No Power4 for Apple

[neilt]

Just saw a link on MacNN that had the following:

""I attended a briefing today on IBM's high performance computing technology, which is hinged on their Power4 CPU (this CPU has awesome performance in the various real-world benchmarks I have seen). After the briefing, I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers to be announced in October. You may recall that there has been speculation that this CPU would find its way into PowerMacs in the future. Well, it sounds like this CPU is not in Apple's future -- the "over 160" vector instructions are not AltiVec (even though AltiVec has 162 instructions), and there are technical issues that would prevent AltiVec from ever marrying with Power4 or its successors. Furthermore, the guy came right out and said that they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested. So, although Power4-based PowerMacs seemed like a promising (and likely) possibility, it looks like it won't happen. I guess we will have to wait and see what Apple has in store for the future...."
"

 

[MacBandit]

I have been pessimistic about the IBM Power4 chip from the very start. This is very much what I have been thinking. I think however that Apple has something big up there sleeve and no one should be disappointed by Apple not using this chip.

 

[Chaszmyr]

IBM or not, we all know Apple ALWAYS has something big up their sleeve

 

[Cappy]

This reminds me of the rumor of the IBM rep a few years ago that stated at some meeting that Moto was using legal methods to keep IBM from developing or manufacturing a faster/better G4.

First of all anyone can post these stories on the internet and numerous people post them as fact.

Second of all I have a hard time believing that this rep would know much of anything about whether Apple was interested or not.

Third, who cares if altivec is not a part of it. Anyone who thought it would be is an overly optimistic blind Mac fanatic. IBM said long ago that they were working on their own unit rather than using altivec. If the cpu is fast enough, not having altivec is not a big issue. Sure some areas might take a hit but for many areas there would be a boost. Trade-offs for more sales. Also how much time do you think Apple put into altivec on their side? I'll bet they can incorporate IBM's version in less time than it took for altivec.

Now who wants to post my points to the internet so others will blindly believe them?

 

[barkmonster]

Apple are going to be so far behind if they stick with motorola for much longer and don't get a chip like the IBM one soon.

The G4 is an ageing design, still doesn't have a DDR FSB, still can't get the Mhz up to complete with the Athlon (Pentium 4 doesn't count) and unless some miracle happens and motorola bring out an 8 way superscaler G5 with a DDR fsb, altivec and 64bit architecture. Apple are going to be a total laughing stock.

With the AMD hammer coming out in a matter of months, the pentium 4 pushing 3Ghz with a 533Mhz FSB, apple have got to pull something out of the hat next year or none of their Power (and it use the term loosely) Macs will be worth the cost of the components their made out of.

They're already on a "clutching at straws" lineup by going all dual, Do you think that dual 1.25Ghz model can compete with a 2Ghz Athlon ? I don't, not for a minute and that's just now, what about in 6 months time.

I think apple HAVE to have some new cpu from motorola under wraps, that new motherboard is practically wasted on a G4 and we need at least a 1.6 Ghz chip with twice the IPC of the current G4 design just for the next range to compete with PC cpus and be significantly faster than the current range of powermacs.

I'm sticking with apple whatever happens CPU wise but it would be nice if I could one day buy a £1,349 powermac that competes with a £1,000 PC.

 

[ericb88]

it would be nice to in 4 years say to my pc junkie friedn wow my 1 year old G5+ really smokes that new titanium of yours, and wait untill we get G6's next year...

 

[ericb88]

itanium, not titanium.

 

[JamesDP]

The fact that evidence we already have is being clouded by an anonymous post on a public mailing list is pretty sad. I think someone's having a little fun at Mac fanatics' expense.

 

[jefhatfield]

core users at 3.5 percent?

when apple almost went out of business, they had a bigger percentage of the market than they do now

when steve jobs brought apple back and things were going good, ten percent of certain types of machines were apple machines bringing our total market share to five percent

dot.com bombed and apple fell behind and now the market share is somewhere around 3.5 percent

...will it get any lower or are the 3.5 percent apple's core constituency that will be a given from year to year?

there are so many users in northern california, apple territory, that will never break from apple and if apple goes down, they would rather run linux than windows

some have suggested that apple can stagnate and just fulfill its fans and never grow but just improve its line from time to time to keep it's core users happy...but isn't that what apple has been doing for umpteen years anyway when bill g took the market into his own hands and laid the groundwork for IT/IS domination?

i just don't want to see motorola get stuck at any speed again for many months on end like it did at 500 mhz...but then again....after 2 ghz or so, who will care about cpu clock speed when other issues like price, video card, ram, bus, cache, and software selection will be the more important "selling points"?

 

[jefhatfield]

after many gigs or ram, nobody willl care about that item either

and who mentions hard drives anymore since even the cheapest machines have more space than most will use from day to day

and after lcds completely take over, why brag about anything bigger than a 19" lcd when that should suit the need of most average consumers

one day, price will be the most important issue for macs...some may argue that it is already the chief factor in why a person buys a pc

 

[MacBandit]

I'm kind of sick of everyone saying how far Apple will be behind if we stick to Motorola. How do you know this. A rumor. Or are you making conjecture based on recent history. What if the reason we've creeping along so slow with the G4 is because Motorola has been secretly been diverting resources to the development of a new chip. Apple can keep complete secrets why can't Motorola. The only time we catch wind of new products from Apple are soon before they are released. Apple doesn't just make these things in a few months that the rumors are around. Computers like the new dual/ddr have been in development for at least a year or more.

So everyone keep your chins up and trust in Apple to lead us into the future. Meanwhile I'm not waiting for the next thing because your just can't or you will be waiting forever. Meanwhile I'm enjoying my new Dual Ghz/DDR.

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm kind of sick of everyone saying how far Apple will be behind if we stick to Motorola. How do you know this. A rumor. Or are you making conjecture based on recent history. What if the reason we've creeping along so slow with the G4 is because Motorola has been secretly been diverting resources to the development of a new chip. Apple can keep complete secrets why can't Motorola. The only time we catch wind of new products from Apple are soon before they are released. Apple doesn't just make these things in a few months that the rumors are around. Computers like the new dual/ddr have been in development for at least a year or more.

So everyone keep your chins up and trust in Apple to lead us into the future. Meanwhile I'm not waiting for the next thing because your just can't or you will be waiting forever. Meanwhile I'm enjoying my new Dual Ghz/DDR.

that would be great if motorola came out with something far beyond most of our expectations

dual ghz/ddr sounds very cool certainly, it beats my ibm g3 chip in my ibook

 

[MisterMe]

Re: core users at 3.5 percent?

Originally posted by jefhatfield
when apple almost went out of business, they had a bigger percentage of the market than they do now

when steve jobs brought apple back and things were going good, ten percent of certain types of machines were apple machines bringing our total market share to five percent

dot.com bombed and apple fell behind and now the market share is somewhere around 3.5 percent

...will it get any lower or are the 3.5 percent apple's core constituency that will be a given from year to year?

....

You confuse sales which determine market share with users who determine the size of the core constituency.

Interestingly, I notice lately that the more successful Apple becomes, the more I see articles from this firm or that spokesman relating Apple's decline in education, overall market share, stock price, or some such. Yet, I also notice that software vendors who had abandoned the Mac are rejoining the fold. Others who had never supported the Mac are porting their apps to MacOS X. Mac-only vendors seem to be doing better than ever.

If you saw the USA Today today (6 September 2002), then you may have read an article about HP, Gateway, and even Dell all resorting to incentives to move their inventory. Yet, Apple can't move its new machines fast enough.

Get a grip!

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: core users at 3.5 percent?

Originally posted by MisterMe



You confuse sales which determine market share with users who determine the size of the core constituency.

Interestingly, I notice lately that the more successful Apple becomes, the more I see articles from this firm or that spokesman relating Apple's decline in education, overall market share, stock price, or some such. Yet, I also notice that software vendors who had abandoned the Mac are rejoining the fold. Others who had never supported the Mac are porting their apps to MacOS X. Mac-only vendors seem to be doing better than ever.

If you saw the USA Today today (6 September 2002), then you may have read an article about HP, Gateway, and even Dell all resorting to incentives to move their inventory. Yet, Apple can't move its new machines fast enough.[/i]

I agree completely. Also Apple's market share depends completely on who you ask. I've heard anywhere between %3.5-%7. The most common and well accepted number is between %5-%6 and growing.
Get a grip! [/QUOTE]

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: core users at 3.5 percent?

Originally posted by MisterMe



You confuse sales which determine market share with users who determine the size of the core constituency.

Interestingly, I notice lately that the more successful Apple becomes, the more I see articles from this firm or that spokesman relating Apple's decline in education, overall market share, stock price, or some such. Yet, I also notice that software vendors who had abandoned the Mac are rejoining the fold. Others who had never supported the Mac are porting their apps to MacOS X. Mac-only vendors seem to be doing better than ever.

If you saw the USA Today today (6 September 2002), then you may have read an article about HP, Gateway, and even Dell all resorting to incentives to move their inventory. Yet, Apple can't move its new machines fast enough.

Get a grip!

Two things to point out here.

1. It's all relative. The whole marketshare thing is not much more than bragging rights now that the market has grown as far as it has and there are only three real competitors. Windows, Mac, and Linux. As long as there are enough sales of Macs out there to keep the developers happy that they can sell products, who really cares what the marketshare really is. Those are things that the media and Joe Shmoe Rumor Monger cares about. Apple only talks about it because it's paying lip service to the crowd. Apple cares about increased sales...marketshare is just a byproduct of it.

2. Apple is using rebates constantly as of late to try moving product. What Mac fanatic site have you been reading? Apple is in the same boat as far as incentives are concerned. And Dell is absolutely killing everyone else in the PC market which is one of the reasons why Gateway is trying to compete against Apple in their ads. They're trying to tackle the Mac market where Dell really isn't making much of an attempt to.

