
There is NO reason why every cpu on a Power4/5 would need its own Altivec silicon. There is no way to feed that many altivec units with data. This solution is useless for a high end server.
The Power4 CPU is meant for servers where there are many many threads and they all need data. This is a great design for what it is used for, because server apps usually deal with loads of threads that aren't incredibly hungry for data, but it isn't a great design for a desktop Mac. I think that IBM's new chip will inherit alot of the Power4 design, but that it will be aimed at the desktop power user who wants Altivec.
Anyhow, this is all just conjecture until October. In my dreams, we would get a smaller die Power4 with a standard bus and an altivec unit shared amongst the processors. (I can dream, can't I?)
<strong>But enough of this nonesense, I'm off to the store to buy myself a new Mac...</strong><hr></blockquote>
While you're at it - buy me one, too!
<strong>
From what most of the rumors say (and from what common sense says), it seems clear that Apple is never going to ship a PPC chip without Altivec. So, if the Power5 does not have altivec, then there isn't going to be an Apple machine that uses the Power5.
There is NO reason why every cpu on a Power4/5 would need its own Altivec silicon. There is no way to feed that many altivec units with data. This solution is useless for a high end server.
The Power4 CPU is meant for servers where there are many many threads and they all need data. This is a great design for what it is used for, because server apps usually deal with loads of threads that aren't incredibly hungry for data, but it isn't a great design for a desktop Mac. I think that IBM's new chip will inherit alot of the Power4 design, but that it will be aimed at the desktop power user who wants Altivec.
Anyhow, this is all just conjecture until October. In my dreams, we would get a smaller die Power4 with a standard bus and an altivec unit shared amongst the processors. (I can dream, can't I?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. That's why I made a point of stating "POWER4 derived" and "POWER5 desktop". Your dream is mine as well....as, after years away, I'm contemplating getting back into the film/video industry again, and I'd like to be doing that on Mac, if possible (as opposed to the old manual editing boards I was trained on....yeah, THAT long ago).
Something to chew on tho'....I'm finding Programmers suggestion of IBM licensing OSX for the low-end server/workstation market more and more intriguing. Then there would be a use for AltiVec (Velocity Engine, VMX, whatever) in their markets.
<strong>
"They specifically said "MPX is the way it is because that's the way the embedded system designers like it. It is a shared bus and will stay that way, and that means no DDR." Consider us lucky to get the 166 MHz version."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I assume you mean this only for the MPC74XX series. I don't ever expect the MPC74XX series to have anything other than the MPX bus, ever.
Question is,"Was?/is?/will? ... Motorola be working on a desktop version of the MPC85XX or the mythical MPC 75XX?? for Apple. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
And if I were a betting man, I'd bet that we will not see any improvement in the Powermac line throughout the rest of this fiscal quarter, based on Apple's statement regarding flat earnings and sales for the quarter. They would not make this statement lightly.
Hopefully, mercifly, this will be the last stealth update. But don't count on it.
Motorola is entrenching, laying off and will be concentrating on embedded processors. Only if Apple ponies up with big bucks for developement, will a real desktop cpu from Motorola appear in an Apple computer. Motorola has basically said this repeatedly in reference to the modular design of the MPC85XX series they are implementing(re: you want a special processor, we'll do it and add it to our available structure, but you develop the parts you desire.)
Checking Apple's most recent financial statement I could not find any indication that Apple is ponying up. Maybe some one else can glean a bit of insight where I failed.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BRussell:
Motorola should have the G4s on a .13 fab by Spring '03, and that should bump clock speeds. Hopefully they'll design the chip to sit on a true DDR mobo, which should also help a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Moto does this, then it means that Apple isn't going to ship an IBM chip anytine soon. Not that I would mind Moto doing this... but I can't see them caring very much for Apple. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I don't see Apple releasing two desktop motherboards next year (it might happen, but it isn't very cost effective. In the old days, Apple did this, but the practice was discouraged under Amelio).</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not sure if you're saying moto won't improve the G4 or you're saying that Apple won't improve the mobo of its non-PowerMac machines.
I don't think Apple's possible usage of the Power4 desktop means Moto will cease improvements of the G4. And Motorola has said that there's a lot of life left in the G4 - I take that to mean steady improvement of the kind we saw today for the next year.
And if Apple uses a Power4 variant next year, they'll have to do something with all the non-PowerMac machines. They're certainly not putting a Power4 into an iBook in 2003. Nor in an iMac or PowerBook or eMac. So they'll want to keep improving those machines.
If you're just referring to the DDR mobo, then maybe you're right, and we just won't see that in the consumer machines and laptops next year - we'll have 166 busses with DDR RAM, xserve-style, in the iMacs/PowerBooks/eMacs. But I think the move to .13 G4s next year is a certainty, 7470s or whatever they're called.
<strong>I'm not sure if you're saying moto won't improve the G4 or you're saying that Apple won't improve the mobo of its non-PowerMac machines.
I don't think Apple's possible usage of the Power4 desktop means Moto will cease improvements of the G4. And Motorola has said that there's a lot of life left in the G4 - I take that to mean steady improvement of the kind we saw today for the next year.
