<strong>That IBM is cutting edge is opinion, not fact. (That would hardly get one a job if put on a resume.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not applying for a job, you dick, and who else is spending good money on R&D for molecular switching in CPUs? AMD? Intel? Hell no!
[quote]<strong>That IBM has millions to invest in R&D is opinion, not fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, billions, I made a mistake - look at their <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/i/ibm.html"; target="_blank">financial statement</a> before blatantly spewing forth such crap! They are investing over 1.5 billion per quarter. AMD....170 million. Hmmmm.
[quote]<strong>Your opinion of their workstatios and servers is irrelevant in a conversation about consumer PCs and CPUs</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? That's the CPU they're putting in the next Powermac's! PowerPC 970's are based on a Power4 CPU that exists, wait for it....in their servers and workstations!!! Hey, I guess your statement shows how deaf, dumb and blind you really are. Goodbye, Tommy!
[[And if you can't entertain the possibility that x86 is not a standard in any useful or meaningful way despite any amount of evidence, there's no point continuing the conversation.]]]
Exactly, Amorph...
I pointed that out in another post. It's called "Slothful Induction". Just look at how he words things and just look at how often he posts rebuttals. He certainly has a lot of time on his hands.
MacLuv says that x86 is the industry standard... but saying it a million times doesn't make it so.
He asks for substantial proof that x86 ISN'T the industry standard, yet the he hasn't provided the proof that it *is*...
He made the statement that x86 is the industry standard -- The burden of proof lies with him.
He likes to make comments and statements and then "shifts the burden of proof." It's typical language acrobatics like this that he believes he's good at.
That said, we all know that he takes pride in slothfully inducing the material at hand. As for the other fallacies that he employs, let's expose this individual and maybe get a clearer understanding of his character and purpose on these forums...
As mentioned earlier, "Shifting the burden of proof" is a way of demanding that the person denying an assertion prove his/her case, however the burden of proof is upon the person who argues (or is arguing) the position.
Let me explain... MacLuv stated that the x86 is the Industry Standard platform, processor, ISA, whatever... He staked the claim, he made/passed the comment. The rest of the forum contributors are the ones denying that assertion of x86 being the standard. Therefore it is *he* who has to supply *us* with all the concrete proof and evidence supporting *his* claim, which is an "accident" (another fallacy) to begin with. Once everyone picks up on this I think he has little chance of being taken seriously on these boards.
Programmer is probably the only one wise enough to ignore him.
Anyway, another tactic that MacLuv likes to employ is that of "Special Pleading". He expects *us* to track and make note of our own *supposed* errors in logic while at the same time shifting the burden of proof onto us, when he has yet to do so for himself. In short, Special Pleading is refusing to apply the same principles to oneself that one applies to others.
Given his previous posts, it's likely that he doesn't have the ability to even realize that he's committing fallacy after fallacy. The very things he's attempting to pelt *us* with. It's another fallacy in fact; It's called the Fallacy of opposition -- since we disagree with him, we must not be thinking straight or reasoning things out properly.
He also like to employ what essentially is the "Appeal to numbers" or majority, or popularity: asserting that the acceptance of an idea by a majority, or by a large number of people, is reason to believe it.
In this case his claims about x86. After all, x86 is only a small piece of the equation. The embedded market for example, is significantly larger than the *desktop* computer market. He ignores all other processors in all other markets other than x86 and the *desktop*. It's called "cherry picking" or more correctly, he's making broad/sweeping generalizations and presenting it as the *rule*.
He also likes to employ "Humor and ridicule" to support his baseless arguments. Just look at all the sarcasm, all those "emotion faces" and other colorful remarks he posted throughout these forums. He uses these to avoid the issue at hand and to cast unwarranted aspersions and to deflect attention away from the discussion. Then there is his use of "rationalization" and the tactic of spewing "Nothing but objections".
