i have heard some definate info that apple will use the PPC 970 processor
although Intel or AMD chips would be a better option in my opinion
although Intel or AMD chips would be a better option in my opinion
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macworld Mag article- PowerPC 970
- Thread starter Raiden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No reason there couldn't be a 64-bit 970 in the Power Macs and 32-bit G3s/G4s in everything else. High-end software that could take advantage of 64-bit could be recompiled for 64-bit and distributed along with the 32-bit version in an .app. That aside, it's also very likely there will be a lower-clocked 970 in the iMac and PowerBook sooner than you'd think.
After your first sentence, you go off track and talk about the now. The 970 is not the now, it's the future. Unlike the case with the G3, IBM has very strong incentive to ratchet the performance of this new chip up as fast as it can - not only because they've invested in it as the new high-performance PowerPC platform, but because they themselves will be selling computers running Linux that IBM wants to kill Sun with. IBM wouldn't have even bothered spending all this money on designing a new chip if they knew they were going to just let it stagnate and fail in the marketplace. To sum up: The PPC 970 is going places and all indications point to its development being very much unlike the G3's.
Whatever AMD is driven by, they're having a hard time competing with Intel as it is, bleeding money even with an architecturally superior product. I don't know what makes you think they would do any better against Intel if Apple used their chips. An AMD PPC would be a notion straight out of fantasy land, as everybody knows Apple does nowhere near enough volume to be able to convince AMD to sacrifice their already stressed manufacturing resources to make chips solely for them. Yeah I'd like a 200GHz AMD Alpha in my Mac too, but let's be realistic.
But you have to understand that by pushing Linux, IBM is also helping Apple. Faster 970 Linux workstations ---> faster Macs. Faster 970 Linux workstations & Macs ---> greater sales of the 970 ---> still faster 970s ---> faster Linux workstations and Macs. Sounds like a win-win-win (for IBM, Apple, and Linux) to me. Certainly if you base your opinions only on what IBM has done with the PPC in the past, they don't look too appealing. But you've got to train your eye on what looks set to happen in the near future.
If you don't like Apple, you don't have to buy a Mac, simple as that. Get a PC if you don't like what Apple is doing. I happen to enjoy my Macs and for whatever disadvantages they hold to the PC I think they have a lot of strengths.
Computer_Phreak:
Where did you get your "definite" info?
-
alex_ant & Abercrombieboy:
Both of you contiunue to miss the point. You're still not thinking realistically. I do like what Apple's doing in terms of software, but they have some serious issues when it comes to hardware. I am looking at the future and one processor that will most likely be poorly maintained isn't enough to keep Apple alive. Sorry, but that's the sad reality. You're not going to be happy until Apple loses more ground and slips away into extinction. All because you have a problem with anything that's not IBM or Motorola.
Where did you get your "definite" info?
-
alex_ant & Abercrombieboy:
Both of you contiunue to miss the point. You're still not thinking realistically. I do like what Apple's doing in terms of software, but they have some serious issues when it comes to hardware. I am looking at the future and one processor that will most likely be poorly maintained isn't enough to keep Apple alive. Sorry, but that's the sad reality. You're not going to be happy until Apple loses more ground and slips away into extinction. All because you have a problem with anything that's not IBM or Motorola.
There is a reason for Motorola employees at AMD.
In the technology department for future chip technology development there is IBM on the top of the heap.
Then there is the team formed by AMD and Motorola - they're working TOGETHER right now.
How does choosing AMD over both IBM and Motorola lead to long-term chip development benefits.
Sure in the short term they may be able to do more than Motorola, but will it last?
If Motorola does not renew the tech sharing arrangement with AMD - will AMD be able to struggle along on their own over several product cycles?
R&D for chip development is a huge expense, what will AMD do if they part with Motorola, buy technologies from IBM or Intel?
You must have missed what I said about all indications pointing to the likelihood that this processor will be very well-maintained. To recap that, I doubt IBM would have spent however many millions on this thing if they knew they were going to just let it sit at 1.8GHz unchanged forever. They've got big plans for this chip and a new, state-of-the-art fab in which they'll be manufacturing it. In one sentence, this chip will have a life very unlike that of the G3 - in a good way. How am I not thinking realistically? The 970 is real, it's happening, and it will be inside the Power Macs in less than 13 months. Yes that's a long time to wait, but it's not like Apple has any other options. You don't seriously think Steve Jobs could phone up AMD and have them rolling out 9 nanometer G5s by next Thursday, do you?
Apple will lose ground until late next year when the 970 debuts. That's an unfortunate fact. IBM is reality, and the only thing I have a problem with is being unrealistic. An AMD/Apple relationship is unrealistic.
Man, Agreenster is right. Some Apple enthusiasts are blind. The 970 is not going to be Apple's knight in shining armor. You do realize that 13 months is more than 4 quarters away, right? I guess we'll see what happens at Macworld SF.
1) What makes you think I'm an Apple enthusiast? 2) 13 months is a maximum. If we're lucky, the 970 could be 7 months away. Most likely it will arrive some time between those figures. Even if it for some reason took two more years, though, AMD still couldn't have a PPC out in anywhere near that time. Let alone be able to manufacture it in volume profitably. In which case the only alternative for Apple would be x86-64. Which still will only arrive a few months before the 970 at best. So yes, we all wish the 970 would appear in a Power Mac tomorrow, but it won't. And neither will anything else.
Actually...
...although you had some good points there, you were wrong on a few important ones.
1) It's not one proc, it's "the first of a line of processors" (according to IBM)
2) IBM pushing Linux is a GOOD thing for Apple. Moto doesn't push the G4+ because they use it for things that don't require massive performance. IBM's Linux boxes have similar requirements to Apple's.
3) The POWER4+ is the fastest chip in the world, and it's PowerPC.
4) The G3 hasn't been stagnating, it does exactly what it's supposed to. Be a super low power, tiny, efficient chip. It's actually more advanced than the G4+ is now.
5) There's a very good reason why Apple doesn't have a DDR frontside bus. The G4+ doesn't support it.
6) Going 64 bit on the high end and remaining 32 bit on the low end for a while makes perfect sense. It's a good way to differentiate the PowerMac/TiBook/XServe and iBook/eMac/iMac.
...although you had some good points there, you were wrong on a few important ones.
1) It's not one proc, it's "the first of a line of processors" (according to IBM)
2) IBM pushing Linux is a GOOD thing for Apple. Moto doesn't push the G4+ because they use it for things that don't require massive performance. IBM's Linux boxes have similar requirements to Apple's.
3) The POWER4+ is the fastest chip in the world, and it's PowerPC.
4) The G3 hasn't been stagnating, it does exactly what it's supposed to. Be a super low power, tiny, efficient chip. It's actually more advanced than the G4+ is now.
5) There's a very good reason why Apple doesn't have a DDR frontside bus. The G4+ doesn't support it.
6) Going 64 bit on the high end and remaining 32 bit on the low end for a while makes perfect sense. It's a good way to differentiate the PowerMac/TiBook/XServe and iBook/eMac/iMac.
Isn't it a little early to write off the Power PC 970? It hasn't even been produced in a machine yet that is being offered to the public. I think if and when this processor comes out, lets see how it works before we write it off as an inferior product.
Re: I agree with BlueCell
i have avery fast pos pc.
yes , it is fast , it is unreliable,it freezes from time to time and it does things no one can explain.
in a recent study they discovered that a pc user looses 2 to 3 hours a week rebooting, when compare to a mac user doing the same tasks
For once i understand pc users:
1-yes , they have more fun , they only need to buy a white crystal ball and they can become psychic, because no one really knows what the pc is up to.
2-they are ahead of us, same reason , they are psychic.
3-they can qualify themselves as techs and work as techs in the future, because you have to become one in order to maintain the pc running.
we the mac users, on the other hand,
will not learn anything , because our computers run fine all of the time.There is not a tech career in owning a mac, hehehhe.
4-your brain works really hard when you are trying to print on a pc, again, she does whatever she feels like doing.
5- pcs have a mind of their own, macs are only machines that do what you tell them
6- if using messenger, with a mac you can only sign in once per session and you will get bored after expending 2 or 3 hours talking to your friends while they have the "pleasure" of connecting at least 3 to 4 times in the same session, the only reason is for you not to get asleep in front of your computer.
and
7- the pcs do all of this so you can feel that you are needed and that you are doing something worthy in your lifetime, listen to me, "YOU ARE FIXING SOMETHING" so you are alive for a reason, macs are only here to please you and do their work.
a mac will spoil you,a pc will give you plenty of reasons for been alive and lots of career options, like joining a circus or something like that.
I AM TRULY SPOILED AND I JUST WANT TO DO MY WORK WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING AT ALL!!
LONG LIVE THE MAC!!!
i have avery fast pos pc.
yes , it is fast , it is unreliable,it freezes from time to time and it does things no one can explain.
in a recent study they discovered that a pc user looses 2 to 3 hours a week rebooting, when compare to a mac user doing the same tasks
For once i understand pc users:
1-yes , they have more fun , they only need to buy a white crystal ball and they can become psychic, because no one really knows what the pc is up to.
2-they are ahead of us, same reason , they are psychic.
3-they can qualify themselves as techs and work as techs in the future, because you have to become one in order to maintain the pc running.
we the mac users, on the other hand,
will not learn anything , because our computers run fine all of the time.There is not a tech career in owning a mac, hehehhe.
4-your brain works really hard when you are trying to print on a pc, again, she does whatever she feels like doing.
5- pcs have a mind of their own, macs are only machines that do what you tell them
6- if using messenger, with a mac you can only sign in once per session and you will get bored after expending 2 or 3 hours talking to your friends while they have the "pleasure" of connecting at least 3 to 4 times in the same session, the only reason is for you not to get asleep in front of your computer.
and
7- the pcs do all of this so you can feel that you are needed and that you are doing something worthy in your lifetime, listen to me, "YOU ARE FIXING SOMETHING" so you are alive for a reason, macs are only here to please you and do their work.
a mac will spoil you,a pc will give you plenty of reasons for been alive and lots of career options, like joining a circus or something like that.
I AM TRULY SPOILED AND I JUST WANT TO DO MY WORK WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING AT ALL!!
LONG LIVE THE MAC!!!
I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds
) on my p42.4 GHz, which is blazing fast, running windows XP. And I only
rebooted because of installing things. I have never had to reboot
because of errors.
That study was a bad study, or it was comparing Mac OS 10.2 to
Windows 95 or something, because I know for a fact that no
windows users spend 2 -3 hours a week rebooting. That is complete
crap.
I am very happy with my PC. I would rather have a $3,000 mac
(which wouldn't be as fast as this computer which I got for $750),
because I know that speed isn't everything. But I wasn't going to
spend $700 on a peace of crap macintosh, when I could get new
technology for $700 with a PC.
Originally posted by scem0
I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds
2.4 GHz, which is blazing fast, running windows XP. And I only
rebooted because of installing things. I have never had to reboot
because of errors.
That study was a bad study, or it was comparing Mac OS 10.2 to
Windows 95 or something, because I know for a fact that no
windows users spend 2 -3 hours a week rebooting. That is complete
crap.
I am very happy with my PC. I would rather have a $3,000 mac
(which wouldn't be as fast as this computer which I got for $750),
because I know that speed isn't everything. But I wasn't going to
spend $700 on a peace of crap macintosh, when I could get new
technology for $700 with a PC.
rebooter
it was against xp and maybe you don't really push your pc.
mine has xp pro( the pos pc) , pos she is.
The other 2 are macs and the next one will be a mac.
rebooter
Re: Re: LOOK HARDER...
Well thanks
Somebody actualy called me Sir, without adding *Your making a scene*
-Homer Simpson
Well thanks
Somebody actualy called me Sir, without adding *Your making a scene*
-Homer Simpson
Motorola?, yeah, they went after the low power embedded market when Apple stumbled in the late '90s
IBM OTOH, have been pushing the envelope with PowerPC chips, problem is they cost too much to put into a desktop machine.. (and would be impossible to cool in anything resembling a sensible manner.)
the PowerPC 970 is a pared down variant of that big iron PowerPC hardware (the POWER4 basically), and it's looking from here that IBM are getting serious about the processor market again.
the alternative is for Apple to do something which would utterly kill them, which is going to X86-64 or IA-64.