And if Apple uses a Power4 variant next year, they'll have to do something with all the non-PowerMac machines. They're certainly not putting a Power4 into an iBook in 2003. Nor in an iMac or PowerBook or eMac. So they'll want to keep improving those machines.
If you're just referring to the DDR mobo, then maybe you're right, and we just won't see that in the consumer machines and laptops next year - we'll have 166 busses with DDR RAM, xserve-style, in the iMacs/PowerBooks/eMacs. But I think the move to .13 G4s next year is a certainty, 7470s or whatever they're called.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was referring to the motherboard. I would guess that we will have a 166MHz mpx bus for as long as we will have G4's. I would say that if the new PPC chip from IBM is coming out next year, that there is zero chance of Moto making a nee G4 with a new bus.
The powerbook argument is a good argument- I was thinking primarialy of desktop machines. I don't know if the iBook will ever use a G4 as this is one of the things that differentiates it from the TiBook. So...
Would Moto redesign the G4 for a faster bus:
If the only consumer who was interested was Apple?
If Apple was going to move its desktops over to a new non Moto CPU and bus?
If the only remaining consumer for DDR G4's would be high end powerbooks and eMac's and iMac's?
If all the above machines could get along with mpx because they aren't pro machines? (no offense to TiBook users here)
My guess is that no, moto would not redesign the G4. They don't seem to be too accomodating. This would mean mpx for everything but Pro machines for all of next year.
Mind you, if IBM's chip is due out in two years, then it might happen that moto could grow a heart and do some design work for Apple.
All of the above is my own specualtion on the basis of zero insider knowledge (in contrast to all of my other posts which were told to me directly by Steve Jobs and should be granted the status of "revelations form the great, wise, powerful, and benevolent oracle").
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Yevgeny ]</p>
<strong>
If Moto does this, then it means that Apple isn't going to ship an IBM chip anytine soon. Not that I would mind Moto doing this... but I can't see them caring very much for Apple. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I don't see Apple releasing two desktop motherboards next year (it might happen, but it isn't very cost effective. In the old days, Apple did this, but the practice was discouraged under Amelio).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're forgetting that the G4 will die a slow, painful death in Apple's consumer products and maybe laptops. The POWER 5 isn't going to be announced and suddenly every single mac is running a Power 5, it doesn't work that way with Apple.
Expect it to take several years for the "Power 5" to trickle down through Apple's entire lineup. Forget about a $999 POWER 5 eMac, it's not happening.
As for why Moto isn't doing more with the G4, I think sometimes people forget that it's not an easy thing to fab CPUs. .13 µm, 130 nm, is FSCKING SMALL! It's on a molecular scale, smaller than individual cells in your body. Without great expertise and experience, nobody is going to fab a good CPU. Moto just doesn't have what it takes...certainly they could design a good CPU, but they can't fab one. I've heard the rumors about Moto's fabs (cleanrooms) being nasty-ass dirty, incompetent management at the fabs, on and on and on. We should actually be AMAZED that Moto can supply the current G4!
As far as the Power 5, this chip sounds like it's virtually done. One year AT MOST seems like a good time table for Powermacs to be updated. This isn't Moto, this is IBM, and when IBM is committed to something, it gets done. This isn't even an entirely new chip, it's derived from the Power 4, which IBM has been fabbing for what, about a year already? That means they've got experience and moving it into production will be relatively smooth and uneventful (as much as it can be for anything so complex).
<strong>
You're forgetting that the G4 will die a slow, painful death in Apple's consumer products and maybe laptops. The POWER 5 isn't going to be announced and suddenly every single mac is running a Power 5, it doesn't work that way with Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, we agree. I am predicting a slow, painful, miserable death for the G4 in everything but the pro desktops. I wish it weren't true, and it would ne nice to be wrong, but this is what I think will happen if Apple is shipping an IBM chip within one year.
Probably, the death would be most painful in the TiBook where users do want some power, but would be stuck with a mpx bus.
Motorola is really the butt of the high tech world. The ass end. It's where the solid wastes are excreted.
<strong>Heh, maybe the G4 will live out it's last days in the iBook. Wouldn't that be great? All Apple's other hardware is running at 2-3 GHz and octa-pumped system busses, and there's the sorry-ass iBook, running at 1.5 GHz on a 166 MHz single-pumped bus with everyone pissing and moaning about it.
Motorola is really the butt of the high tech world. The ass end. It's where the solid wastes are excreted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If in a year and a half, if the ibook is the only machine with a 1.66 GHz G4 on a 166MHz bus, then it isn't the worst thing in the world. The real question would be if such an iBook costs $999. I am more worried about the TiBook and the iMac.
Yes, Moto is the laughingstock of the desktop chip market. It is a shame- the G4 is a good chip with a cheap FSB.