At nearly every instance, he's continually raising objections as a means of avoiding the issue. -- which is to provide us with the absolute, indisputable proof that x86 is the Industry standard. With these thing in mind, all of you can now draw your own conclusions about MacLuv, his character and his true intentions.
Perhaps we should all follow Programmer's example and ignore this individual, simply because he isn't bringing anything constructive to the conversation and only causing a massive irritation which is only resulting in a thread-war.
<strong>[[And if you can't entertain the possibility that x86 is not a standard in any useful or meaningful way despite any amount of evidence, there's no point continuing the conversation.]]]
Exactly, Amorph...
[...]
Programmer is probably the only one wise enough to ignore him. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps. But I appreciated the opportunity to think through the argument anyway. That's why all my posts on this topic are so damned long.
and for me the only thing that counts is to have a 970-based mac os x-machine on my desk as early as possible instead of this x86-horror-imagination-mac-combination-or-whatever-this-will-lead-us-to *ergs* <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
. . . There really is a limit to how fast a single core can go, and and how much performance can be squeezed out with techniques like SMT. It looks like Intel is determined to discover just where that limit is and get as close to it as possible. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, I think I'll reply to my own post with another thought. Maybe Intel is near the limit already, no? I should have also stated that the limit will automatically go higher as process size goes down, but the benefit of smaller process size is seen by everyone, even if they follow a different strategy. To get top performance, IBM is pursuing ease of adding more cores or processors, and Intel is trying to push the performance of a single core, at any cost it seems.
Anyway, Intel may have nearly maxed out, where the only way to increase performance is to shrink the process. IBM and Apple can increase performance a long way by adding more processors. Of course shrinking the process size takes both sides to a higher level. The only question is the economics for a near-high-end computer. Will an expensive single processor, or cheaper dual processors be less costly for the same performance? The IBM strategy can get to the very highest performance computer, but it is at the cost of using many processors.
The tradeoffs are interesting in this contest. IBM seems to be on a middle of the road approach. The core has very good performance, but it is not pushed to an extreme. Another approach would have been to use still lower power, lower performance cores and use even more of them. They likely worked through the options, however, and chose an optimum strategy.
Actually, Ed, you've done nothing but attack me with your bullsh*t and not my points. You seem to be the one pleading for the masses to ignore me, based on your testimony. I think you're just stalking me.
Perhaps you should be in the disgruntled postal workers forum.
Have a nice day
PS. I'm glad you're learning all about debate. Now you should practice focusing on ideas, not the person. Unless, of course, you want to work for Kenneth Star or commit "hate" crimes.
In this case his claims about x86. After all, x86 is only a small piece of the equation. The embedded market for example, is significantly larger than the *desktop* computer market. He ignores all other processors in all other markets other than x86 and the *desktop*. It's called "cherry picking" or more correctly, he's making broad/sweeping generalizations and presenting it as the *rule*.
{...}
Perhaps we should all follow Programmer's example {...}
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, perhaps you should follow programmer's example.
Originally posted by programmer:
[quote] Well technically the x86 ISA (as opposed to "the x86 processor") is the de facto standard, although there are enough variations to cause a fair bit of chaos (MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!). <hr></blockquote>
If you want to split hairs with me to make basis for your own arguments, fine. I presented the Gates to Sculley memo as further evidence to support what exactly "industry standard" means to the PC industry, but for some reason it was bounced because Amorph doesn't like Bill Gates or whatever. Frankly it seems like I'd have to somehow go through the hassle of proving that the WTC did indeed go down with some of you people.
Give it up already. I'm saying a car has four wheels, you're asking me to prove it because some may have three. I'm also talking about Apple Computer and future business strategy. Contrary to popular belief, technology is not a business strategy.
As far as anyone in here insisting that the 970 will gain momentum in sales not only through Apple but through high-end server sales as well, I'd like to examine this contradiction:
If the logic behind an x86 migration is that Apple would not be able to compete with Windows based on a loss of proprietary system design, what's going to happen to Xserve when Apple throws the 970 in there? It's captured a whopping 1.2% of the server market, and that's only in the US. Based on the same logic that x86 migration would kill off Apple, how can one apply the same logic to Xserve and say it will fly?