We can only hope IBM can keep the heat on (or off, so to speak), if anyone has the resources to go toe to toe with Intel on fabrication, they do.
I'm on a dual 867, and I must say that Jaguar 10.2.2 is not sluggish -AT ALL-. Back when I had my dual 450 and 10.2.1, it was an absolute dog though, terrible. My system prefs pop up in about 1.5 seconds on first launch, and I can even run Flurry (the screensaver) as my desktop pattern and still have things be responsive enough. I think the reason it is so responsive now is due to Quartz Extreme. My 450 had an ATi Rage 128, which did not support it, but my current GeForce4 does. So if you think OS X is sluggish, try running Jaguar with a Quartz Extreme supported card. The interface never, ever seems sluggish.
But just for the record, dual athies still slay a dual G4 system.
But just for the record, dual athies still slay a dual G4 system.
I personally don't know what's Apple's best choice. IA64 is shaky in general for a number of reasons, mostly because it won't be backwards-compatible with older software... unless I'm mistaken. x86-64 looks good, but AMD isn't exactly the world's most solid company, but they're not the shakiest either. The 970 looks okay, but ... well ... yeah, I guess 970 would be the way to go, heh. The x86-64 sounds like so much more fun though! hehe. It would need some kinda RISC --> SISC dealie for handling old software though... at least ... I think? I donno. I'm dumb, heh.
So what exactly do you do with your PC? Web surfing and playing games isn't too likely to crash much any OS nowadays. When using XP Pro workstations they crash a lot more then my Mac when doing CAD work, graphics design and working with large files.Originally posted by scem0
I have rebooted 4 times (which takes 20 seconds
2.4 GHz, which is blazing fast, running windows XP. And I only
rebooted because of installing things. I have never had to reboot
because of errors.
That study was a bad study, or it was comparing Mac OS 10.2 to
Windows 95 or something, because I know for a fact that no
windows users spend 2 -3 hours a week rebooting. That is complete
crap.
x86-64 looks like a terrible processor platform for Apple to switch to for the exact same reason IA-64 is.... a complete and TOTAL lack of backwards compatability with the PowerPC architecture, NO current PPC software would run... sure, OSX could be recompiled.... apps for OSX could be recompiled...
But those aren't all the apps that get used, and a lot of OSX stuff might not get recompiled.
PowerPC 970 OTOH, is a nice big performance boost that _won't_ be 100% incompatible with the processors it's superceeding...
WHOA! I just noticed something. If Apple, and I say if, started to use Intel or AMD proccessors and chips little will differ between the Mac and a PC. The main diffs would be styel, the OS and Apple's goodness... I have just relized this... Just wanted to tell you all.... I hope Apple makes the right choice
Just wanted to tell you all.... I hope Apple makes the right choiceRe: Re: Re: LOOK HARDER...
Just to be a picky little bastard, I believe the quote was "I wish, just once, somebody would call me 'Sir' without saying 'You're making a scene'".
But to avoid spammage I'll contribute to this thread.
For bluecell who said that IBM is too unreliable to work with. Do you know why IBM never gave Apple the Sahara? Because Apple didn't ask for it. Why would IBM continue to develop the processor beyond 1 Ghz (or wherever they're at) if Apple didn't ask for 1 Ghz yet? Do you consider it IBM's job to make processors they aren't going to be selling to Apple? Think about it.
Originally posted by LimeiBook86
Well thanks
Somebody actualy called me Sir, without adding *Your making a scene*
-Homer Simpson
Just to be a picky little bastard, I believe the quote was "I wish, just once, somebody would call me 'Sir' without saying 'You're making a scene'".
But to avoid spammage I'll contribute to this thread.
For bluecell who said that IBM is too unreliable to work with. Do you know why IBM never gave Apple the Sahara? Because Apple didn't ask for it. Why would IBM continue to develop the processor beyond 1 Ghz (or wherever they're at) if Apple didn't ask for 1 Ghz yet? Do you consider it IBM's job to make processors they aren't going to be selling to Apple? Think about it.
