I think you took off in the wrong direction without realizing it. Hardware is of no use without software. Software (programs) that accomplish something are the reason for the user to acquire the computer in the first place. The user does not actually care that much about the specifics of hardware as long as it does not get in the way of the software to be run.
Yes, Apple sells the hardware for a handsome profit. It is, after all, quite overpriced. At whatever price, it still exists only to run software.
[quote]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:
<strong>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hardware has utility in that it makes money for Apple. That's why Apple will continue to sell hardware, and will continue to retain control of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.
Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution.
Apple, using IBM's PowerPC CPUs and OS X, offically becomes the the place to go for a Unix solution and multimedia solution.
For those wanting the Wintel solution, it will be mostly Dell. HP will more or less concentrate in the server area.
I think with IBM in bed with Linux very good things will happen to that OS once IBM really gets behind it fully.
could be an interesting future. thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
its like ur forgetting about MS...MS holds ~97%, they have ALOT of control...its easier to eek away an empire then to dethrone the king in one swoop
So...it's a dual processor system? Or a 970 with an awesome dancing and singing co-processor, kindly supplied by Apple's multimedia Raycer guys?
Lemon Bon Bon </strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has made some purchases that have brought a return on investment (Final Cut Pro) and some that have not. I think Raycer is one of those that did not. If their technology is used somewhere it is not going to be earthshattering or even that evident. I think it is time to stop waiting for some great things to come from Raycer.
<strong>I don't know squat about board architecture...but the people over at Xilinx just announced some 10Gbps-single channel solution recently...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's been a lot of discussion about this board over at ArsTech/MacAch (beginning about page 45 or 46 of the Perpetual Mac CPU thread). The consensus about it by people who know a whole lot more than me is that they can't make head nor tails out of it. i.e. If it's a 970, what's it doing with SDR PC133 memory??? And if it's a Blade, what's it doing with PCI slots? (unless they have some really itty-bitty PCI cards to go in them...) The best guess is that this board is merely a test bed for debugging the various technologies surrounding the 970. It sure doesn't look like a Blade server that is anywhere close to production-ready.
I claim no particular insight or even competence in this area. I'm still hoping for an "AHA" from someone who can point out what this thing really is. 'Tis strange, no doubt.
Apple has made some purchases that have brought a return on investment (Final Cut Pro) and some that have not. I think Raycer is one of those that did not. If their technology is used somewhere it is not going to be earthshattering or even that evident. I think it is time to stop waiting for some great things to come from Raycer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Whoa, we have the same computer. Gotta love Ti 867s.
I personally hope I'll have the will power to resist the rev. A PPC 970. Rev. A's are notorious for having all sorts of flaws pop up in them (though not so much desktops as Powerbooks. That's one of the reasons your laptop is so sweet... rev. D, baby! No heat issues, no paint flaking issues (*knocks on wood*), no hinge-too-tight issues, etc. All the bugs are worked out...
... I hope...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed, indeed -- the 867's been a wonderful machine for the short time I've had it (just two weeks now -- got it used from a guy who'd used it just since Nov. and needed the money more). Hope there are no hard feelings -- I just thought I had heard something about the 17" PowerBook with an incredible "melting CPU" (hence the problems in production). Yeah, Rev. D was a good choice, but you gotta admit -- having a Rev. A 970 just might be as much a piece of history as having a 128k 1984 Mac (which we do -- stashed in our closet up here with all our old photos ).
Let's hope the suddenly clandestine proto board picture is a good omen!
I sure do hope so. What is now a DP Powermac could turn into a QP Powermac, with the dual cores. But everyone will say "What's a Kewpie powermac?" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Is that really something from Raycer? If so, then I wouldn't expect anything more, especially those great new graphic chips that were the rumor a year ago.
<strong>I sure do hope so. What is now a DP Powermac could turn into a QP Powermac, with the dual cores. But everyone will say "What's a Kewpie powermac?" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's a Dippy powermac?? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I sure do hope so. What is now a DP Powermac could turn into a QP Powermac, with the dual cores. But everyone will say "What's a Kewpie powermac?" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
if u had QP mac, wouldn't that stress the buss WAY to much...DP is pushing limits isn't it?
if u had QP mac, wouldn't that stress the buss WAY to much...DP is pushing limits isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 970 doesn't use a shared bus. Each CPU gets its own. Of course, if you have a multithreaded, multicore CPU then you have a similar issue to deal with.
The tradeoff with the dedicated CPU bus is that your motherboard gets more and more complex as you add more and more CPUs.
Somehow, I expect that bandwidth won't be so much of a problem anymore. At least, not more than it will always be. We seem to have an architecture that scales nicely coming down the pipe.
The 970 doesn't use a shared bus. Each CPU gets its own. Of course, if you have a multithreaded, multicore CPU then you have a similar issue to deal with.
The tradeoff with the dedicated CPU bus is that your motherboard gets more and more complex as you add more and more CPUs.
Somehow, I expect that bandwidth won't be so much of a problem anymore. At least, not more than it will always be. We seem to have an architecture that scales nicely coming down the pipe. </strong><hr></blockquote>
well i'll admit i dont have a very detailed understandin of how motherboards work, but wouldn't both busses have to meet at certin places like at the ram and the system controller. that confused me the most probably, the system controler has data from the processors, memory, gfx card, hd's, and everything else running through it, i woudl think that woudl slow down a system the most since that i wouldn't think is faster then the processor
well i'll admit i dont have a very detailed understandin of how motherboards work, but wouldn't both busses have to meet at certin places like at the ram and the system controller.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would be one way to do it. The system controller would then have to be quite complicated and quite fast, and it would also have to negotiate multiple channels (banks) of memory, since one channel couldn't hope to be fast enough.
The alternative is the NUMA approach, where each CPU has its own controller (e.g., the 970's "companion chip") and its own RAM - almost like an enormous L3 cache - and then those modules are linked together by a fast bus. This was cost prohibitive in anything but the sort of machines sold by SGI and Sun until HyperTransport and RapidIO brought high bandwidth fabrics down out of the stratosphere. Now, Apple could have two or more modules, each with a 970 and a bank of RAM, and hook them toegether over a HyperTransport bus so that they can talk to each other and access each others' RAM.
I think Apple will go with some sort of variation on NUMA at the high end, because (IMO) it makes the most sense as far as taking advantage of the 970. This will be the year that workstation tech comes to the PC in earnest, and the implications are very interesting indeed.
Comments
I think you took off in the wrong direction without realizing it. Hardware is of no use without software. Software (programs) that accomplish something are the reason for the user to acquire the computer in the first place. The user does not actually care that much about the specifics of hardware as long as it does not get in the way of the software to be run.
Yes, Apple sells the hardware for a handsome profit. It is, after all, quite overpriced. At whatever price, it still exists only to run software.
[quote]Originally posted by FrostyMMB:
<strong>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hardware has utility in that it makes money for Apple. That's why Apple will continue to sell hardware, and will continue to retain control of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<hr></blockquote>
So...it's a dual processor system? Or a 970 with an awesome dancing and singing co-processor, kindly supplied by Apple's multimedia Raycer guys?
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>I just had a kind of wild and wacky idea. But what if we are on the verge of a new age in computing history. Here is how I see the industry in two years. Gateway will be gone. leaving only Apple, IBM, Dell, HP and to a lesser extent Sony.
Once the 970 comes out i see IBM (un)offically breaking away from Microsoft and will push Linux only systems powered by their own PowerPC 750 and 970 series CPUs. IBM will become thee offical place for Linux people and for busnisses who want the Linux solution.
Apple, using IBM's PowerPC CPUs and OS X, offically becomes the the place to go for a Unix solution and multimedia solution.
For those wanting the Wintel solution, it will be mostly Dell. HP will more or less concentrate in the server area.
I think with IBM in bed with Linux very good things will happen to that OS once IBM really gets behind it fully.
could be an interesting future. thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
its like ur forgetting about MS...MS holds ~97%, they have ALOT of control...its easier to eek away an empire then to dethrone the king in one swoop
<a href="http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/i/highres/bladeprototype_300_Dpi.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www-5.ibm.com/de/pressroom/cebit2003/i/highres/bladeprototype_300_Dpi.jpg</a>;
<strong>
So...it's a dual processor system? Or a 970 with an awesome dancing and singing co-processor, kindly supplied by Apple's multimedia Raycer guys?
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple has made some purchases that have brought a return on investment (Final Cut Pro) and some that have not. I think Raycer is one of those that did not. If their technology is used somewhere it is not going to be earthshattering or even that evident. I think it is time to stop waiting for some great things to come from Raycer.
<strong>I don't know squat about board architecture...but the people over at Xilinx just announced some 10Gbps-single channel solution recently...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's been a lot of discussion about this board over at ArsTech/MacAch (beginning about page 45 or 46 of the Perpetual Mac CPU thread). The consensus about it by people who know a whole lot more than me is that they can't make head nor tails out of it. i.e. If it's a 970, what's it doing with SDR PC133 memory??? And if it's a Blade, what's it doing with PCI slots? (unless they have some really itty-bitty PCI cards to go in them...) The best guess is that this board is merely a test bed for debugging the various technologies surrounding the 970. It sure doesn't look like a Blade server that is anywhere close to production-ready.
I claim no particular insight or even competence in this area. I'm still hoping for an "AHA" from someone who can point out what this thing really is. 'Tis strange, no doubt.
<strong>
Apple has made some purchases that have brought a return on investment (Final Cut Pro) and some that have not. I think Raycer is one of those that did not. If their technology is used somewhere it is not going to be earthshattering or even that evident. I think it is time to stop waiting for some great things to come from Raycer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quartz Extreme!
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Whoa, we have the same computer. Gotta love Ti 867s.
I personally hope I'll have the will power to resist the rev. A PPC 970. Rev. A's are notorious for having all sorts of flaws pop up in them (though not so much desktops as Powerbooks. That's one of the reasons your laptop is so sweet... rev. D, baby! No heat issues, no paint flaking issues (*knocks on wood*), no hinge-too-tight issues, etc. All the bugs are worked out...
... I hope...
Indeed, indeed -- the 867's been a wonderful machine for the short time I've had it (just two weeks now -- got it used from a guy who'd used it just since Nov. and needed the money more). Hope there are no hard feelings -- I just thought I had heard something about the 17" PowerBook with an incredible "melting CPU" (hence the problems in production). Yeah, Rev. D was a good choice, but you gotta admit -- having a Rev. A 970 just might be as much a piece of history as having a 128k 1984 Mac (which we do -- stashed in our closet up here with all our old photos
Let's hope the suddenly clandestine proto board picture is a good omen!
<strong>
Quartz Extreme!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that really something from Raycer? If so, then I wouldn't expect anything more, especially those great new graphic chips that were the rumor a year ago.
Sorry Lemon, I guess I missed your sarcasm.
<strong>I sure do hope so. What is now a DP Powermac could turn into a QP Powermac, with the dual cores. But everyone will say "What's a Kewpie powermac?" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
What's a Dippy powermac?? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I sure do hope so. What is now a DP Powermac could turn into a QP Powermac, with the dual cores. But everyone will say "What's a Kewpie powermac?" <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
if u had QP mac, wouldn't that stress the buss WAY to much...DP is pushing limits isn't it?
<strong>
if u had QP mac, wouldn't that stress the buss WAY to much...DP is pushing limits isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 970 doesn't use a shared bus. Each CPU gets its own. Of course, if you have a multithreaded, multicore CPU then you have a similar issue to deal with.
The tradeoff with the dedicated CPU bus is that your motherboard gets more and more complex as you add more and more CPUs.
Somehow, I expect that bandwidth won't be so much of a problem anymore. At least, not more than it will always be. We seem to have an architecture that scales nicely coming down the pipe.
<strong>
I think it is time to stop waiting for some great things to come from Raycer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not so sure.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Transcendental Octothorpe ]</p>
<strong>
The 970 doesn't use a shared bus. Each CPU gets its own. Of course, if you have a multithreaded, multicore CPU then you have a similar issue to deal with.
The tradeoff with the dedicated CPU bus is that your motherboard gets more and more complex as you add more and more CPUs.
Somehow, I expect that bandwidth won't be so much of a problem anymore. At least, not more than it will always be. We seem to have an architecture that scales nicely coming down the pipe.
well i'll admit i dont have a very detailed understandin of how motherboards work, but wouldn't both busses have to meet at certin places like at the ram and the system controller. that confused me the most probably, the system controler has data from the processors, memory, gfx card, hd's, and everything else running through it, i woudl think that woudl slow down a system the most since that i wouldn't think is faster then the processor
<strong>
well i'll admit i dont have a very detailed understandin of how motherboards work, but wouldn't both busses have to meet at certin places like at the ram and the system controller.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would be one way to do it. The system controller would then have to be quite complicated and quite fast, and it would also have to negotiate multiple channels (banks) of memory, since one channel couldn't hope to be fast enough.
The alternative is the NUMA approach, where each CPU has its own controller (e.g., the 970's "companion chip") and its own RAM - almost like an enormous L3 cache - and then those modules are linked together by a fast bus. This was cost prohibitive in anything but the sort of machines sold by SGI and Sun until HyperTransport and RapidIO brought high bandwidth fabrics down out of the stratosphere. Now, Apple could have two or more modules, each with a 970 and a bank of RAM, and hook them toegether over a HyperTransport bus so that they can talk to each other and access each others' RAM.
I think Apple will go with some sort of variation on NUMA at the high end, because (IMO) it makes the most sense as far as taking advantage of the 970. This will be the year that workstation tech comes to the PC in earnest, and the implications are very interesting indeed.
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>