Go Outsider! Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that IBM is on the forefront of SiGe in CPU fabrication. It makes complete sense, considering that their "Pixie Dust" is exactly that... Germanium, currently used on their winchester drives. The downside to SiGe is that Germanium is *very* *very* rare [but can be synth'd] and would make for higher costs.
For those who aren't clued in to IBM's Pixie Dust, it is a way to treat the winchester platters so you can achieve a higher arial density. I believe it also allows for lower voltage to flip a bit.
This obviously has *direct* implications for CPUs. Suddenly, you can achieve a greater density of transisters using the normal CMOS process *AND* operate at a lower core voltage. This means smaller, cooler, faster chips. yea!!
The future's so bright... I've gotta wear shades :cool:
[quote]If the logic behind an x86 migration is that Apple would not be able to compete with Windows based on a loss of proprietary system design, what's going to happen to Xserve when Apple throws the 970 in there? <hr></blockquote>
Huh? I can't see the timely addition of a PowerPC 970 hurting the XServe. 1.2% is quite impressive for a newcomer's first real product for that market.
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
[cartman voice]
Hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad... hippies...
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
[cartman voice]
Hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad... hippies...
1% is often considered an excellent first move into a mature marketplace...I guess when you are focused on c-stores it would be bad but in beer 1% share is significant and "worthy of investment"
get back to Econ 201 hoser
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Little Newton ]</p>
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll probably want to go to business school before you try it too! What were you expecting? Apple to have 50% of a decades old server server market in one quarter?
<strong>I have evidence that ApplePi is intimately related to the 970's bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, um, yeah.
Now, is it RapidIO-like or Hypertransport-like?
If neither, would it be simple to bridge between them?
The wildest thing about the RapidIO parts I was reading about was that they were implemented in a FPGA - it sort of seemed eminently reprogrammable on the fly.
The downside to SiGe is that Germanium is *very* *very* rare [but can be synth'd] and would make for higher costs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't think germanium was that rare. Originally, transistors were all germanium, but later went to silicon because it tolerates heat much better. Germanium still has the edge for higher frequencies if the power can be kept low.
<strong>But could you not at least let us know what ApplePI really is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know anything about ApplePI, but there are some specs for the 970's bus on IBM's website.
There's a PDF to download, this is from page 12:
[quote]
Features
- Two unidirectional buses
- 32-bit read, 32-bit write
- Point-to-point
- Source syncronous
Elastic Interface
- Allows multiple cycle wire delays between chips
- Hardware deskew
Bus Protocol
- Address, control, and data multiplexing
- Sideband signals
- Pipelined transactions
- Out of order data
- Coherency and sharing via snooping
- Processor synchronization for SMP
Up to 900 MHz bit rate achieves up to 6.4 GB/s useable bandwidth<hr></blockquote>
But I can't decipher whether that is one of the other emerging 'standards' in disguise. The rates and a slew of the features line up with both RapidIO and HT as far as I can tell. Then there's bi-directional v dual uni-directional. Shrug.
But could you not at least let us know what ApplePI really is?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt that very many know much about it. It stands for Apple Processor Interface, and is a way of connecting the processor(s) to memory and other motherboard functions. That's all I think I know. Since Apple is in the Hyper-transport group, it may be related to that in some way.
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus, what a numbnuts...
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. If you need 25%, then you don't. The share doesn't justify the investment, though it *might* identify a measure where that investment breaks even (and in a growing or shrinking market, doesn't even do that.)
Since we have NO idea what Apple needs in units to qualify the Xserve as a success, we're not in a position to argue that 1% is good or bad. Consider that in the light of a market twice the size, the same 1% is twice as successful, a market half the size, the 1% could be a horrible failure.
Does anybody know whether a dual core 970 would have dual altivec engines? Or would both chips share the same one? Oh and FireWire 2 should be out in the next revision of the PowerMacs.
While widely suspected, Firewire 2 ports were indeed designed/evaluated for the most recent PowerMac design that was released in August. This is based on an Apple design PDF which was unintentionally exposed on Apple's servers. The PDF was quickly removed.
1394b (or Firewire 2) was approved this year in March, however, due to the lag time before finalization it was not expected until late summer at the earliest.
For whatever reasons, Firewire 2 did not make its way into the most recent revisions. This, however, does seem to indicate that Firewire 2 will be coming soon.
ALSO:
Powerlogix says they will have a 1.2Ghz Cube chip out soon. Does this imply that apple is about to make another large speed boost? Since in the past Powerlogix etc were not allowed to have the top end apple chips. Also Motorola would have to have good yields to sell them to the Upgrade companies would they not.
I'm wondering if the top end iMac will go dual? I mean since the 970 is going to be so much faster than the G4 wouldn't it be good to go ahead and make a dual top end iMac?
<strong>Does anybody know whether a dual core 970 would have dual altivec engines? Or would both chips share the same one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Each core would have its own VMX unit -- these execution units are too tightly tied to the core to be effectively shared.
I'm waiting on more ApplePi info... I'll post when I get useful data.
MacLuv: I wasn't arguing that x86 isn't the defacto standard (who can argue that given that its >95% of the desktop market?), I was merely pointing out that it is the "ISA" that is the standard not a "processor". As you well know there are many x86 ISA processors (386, 486, K6, Pentium, P-II, P-III, P-IV, Athlon, Cyrix, etc). Just because x86 is the standard for Windows machines doesn't mean Apple should make it the standard for Macs. There are advantages to PowerPC that Apple has been enjoying for years now, and the performance deficit has only existed for about 2 years now. This deficit is not inevitable either, IBM has a great deal of potential now that they've picked up the ball the Motorola deliberately dropped.
Comments
<strong>That IBM is cutting edge is opinion, not fact. (That would hardly get one a job if put on a resume.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not applying for a job, you dick, and who else is spending good money on R&D for molecular switching in CPUs? AMD? Intel? Hell no!
[quote]<strong>That IBM has millions to invest in R&D is opinion, not fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, billions, I made a mistake - look at their <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/i/ibm.html"; target="_blank">financial statement</a> before blatantly spewing forth such crap! They are investing over 1.5 billion per quarter. AMD....170 million. Hmmmm.
[quote]<strong>Your opinion of their workstatios and servers is irrelevant in a conversation about consumer PCs and CPUs</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? That's the CPU they're putting in the next Powermac's! PowerPC 970's are based on a Power4 CPU that exists, wait for it....in their servers and workstations!!!
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
Exactly, Amorph...
I pointed that out in another post. It's called "Slothful Induction". Just look at how he words things and just look at how often he posts rebuttals. He certainly has a lot of time on his hands.
MacLuv says that x86 is the industry standard... but saying it a million times doesn't make it so.
He asks for substantial proof that x86 ISN'T the industry standard, yet the he hasn't provided the proof that it *is*...
He made the statement that x86 is the industry standard -- The burden of proof lies with him.
He likes to make comments and statements and then "shifts the burden of proof." It's typical language acrobatics like this that he believes he's good at.
That said, we all know that he takes pride in slothfully inducing the material at hand. As for the other fallacies that he employs, let's expose this individual and maybe get a clearer understanding of his character and purpose on these forums...
As mentioned earlier, "Shifting the burden of proof" is a way of demanding that the person denying an assertion prove his/her case, however the burden of proof is upon the person who argues (or is arguing) the position.
Let me explain... MacLuv stated that the x86 is the Industry Standard platform, processor, ISA, whatever... He staked the claim, he made/passed the comment. The rest of the forum contributors are the ones denying that assertion of x86 being the standard. Therefore it is *he* who has to supply *us* with all the concrete proof and evidence supporting *his* claim, which is an "accident" (another fallacy) to begin with. Once everyone picks up on this I think he has little chance of being taken seriously on these boards.