Everything done to the G4 has been incremental with the exception of the deeper (7 stage) pipe. SOI? Yes a nice improvement, but they seem to have implemented it as much to stave off a process shrink, as to gain a little speed and efficiency.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that Moto wants to put DDR FSB's on the G4 and that MANY of their customers (not just Apple) want it too. However, there must have been problems such that Moto missed opportunities to role this change in with other changes (the deeper pipe, or the SOI fab) Maybe they just want to save some dosh by doing a few things at once, perhaps a .13u process, a longer pipe, higher clock, bigger L2, and faster FSB all in one shot. Basically, a process shrink and some design changes all at once.
Then again, I don't know much about this. Maybe the G5 is a better embedded product than the G4 (I've read that it isn't much faster for [int] of [fp] )
Whatever else happens I simply don't understand the lack of a die shrink, it's the one thing that jives with both computer and embedded needs. It could simply mean that Moto is suffering a severe case of recto-cranial inversion, and I'm babeling fruitlessly in an attempt to rationalize it.
Sorry.
<strong>It must be a technical and financial consideration. Would Moto actually come out and say, "Well yes, our customers would like faster FSB but as long as we can milk them we're not going to spend the money to fix the problem?" I say this not only because I've had enough of the AIM spin doctoring shenanagins (sp?) but also because I recal reading that DDR is actually less hungry than SDR (besides being faster). I don't see how other embedded customers wouldn't also want this. The our customers don't need DDR line is pure bull. Highend communications needs big throughput numbers just as badly as desktop computers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Would Moto take this long to redesign the G4 for a bus that has been out for some time? Maybe. If Apple is going to make a motherboard for a new Moto chip, then the XServe and the current desktops are amazing stopgap measures and anyone who buys one of the new desktops is going to be pretty angry in a few months. I don't think that this is the case- the current mobo is here for something like a year.
Apple has certainly had to come up with motherboards on relatively short notice (remember "Yikes!" ?), but unless Apple and moto have had something in development for a while, it isn't going to get out anytime soon.
Now I'm really looking forward to October and what IBM has to say then. If they have already obtained first silicon, then they are definitely on the fast track.
1. We just had the biggest change to the G4 tower EVER (new case, new CPUs, all dual, misc. features like dual optical bays, and new motherboard with DDR). And yet Apple didn't even have a press event for it, much less show it at MacWorld. Why so low-key? Because they know that it's still not our dream come true, and instead of hyping it so much, they are holding back their hype to make something LATER hit harder.
2. Chrome logos on the Cinema HD 23 display. This suggests that the white-and-chrome look is the future for all Macs. (Well, PowerBooks have always had their own unique look.) Rather than making an altered 23" later with chrome, they just did it to start with. (But they used silver paint--easy to change to white later.) But regardless of silver vs. white, the new Macs today DON'T have a chrome logo, even though it would match the newest display AND the front CD panel. I think the new mobo needed the new case, but Apple is intentionally keeping it as close to the old as possible. Then, they can go white-and-chrome with it for maximum visible change in a new Power Mac to come.
3. We didn't see new mice. Another thing Apple can hold for MWSF or whenever the next PowerMacs may come. Likewise with Bluetooth and more display options.
So why have a new mobo and case at all now? Well, it clearly IS better and faster, and Apple needs to sell Macs even if the "big" thing is yet to come. And I'm guessing the new design is intended to be ready for the next big processor change WITHOUT another major mobo or case change. Which means... Apple need not wait a full year if these new CPUs are ready sooner!
Superfast IBM CPUs by spring seems very likely to me, along the a white-and-chrome makeover, Bluetooth, new mice, and new displays. Even January does not sound impossible.
You started Netscape, which was swallowed up by AOL. Then Loudcloud, which is almost disappearing. What have you learned?
Half the job of an entrepreneur is telling the market what it wants. The other half is listening to what it wants. Nobody ever asked for a Mac or a Web browser. Once you do the product, then you have to listen. The market told Microsoft we don?t want tools, we want an operating system. It told Intel we don?t want memory chips, we want a microprocessor. When changes in the environment have been as cataclysmic as they have for the past three years, you have to adapt.
<strong>Anyone care to comment on whether Apple will simply put a single, higher-clock-speed G5 in this PowerMac, when the G5 is in full production? Â*And it could be soon. Apple may have designed this box to be ready for a G5. Â*In the mean time, Apple has to use the best Motorola can come up with, no? Â*A single G5 will likely cost no more than two G4s. Â*Those leaked pictures were right on, the real thing. Â*But they only had a single PPC processor, at a 45 degree angle. Â*That was likely a test box with an IBM G5 in it. Comments?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If they can get a dual core processor from IBM, then Apple will probably release single processor models (2 chips in one). If they are single core, then they would take another PR hit, and possibly a loss of developer confidence in MP's if they move back to single chips again.
<strong>Heh, maybe the G4 will live out it's last days in the iBook. Wouldn't that be great? All Apple's other hardware is running at 2-3 GHz and octa-pumped system busses, and there's the sorry-ass iBook, running at 1.5 GHz on a 166 MHz single-pumped bus with everyone pissing and moaning about it.
Motorola is really the butt of the high tech world. The ass end. It's where the solid wastes are excreted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank you for this post! You made my day!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />