Apple's not milking the G4. They don't have anything else. Before MWSF 2001, all they had was 500 MHz G4s, for 2 years! That's not milking, that's scraping along with what you've got.
If Moto is producing Rev 0.7 Chips now, it is very unlikely they will be at mass-production in jan. Usually this takes about 6 month from the first samples. It may be of course that they do not show samples publicly to take the world by surprise..
The mosr article seems doubtful in other respects too: the G5 as a fully 64Bit CPU? Then how is Apple going to revise the foundations of MacOS-X in 3 month time to go from 32 to 64 Bit? Sounds unlikely. Whats more: those machines would not be capable of running MacOS-9 unless the G5 could be forced to run in 32Bit "emulation"
If what MOSR has any truth, what are the chances of Apple moving away from the current low-end /high-end product grid to a more flexible line-up with a new intermediate desktop between the iMac and PowerMac...possibly a reincarnation of the Cube!?
Apple Expo: update iMac's. OSX 10.4 or .5.<hr></blockquote>
I like the G5 "show" prediction, but FW2 on iPod? As of right now the Toshiba drive in the iPod can only right at about 8-9MB/sec (which is pretty fast) but still using less than 1/5th of FW1's theoretical speed.
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer the MPC 8540 was the G5. It is stated in the title of the press release that it is an "Integrated Host Processor" and in the article states it is an embedded processor.
My point was, it is allegedly in the same class as the G5(ie. 85XX) and uses HiP7. Motorola has been making some chip cores using HiP7, but I think the MPC 8540 will be the first processor made using HiP7, some one correct me if I'm wrong.
The G5 will be much a more complicated chip, a cpu. I ass u me d the MPC 8540 would be introduced days, weeks months?? before the G5, hence a 2nd half launch. I hope I'm wrong, but how could Motorola introduce a much more complicated cpu, the G5, 6 months before they begin just sampling a much less complicated chip, the MPC 8540?
Another thing bothers me about a Jan. introduction of the G5. If it were approved today for production, doesn't it take 50 -60 days to manufacture a chip? Would this be enough time to produce enough chips and ship them to Apple for manufacturing computers?
Apple Hardware Rumors...as timeless as mother earth.
I for one am inclined to think we're roughly a year away, if for no other reason than it's supposed to be a 64-bit chip right? Which means all the applications have to be tweaked and recompiled. I think the same goes for OS X itself.
Hence isn't it safe to say Apple wants to give developers a chance to get all their major applications out the door for OS X first?
That is, isn't the most logical progression something like:
I don't have any sources to quote or link, but I distinctly remember hearing, a while ago, that the G5 ran 32-bit natively, even though it is supposed to be a 64-bit processor. Thus, no recompilations necessary for OS X, or apps, classic or otherwise.
<strong>If Moto is producing Rev 0.7 Chips now, it is very unlikely they will be at mass-production in jan. Usually this takes about 6 month from the first samples. It may be of course that they do not show samples publicly to take the world by surprise..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the MOSR article stated that if there were no further problems, the 0.8 rev would become the 1.0 rev, so that part doesn't bother me.
[quote]<strong>The mosr article seems doubtful in other respects too: the G5 as a fully 64Bit CPU? Then how is Apple going to revise the foundations of MacOS-X in 3 month time to go from 32 to 64 Bit? Sounds unlikely. Whats more: those machines would not be capable of running MacOS-9 unless the G5 could be forced to run in 32Bit "emulation"</strong><hr></blockquote>
NukemHill is right, the 64b G5 can ran 32b code at full speed, so no code changes are required. Even if they did need to make the OS 64b, it should just be a recompile (assuming that they wrote it right in the first place).
Having said all that, I feel compelled to continue the AI tradition of saying that MOSR is full nonsense, and if they say it'll happen then it's garaunteed not to, etc
(Apologies if I spelled "garaunteed" or "Apologies" wrong. I'm too lazy to use the spell checker right now )
[QBNo one is gonna pay the $2500+ for a G4/867 when they can get a GHz Athlon for $500.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but the cool thing about paying only $500 for a PC is that you're only out $500. So you put up with Window's crap until you've recouped the $500, and then you get a real computer
No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.
<strong>No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
kaka .. I am the crazy student who writes x86 assembly in vpc ........
<strong>Well, the MOSR article stated that if there were no further problems, the 0.8 rev would become the 1.0 rev, so that part doesn't bother me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, a "1.0 rev" doesn't necessarily mean that it's ready to ship. Remember, the first G4s that showed up in Power Macs in 1999 were rev 2.4.
The G5 is the only way to not be ridiculous in the mhz war, by lenghtening the pipeline bus (14 stages in many rumors, unstead seven for the 7450), it's their only way to go above one ghz (still stuck at 867 mhz)
probabily in many aspect excepting video games (because of the bandwitch) the G5 will be slower at equal Mhz than the G4 (like the P4 versus the PIII).
Even with the G5 the mhz war is loose by Motorola the only goal is to not be too ridiculous and to find some benchmarks who will show the superiority of their chips (even if in most of the tasks the chip is slower ...)
<strong>I don't have any sources to quote or link, but I distinctly remember hearing, a while ago, that the G5 ran 32-bit natively, even though it is supposed to be a 64-bit processor. Thus, no recompilations necessary for OS X, or apps, classic or otherwise.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that would be cool if you're right. Wonder if there would be any performance hit? Or would it more or less be like running a non PPC app on a one of our existing processors? That is to say, no speed hit until such time as there is a native app, which should run faster.
Comments
<strong>I can't imagine they're selling any of those awful Dalmation/Flower Power things.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That might be because they discontinued them back in July.
But yes, you're right, the iMacs suck. Lots.
Alex
The mosr article seems doubtful in other respects too: the G5 as a fully 64Bit CPU? Then how is Apple going to revise the foundations of MacOS-X in 3 month time to go from 32 to 64 Bit? Sounds unlikely. Whats more: those machines would not be capable of running MacOS-9 unless the G5 could be forced to run in 32Bit "emulation"
iMac G3 (G4?) Low-end, home, small office…
*****Mac G4 Intermediate, business, design, pro-sumer…
PowerMac G5 High-end, power user, video, graphics, 3d…
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
MWT: G4 iMac Released ,updated iPod (FW2), G5 in the Shops.
MWNY: updated iBook's ,TiPBook's ,and G5, OSX 10.3.
Apple Expo: update iMac's. OSX 10.4 or .5.
MWT: G4 iMac Released ,updated iPod (FW2), G5 in the Shops.
MWNY: updated iBook's ,TiPBook's ,and G5, OSX 10.3.
Apple Expo: update iMac's. OSX 10.4 or .5.<hr></blockquote>
I like the G5 "show" prediction, but FW2 on iPod?
Later,
Bliz
tell us something more bout it?
"If that is the G5,"<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer the MPC 8540 was the G5. It is stated in the title of the press release that it is an "Integrated Host Processor" and in the article states it is an embedded processor.
My point was, it is allegedly in the same class as the G5(ie. 85XX) and uses HiP7. Motorola has been making some chip cores using HiP7, but I think the MPC 8540 will be the first processor made using HiP7, some one correct me if I'm wrong.
The G5 will be much a more complicated chip, a cpu. I ass u me d the MPC 8540 would be introduced days, weeks months?? before the G5, hence a 2nd half launch. I hope I'm wrong, but how could Motorola introduce a much more complicated cpu, the G5, 6 months before they begin just sampling a much less complicated chip, the MPC 8540?
Another thing bothers me about a Jan. introduction of the G5. If it were approved today for production, doesn't it take 50 -60 days to manufacture a chip? Would this be enough time to produce enough chips and ship them to Apple for manufacturing computers?
I for one am inclined to think we're roughly a year away, if for no other reason than it's supposed to be a 64-bit chip right? Which means all the applications have to be tweaked and recompiled. I think the same goes for OS X itself.
Hence isn't it safe to say Apple wants to give developers a chance to get all their major applications out the door for OS X first?
That is, isn't the most logical progression something like:
1. Finished OS X Apps
2. 64 bit chips
3. 64 bit OS X to run on said chips
4. Recompiled OS X Apps to run on said OS
?
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....
<strong>If Moto is producing Rev 0.7 Chips now, it is very unlikely they will be at mass-production in jan. Usually this takes about 6 month from the first samples. It may be of course that they do not show samples publicly to take the world by surprise..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the MOSR article stated that if there were no further problems, the 0.8 rev would become the 1.0 rev, so that part doesn't bother me.
[quote]<strong>The mosr article seems doubtful in other respects too: the G5 as a fully 64Bit CPU? Then how is Apple going to revise the foundations of MacOS-X in 3 month time to go from 32 to 64 Bit? Sounds unlikely. Whats more: those machines would not be capable of running MacOS-9 unless the G5 could be forced to run in 32Bit "emulation"</strong><hr></blockquote>
NukemHill is right, the 64b G5 can ran 32b code at full speed, so no code changes are required. Even if they did need to make the OS 64b, it should just be a recompile (assuming that they wrote it right in the first place).
Having said all that, I feel compelled to continue the AI tradition of saying that MOSR is full nonsense, and if they say it'll happen then it's garaunteed not to, etc
(Apologies if I spelled "garaunteed" or "Apologies" wrong. I'm too lazy to use the spell checker right now
[QBNo one is gonna pay the $2500+ for a G4/867 when they can get a GHz Athlon for $500.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but the cool thing about paying only $500 for a PC is that you're only out $500. So you put up with Window's crap until you've recouped the $500, and then you get a real computer
No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.
<strong>No, seriously, I'm thinking about it. Depending on what software I need for my classes next semester, I might not have any choice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
kaka .. I am the crazy student who writes x86 assembly in vpc ........
<strong>Well, the MOSR article stated that if there were no further problems, the 0.8 rev would become the 1.0 rev, so that part doesn't bother me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, a "1.0 rev" doesn't necessarily mean that it's ready to ship. Remember, the first G4s that showed up in Power Macs in 1999 were rev 2.4.
probabily in many aspect excepting video games (because of the bandwitch) the G5 will be slower at equal Mhz than the G4 (like the P4 versus the PIII).
Even with the G5 the mhz war is loose by Motorola the only goal is to not be too ridiculous and to find some benchmarks who will show the superiority of their chips (even if in most of the tasks the chip is slower ...)
<strong>I don't have any sources to quote or link, but I distinctly remember hearing, a while ago, that the G5 ran 32-bit natively, even though it is supposed to be a 64-bit processor. Thus, no recompilations necessary for OS X, or apps, classic or otherwise.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that would be cool if you're right. Wonder if there would be any performance hit? Or would it more or less be like running a non PPC app on a one of our existing processors? That is to say, no speed hit until such time as there is a native app, which should run faster.
<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPC_BOOKE.pdf"; target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPC_BOOKE.pdf</a>;
quote:
Section 1.2
"Book E provides binary compatibility for 32-bit PowerPC application programs. Binary compatibility
is not necessarily provided for privileged PowerPC instructions."
Don't know if this is saying what I think it is saying, but it seems to.