# Next Macs?



## Xiao (Apr 3, 2003)

Hey, I was just wodering if anyone knows any rumours of the next models/upgrades/hardware Apple will be releasing or some sites that have release any data?  Or are we just gunna have to wait until WWDC?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 3, 2003)

Hi Xiao, and welcome on board 

There are always a lot of rumors about the new models and new updates ... but not even the people working on Apple know about them. 

Do you have any particular model you are interested in? Thinking whether to buy a new Mac (wchich?) now? The Murphy's laws aren't always applicable (something like "as soon as you have bought a new Mac, a newer, faster, better model with smaller price will come out).


----------



## Xiao (Apr 3, 2003)

Hmmm, well I'm buying one for filmmaking, and the iMacs or PowerBooks will be the choice.  I need something portable, but powerful.  iMacs are easy to carry around, buy PowerBooks are...well laptops!  Obviously...But I wanna know if anything is right around the corner, someone mentioned a typical six month rule in another thread...


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 3, 2003)

Well, the 15,4" powerbook is probabble to get a newer look soon. iMacs are nice, then... powerbooks just got those 12" and 17" versions in MFSF.


----------



## Xiao (Apr 3, 2003)

I'll give it some time and wait for the 15.4," do you have any links to info on it?


----------



## Dusky (Apr 3, 2003)

> someone mentioned a typical six month rule in another thread..



Yup, the six months rule of thumb.  The iBook line should get a revision soon, and so should the PowerBook 15".

Check out these introduction dates I gathered from everymac.com, of four different machines:

iMacs
February 22, 2001 
July 18, 2001 
January 7, 2002 
July 17, 2002 
February 4, 2003 

iBooks
May 1, 2001 
October 16, 2001 
January 7, 2002 
May 20, 2002 
November 06, 2002

PowerBooks
January 9, 2001 
October 16, 2001 
April 29, 2002 
November 06, 2002
January 07, 2003 

PowerMacs
January 9, 2001 
July 18, 2001 
January 28, 2002 
August 13, 2002 
January 28, 2003


----------



## Xiao (Apr 3, 2003)

Oh yeah, do you think they'll put a G4 in the new iBook?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Apr 3, 2003)

The iBook is the only Macintosh currently using the G3. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.  But only when the Powermac and Xserve get the next gen processor (rumors now say IBM's PPC970)


----------



## Xiao (Apr 3, 2003)

IMB? Are you serious? Is the "G" series discontinued? Like, no G5?


----------



## Giaguara (Apr 3, 2003)

the "G5" will be the 970s.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Apr 3, 2003)

Giaguara is correct the "g" nomenclature is done by apple... not the processor manufacturer.  The G3 is technicaly the PPC 750. The G4 has been PPC 7400 series chips.
 (PPC= Power PC if you were wondering)


----------



## Xiao (Apr 3, 2003)

Oh, ok, so the PPC970 will say "G5" on it? BUT will be made by...IBM?


----------



## adambyte (Apr 3, 2003)

In fact, the first "G3" systems were not made by Apple, but were actually Mac clones.... was that UMAX, or Power Computing who made the first "G3" Mac?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Xiao _
> *Oh, ok, so the PPC970 will say "G5" on it? BUT will be made by...IBM? *



Yep,  from what we know know it will be produced by IBM.

IBM and Motorolla currently produce the G3 and G4's in current use.  IBM focusing on the G3 and Mot on the G4.

I'd imagine the new machines will be badged the G5... unless apple decides to revamp the image of the powermac line.


Adambyte... I wasn't around durring the early G3 days but if memory serves correctly the clones were first to market with the G3 although it was announced by Apple previous to that?


----------



## fryke (Apr 4, 2003)

Actually, it's the processor makers that named the processors in generations. But Apple also used this term. Right now there's the problem that the PowerPC 970, according to IBM's listings, is a G3 or a G4 system (they don't talk about generations any longer). Basically, Motorola hogged the G4 term with their 74xx line of processors and defined that AltiVec was a part of the definition. Now that the 970 has AltiVec, that would make it a G4 processor (it's based on the Power4 processor, not IBM's G3 processors).

Apple probably won't name the PowerMacs 'G4' any more, as for _them_ it's a new generation. Still 'G5' would be the wrong term, processor wise. G5 is Motorola's 85xx line of processors, which are not used in desktop computers so far. (And not aimed at desktop computers, either.)