3. Lastly the whole statement about not selling systems fast enough is all relative as well. If Apple only makes 1000 systems a week but has demand for 1500 systems, this would match that statement. If Dell makes 4000 systems a week but has demand for 3500, this would match that statement. Sorry but you've got to be careful about what you read. Dell is in "real" good shape right now and HP isn't too bad either.

Apple has their work cut out for them. Frankly though I do have to say that it's flat out amazing how Apple has weathered the storm with them against the world. That just helps back things up even more that marketshare doesn't mean a whole lot any longer like it used to.

 

[MisterMe]

Re: Re: Re: core users at 3.5 percent?

Originally posted by Cappy

....

What Mac fanatic site have you been reading?

USA Today

....

Frankly though I do have to say that it's flat out amazing how Apple has weathered the storm with them against the world....

I guess you would.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: core users at 3.5 percent?

Originally posted by MisterMe

USA Today

Thanks for the link. Nothing but another doom and gloom article though on the PC market. At least the end puts things in perspective in what is stated by Dell. The market has stopped growing for the most part. No big secret there but Dell has the best handle on how to deal with it.

I still don't see where you get Apple can't make enough of their newer systems. The writer is merely stating that the iMac is the more popular of the systems from Apple and that the rest are languishing. It's all a play on words to get people hyped up to state that they can't make enough. My past reference earlier in this thread to this still holds true.

 

[BongHits]

Originally posted by Chaszmyr
IBM or not, we all know Apple ALWAYS has something big up their sleeve

ya like the big dual 1.25 with 167 fsb and pc2700 ddr
maybe this time next year we'll be close to dual 1.5 or maybe even a dual 1.75!! my point is at this rate my 933 will be adequate until 2006.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by BongHits

ya like the big dual 1.25 with 167 fsb and pc2700 ddr
maybe this time next year we'll be close to dual 1.5 or maybe even a dual 1.75!! my point is at this rate my 933 will be adequate until 2006.

You think Apple has always gone along at this rate? All computer companies have hit stumbling blocks at some point. A large group of computer manufacturors are about to do just that if Intel's Itanium doesn't show progress. All I ask is that everyone enjoy what we have. The current batch of computers in my oppinion are not slow by any standard. All you have to do is use one for a few hours and you will understand what I mean.

 

[snoopy]

Most people seem to accept the report as fact. Yet it makes little sense. IBM pitched the chip to Apple and they said no because the SIMD is not Altivec? (I may have that a little off.) I doubt that IBM works in a vacuum like this. Develop a chip and then see who buys it? IBM would work with all large potential customers. They would want to sell it, so they make what customers want to buy. This processor would certainly have Altivec. That is what Apple needs. Others that have not developed code for any SIMD yet can use Altivec as well as any other. Also saying Altivec instructions cannot be implemented on a Power4 based chip does not make sense, on the surface. Having said that, it is still possible that the report is true. Just because it does not make sense, and seems strange does not stop it from being true.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Apple not interested in the Power4 ????
Do they have anything better up their sleeves?

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by MacBandit



You think Apple has always gone along at this rate? All computer companies have hit stumbling blocks at some point. A large group of computer manufacturors are about to do just that if Intel's Itanium doesn't show progress. All I ask is that everyone enjoy what we have. The current batch of computers in my oppinion are not slow by any standard. All you have to do is use one for a few hours and you will understand what I mean.

when the pc industry went to 32 bit with the 386, there was a bit of a transition time, and when
itanium 2 takes hold with 64 bit, if it does, there will be a trasition time...but AMD is going with 64 bit which can work both the 64 and 32 bit side, too, and that may be the better way to go

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


when the pc industry went to 32 bit with the 386, there was a bit of a transition time, and when
itanium 2 takes hold with 64 bit, if it does, there will be a trasition time...but AMD is going with 64 bit which can work both the 64 and 32 bit side, too, and that may be the better way to go

I gotta go with you, jef on this one. If Intel doesn't have something up its sleeve, the Clawhammer is going to, well, hammer the Itanuim into the ground. Compatibility is more important than speed in this case.

 

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by edvniow


I gotta go with you, jef on this one. If Intel doesn't have something up its sleeve, the Clawhammer is going to, well, hammer the Itanuim into the ground. Compatibility is more important than speed in this case.

what is that link at the bottom of your signature...i didn't hear it, it sounds from the title it is not meant for my ears...yikes

i could very well be a 13 year old instead of the middle aged engineer everyone thinks i am, or i could be the washed out rocker who almost made it but didn't, or i could be spikey

but i suspect from some of the comments i have seen here in the last two years, there are some really young ones on these forums under age 13 judging from what my young nephews brag about concerning the internet

 

[vniow]

Originally posted by jefhatfield


what is that link at the bottom of your signature...i didn't hear it, it sounds from the title it is not meant for my ears...yikes

Just a bunch of Monty Python sounds that I thought spoke to me.