Programmer is probably the only one wise enough to ignore him.
Anyway, another tactic that MacLuv likes to employ is that of "Special Pleading". He expects *us* to track and make note of our own *supposed* errors in logic while at the same time shifting the burden of proof onto us, when he has yet to do so for himself. In short, Special Pleading is refusing to apply the same principles to oneself that one applies to others.
Given his previous posts, it's likely that he doesn't have the ability to even realize that he's committing fallacy after fallacy. The very things he's attempting to pelt *us* with. It's another fallacy in fact; It's called the Fallacy of opposition -- since we disagree with him, we must not be thinking straight or reasoning things out properly.
He also like to employ what essentially is the "Appeal to numbers" or majority, or popularity: asserting that the acceptance of an idea by a majority, or by a large number of people, is reason to believe it.
In this case his claims about x86. After all, x86 is only a small piece of the equation. The embedded market for example, is significantly larger than the *desktop* computer market. He ignores all other processors in all other markets other than x86 and the *desktop*. It's called "cherry picking" or more correctly, he's making broad/sweeping generalizations and presenting it as the *rule*.
He also likes to employ "Humor and ridicule" to support his baseless arguments. Just look at all the sarcasm, all those "emotion faces" and other colorful remarks he posted throughout these forums. He uses these to avoid the issue at hand and to cast unwarranted aspersions and to deflect attention away from the discussion. Then there is his use of "rationalization" and the tactic of spewing "Nothing but objections".
At nearly every instance, he's continually raising objections as a means of avoiding the issue. -- which is to provide us with the absolute, indisputable proof that x86 is the Industry standard. With these thing in mind, all of you can now draw your own conclusions about MacLuv, his character and his true intentions.
Perhaps we should all follow Programmer's example and ignore this individual, simply because he isn't bringing anything constructive to the conversation and only causing a massive irritation which is only resulting in a thread-war.
--
Ed M.
<strong>[[And if you can't entertain the possibility that x86 is not a standard in any useful or meaningful way despite any amount of evidence, there's no point continuing the conversation.]]]
Exactly, Amorph...
[...]
Programmer is probably the only one wise enough to ignore him. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
Perhaps.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
and for me the only thing that counts is to have a 970-based mac os x-machine on my desk as early as possible instead of this x86-horror-imagination-mac-combination-or-whatever-this-will-lead-us-to *ergs* <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
. . . There really is a limit to how fast a single core can go, and and how much performance can be squeezed out with techniques like SMT. It looks like Intel is determined to discover just where that limit is and get as close to it as possible. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey, I think I'll reply to my own post with another thought. Maybe Intel is near the limit already, no? I should have also stated that the limit will automatically go higher as process size goes down, but the benefit of smaller process size is seen by everyone, even if they follow a different strategy. To get top performance, IBM is pursuing ease of adding more cores or processors, and Intel is trying to push the performance of a single core, at any cost it seems.
Anyway, Intel may have nearly maxed out, where the only way to increase performance is to shrink the process. IBM and Apple can increase performance a long way by adding more processors. Of course shrinking the process size takes both sides to a higher level. The only question is the economics for a near-high-end computer. Will an expensive single processor, or cheaper dual processors be less costly for the same performance? The IBM strategy can get to the very highest performance computer, but it is at the cost of using many processors.
The tradeoffs are interesting in this contest. IBM seems to be on a middle of the road approach. The core has very good performance, but it is not pushed to an extreme. Another approach would have been to use still lower power, lower performance cores and use even more of them. They likely worked through the options, however, and chose an optimum strategy.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>{...}</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, Ed, you've done nothing but attack me with your bullsh*t and not my points. You seem to be the one pleading for the masses to ignore me, based on your testimony. I think you're just stalking me.