----------



## whitesaint (Apr 4, 2003)

I actually think that the G5 was first initially started by Motorola, and that IBM bought the G5 assets off of them.  I mean how could IBM come up with such a good processor so quickly?  We all knew that the G5 was being developed a while ago and then the development suddenly....stopped.  It's very interesting to note how much the PowerPC 970 and the PowerPC G5 have in common.  Both 64 bit processors with 32 bit support, both are very fast and i dont know how the Single Instruction Multiple Data (SIMD ie Altivec) unit got on there.  Too bad AIM are so secretic about this stuff.  I find microporcessors really interesting!


----------



## chevy (Apr 4, 2003)

the "Pent" of Pentium stands for 5 ("5"86...), will the G come to its 5'th sky now ?


----------



## Androo (Apr 4, 2003)

I'm getting the new ibook in July then! Comes out around my birthday! (august 21)


----------



## Excalibur (Apr 4, 2003)

IBM has had the Power4 processor for a while. They don't need Motorola's technology, to come up with a good process. They have had a better processor and R&D for years. Motorolas focus has been embeded chips and IBMs has been server and mainframe, now they are scaling down to the workstation market, where Apple pretty much is headed. So they meet on common ground. Motorola has no interest in this market it seems by their actions so they need to be cut out the equation, in my opinion.


----------



## gwynarion (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by whitesaint _
> *I actually think that the G5 was first initially started by Motorola, and that IBM bought the G5 assets off of them.  I mean how could IBM come up with such a good processor so quickly?*



Maybe because they've been in the processor business for a really long time?  Maybe because the PPC970 is a derivative of another IBM chip?  Maybe because they are a very big company with a hell of a lot of engineers and a hell of a lot of money?



> *It's very interesting to note how much the PowerPC 970 and the PowerPC G5 have in common.*



That could have something to do with the fact that IBM and Motorola developed the PowerPC together.  Maybe...


----------



## Androo (Apr 16, 2003)

Award winning performance.


----------



## dracolich (Apr 17, 2003)

As I once wrote in another thread (don't know where), I guess Apple will call future PPC 970 machines 'G6', skipping a generation (G5 is now something of an urban legend, not a real processor, with a lot of bad feelings about it).

Just a guess, remember...

And PPC chips were developed by IBM from the start: when talks started about using them in Macs, Apple brought in Moto, which at the time was its only chip supplier (680x0) and was having some problems developing a RISC processor of its own. So AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) was born.


----------



## Horseteeth (Apr 17, 2003)

Wouldn't it be logical for Apple to capitalise on the "64-bitness" of the 970? I think it's more likely to see either a name with 64 in it (like G64, or i64, or something like that), or they'll come up with a proper name for the thing (viz. Pentium, Itanium, Hammer, ...). So, any guesses as to what name, if a proper name?

I'm thinking baby-eater or wife-beater or maybe even horse-teether.


----------



## fryke (Apr 17, 2003)

Hmm... The model name of the PowerMacintosh could just stay PowerMac or PowerMacintosh. And the processor... Why not call it PowerPC 970... Yes, it's simple, but simple is good.


----------



## Horseteeth (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> * PowerPC 970... Yes, it's simple, but simple is good. *



I don't think so. They kind of left this behind with the introduction of the G3. Before the G3 (which was in fact a 75xx), you did have the PPC 6xxx and so on, named as such. This was rather confusing though, as people hardly knew what processor #6800 did more/less than some other processor #6390 (I'm inventing the numbers). Therefore, in a move induced more by marketing than anything else, they started the G3 thing. Naming the new proc PPC 970 would be a step back, imho. They should choose the name good (although they might just as well not).


----------



## fryke (Apr 17, 2003)

They won't let go of the 'PowerPC' term in my humble opinion. And to add a 'descriptive' name to that doesn't, well, it isn't descriptive. PowerPC Hexagon (replace with anything, really)... I don't think so. G5, okay, although it IS a G4. G6? That'd be jumping _two_ generations. 

Sure Apple doesn't have to adhere to Motorola's and IBM's 'generations', but the 970 is a derivate of the Power4 processor, which is a fourth generation high end PowerPC processor. They've also added AltiVec, which even more fits Mot's G4 description. It's also 64bit, but that is not a generation jump, because PowerPC was ready to go 64 bit, basically, anytime.