Perhaps you should be in the disgruntled postal workers forum.
Have a nice day
PS. I'm glad you're learning all about debate. Now you should practice focusing on ideas, not the person. Unless, of course, you want to work for Kenneth Star or commit "hate" crimes.
D'OH!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong>
In this case his claims about x86. After all, x86 is only a small piece of the equation. The embedded market for example, is significantly larger than the *desktop* computer market. He ignores all other processors in all other markets other than x86 and the *desktop*. It's called "cherry picking" or more correctly, he's making broad/sweeping generalizations and presenting it as the *rule*.
{...}
Perhaps we should all follow Programmer's example {...}
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, perhaps you should follow programmer's example.
Originally posted by programmer:
[quote] Well technically the x86 ISA (as opposed to "the x86 processor") is the de facto standard, although there are enough variations to cause a fair bit of chaos (MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!). <hr></blockquote>
If you want to split hairs with me to make basis for your own arguments, fine. I presented the Gates to Sculley memo as further evidence to support what exactly "industry standard" means to the PC industry, but for some reason it was bounced because Amorph doesn't like Bill Gates or whatever. Frankly it seems like I'd have to somehow go through the hassle of proving that the WTC did indeed go down with some of you people.
Give it up already. I'm saying a car has four wheels, you're asking me to prove it because some may have three.
As far as anyone in here insisting that the 970 will gain momentum in sales not only through Apple but through high-end server sales as well, I'd like to examine this contradiction:
If the logic behind an x86 migration is that Apple would not be able to compete with Windows based on a loss of proprietary system design, what's going to happen to Xserve when Apple throws the 970 in there? It's captured a whopping 1.2% of the server market, and that's only in the US. Based on the same logic that x86 migration would kill off Apple, how can one apply the same logic to Xserve and say it will fly?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 12-09-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
<strong><a href="http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021204S0041"; target="_blank">Very interesting</a>, especially the 3rd paragraph.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Go Outsider! Thanks for the link. I find it interesting that IBM is on the forefront of SiGe in CPU fabrication. It makes complete sense, considering that their "Pixie Dust" is exactly that... Germanium, currently used on their winchester drives. The downside to SiGe is that Germanium is *very* *very* rare [but can be synth'd] and would make for higher costs.
For those who aren't clued in to IBM's Pixie Dust, it is a way to treat the winchester platters so you can achieve a higher arial density. I believe it also allows for lower voltage to flip a bit.
This obviously has *direct* implications for CPUs. Suddenly, you can achieve a greater density of transisters using the normal CMOS process *AND* operate at a lower core voltage. This means smaller, cooler, faster chips. yea!!
The future's so bright... I've gotta wear shades :cool:
Huh? I can't see the timely addition of a PowerPC 970 hurting the XServe. 1.2% is quite impressive for a newcomer's first real product for that market.
<strong>
1.2% is quite impressive for a newcomer's first real product for that market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stoo--
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
[cartman voice]
Hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad... hippies...
[/cartman voice]
(PS... not calling you a hippie!)
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Stoo--
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
[cartman voice]
Hippies... they want to save the world but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad... hippies...
[/cartman voice]
(PS... not calling you a hippie!)
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
1% is often considered an excellent first move into a mature marketplace...I guess when you are focused on c-stores it would be bad but in beer 1% share is significant and "worthy of investment"
get back to Econ 201 hoser
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: Little Newton ]</p>
<strong>
Stoo--
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll probably want to go to business school before you try it too! What were you expecting? Apple to have 50% of a decades old server server market in one quarter?
<strong>I have evidence that ApplePi is intimately related to the 970's bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, um, yeah.
Now, is it RapidIO-like or Hypertransport-like?
If neither, would it be simple to bridge between them?
The wildest thing about the RapidIO parts I was reading about was that they were implemented in a FPGA - it sort of seemed eminently reprogrammable on the fly.
<strong>
I have evidence that ApplePi is intimately related to the 970's bus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understand if you do not wish to say more. But could you not at least let us know what ApplePI really is?
<strong>
The downside to SiGe is that Germanium is *very* *very* rare [but can be synth'd] and would make for higher costs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't think germanium was that rare. Originally, transistors were all germanium, but later went to silicon because it tolerates heat much better. Germanium still has the edge for higher frequencies if the power can be kept low.
<strong>But could you not at least let us know what ApplePI really is?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know anything about ApplePI, but there are some specs for the 970's bus on IBM's website.
There's a PDF to download, this is from page 12:
[quote]
Features
- Two unidirectional buses
- 32-bit read, 32-bit write
- Point-to-point
- Source syncronous
Elastic Interface
- Allows multiple cycle wire delays between chips
- Hardware deskew
Bus Protocol
- Address, control, and data multiplexing
- Sideband signals
- Pipelined transactions
- Out of order data
- Coherency and sharing via snooping
- Processor synchronization for SMP
Up to 900 MHz bit rate achieves up to 6.4 GB/s useable bandwidth<hr></blockquote>
But I can't decipher whether that is one of the other emerging 'standards' in disguise. The rates and a slew of the features line up with both RapidIO and HT as far as I can tell. Then there's bi-directional v dual uni-directional. Shrug.
<strong>
But could you not at least let us know what ApplePI really is?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt that very many know much about it. It stands for Apple Processor Interface, and is a way of connecting the processor(s) to memory and other motherboard functions. That's all I think I know. Since Apple is in the Hyper-transport group, it may be related to that in some way.
[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Jesus, what a numbnuts...
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. If you need 25%, then you don't. The share doesn't justify the investment, though it *might* identify a measure where that investment breaks even (and in a growing or shrinking market, doesn't even do that.)
Since we have NO idea what Apple needs in units to qualify the Xserve as a success, we're not in a position to argue that 1% is good or bad. Consider that in the light of a market twice the size, the same 1% is twice as successful, a market half the size, the 1% could be a horrible failure.
From <a href="http://www.macrumors.com"; target="_blank">www.macrumors.com</a>
While widely suspected, Firewire 2 ports were indeed designed/evaluated for the most recent PowerMac design that was released in August. This is based on an Apple design PDF which was unintentionally exposed on Apple's servers. The PDF was quickly removed.
1394b (or Firewire 2) was approved this year in March, however, due to the lag time before finalization it was not expected until late summer at the earliest.
For whatever reasons, Firewire 2 did not make its way into the most recent revisions. This, however, does seem to indicate that Firewire 2 will be coming soon.
ALSO:
Powerlogix says they will have a 1.2Ghz Cube chip out soon. Does this imply that apple is about to make another large speed boost? Since in the past Powerlogix etc were not allowed to have the top end apple chips. Also Motorola would have to have good yields to sell them to the Upgrade companies would they not.
I'm wondering if the top end iMac will go dual? I mean since the 970 is going to be so much faster than the G4 wouldn't it be good to go ahead and make a dual top end iMac?
<strong>Does anybody know whether a dual core 970 would have dual altivec engines? Or would both chips share the same one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Each core would have its own VMX unit -- these execution units are too tightly tied to the core to be effectively shared.
I'm waiting on more ApplePi info... I'll post when I get useful data.
MacLuv: I wasn't arguing that x86 isn't the defacto standard (who can argue that given that its >95% of the desktop market?), I was merely pointing out that it is the "ISA" that is the standard not a "processor". As you well know there are many x86 ISA processors (386, 486, K6, Pentium, P-II, P-III, P-IV, Athlon, Cyrix, etc). Just because x86 is the standard for Windows machines doesn't mean Apple should make it the standard for Macs. There are advantages to PowerPC that Apple has been enjoying for years now, and the performance deficit has only existed for about 2 years now. This deficit is not inevitable either, IBM has a great deal of potential now that they've picked up the ball the Motorola deliberately dropped.