If they have to do anything other than 970, let them call it a G5. Motorola doesn't seem to deliver desktop variants of the MPC 85xx anytime soon, anyway.


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dracolich _
> *...
> And PPC chips were developed by IBM from the start: when talks started about using them in Macs, Apple brought in Moto, which at the time was its only chip supplier (680x0) and was having some problems developing a RISC processor of its own. So AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) was born. *



Well by then Mot wasen't having problems developing, they had the 88000 line, it's just that they had already missed the boat and all the major manufacturers had already aligned themselves with other RISC platforms.



> _Originally posted by Horseteeth_
> * Wouldn't it be logical for Apple to capitalise on the "64-bitness" of the 970? I think it's more likely to see either a name with 64 in it (like G64, or i64, or something like that)*



I kinda like the ring of G64, though that does leave the problem with what do you call its sucessor (G64+, G64/2).  Maybe Apple will extend their current naming scheme and simply call it iProcessor 



> _Originally posted by fryke_
> *...
> but the 970 is a derivate of the Power4 processor, which is a fourth generation high end PowerPC processor.*



Well Power4 is the fourth generation POWER processor.  The POWER chips are now all fully PowerPC compliant (and are therefore technically PowerPC processors), but Power4 owes its heritage to the old POWER line.



> _Originally posted by Exalibur_* 	IBM has had the Power4 processor for a while. They don't need Motorola's technology, to come up with a good process. They have had a better processor and R&D for years. Motorolas focus has been embeded chips and IBMs has been server and mainframe, now they are scaling down to the workstation market, where Apple pretty much is headed. So they meet on common ground. Motorola has no interest in this market it seems by their actions so they need to be cut out the equation, in my opinion.*



Lets not forget that PowerPC was in itself a derivtive of POWER which was developed by IBM.  Motorola contributed bus logic and later AltiVec, but the majority of PPC is IBM developed.  While Motorola is more focused on embedded and cellular, IBM is very heavy into the embedded market as well (like Nintendo GameCubes for instance, and PlayStation3).  IBM isn't "scaling down" to the workstation market, they've always been there.  POWER/RIOS was designed from the getgo to power workstations.  Unix systems as powerful servers didn't really get a full head of steam until after all the RISC dust had settled (remember, in the 80's/early 90's people like Sun were _workstation_ manufacturers, and their servers were designed to support their workstations).

In general the story of Motorola and cpu's is a sad one.  Motorola never really understood this market and misstep after misstep will probably lead to them being nothing but a fab and manuf. of embedded systems.  Pretty sad for a company that basically owned the "high end" cpu market 20 years ago.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *They won't let go of the 'PowerPC' term in my humble opinion. And to add a 'descriptive' name to that doesn't, well, it isn't descriptive. PowerPC Hexagon (replace with anything, really)... I don't think so. G5, okay, although it IS a G4. G6? That'd be jumping _two_ generations.
> 
> Sure Apple doesn't have to adhere to Motorola's and IBM's 'generations', but the 970 is a derivate of the Power4 processor, which is a fourth generation high end PowerPC processor. They've also added AltiVec, which even more fits Mot's G4 description. It's also 64bit, but that is not a generation jump, because PowerPC was ready to go 64 bit, basically, anytime.
> ...




Something similar has happened in the past.  The G4 was originaly going to be the G3 plus.  Due to marketing confusion they decided to differentiate it even more with the previous chips.  The G4 isn't exactly a 4th Gen chip... it's a G3 with a VPU.

It would seem fairly strange to see a G6 when nothing materialized from the G5


----------



## MacMarshall (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _In general the story of Motorola and cpu's is a sad one.  Motorola never really understood this market and misstep after misstep will probably lead to them being nothing but a fab and manuf. of embedded systems.  Pretty sad for a company that basically owned the "high end" cpu market 20 years ago. [/B]


 I thought that what killed Moto in the CPU market was when Apple decided to move from CISC to RISC in 1993, which killed Moto's 68050 processor. Intel since proved that CISC is scalable after all. 

But maybe you have more details than that.


----------



## lurk (Apr 17, 2003)

Well not really they scaled it by slapping a CISC translator on the front of a RISC core.  That is part of the reason that intel has such a long pipeline on their processors to accommodate all of the translation that is needed.

-Eric


----------



## binaryDigit (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MacMarshall _
> *I thought that what killed Moto in the CPU market was when Apple decided to move from CISC to RISC in 1993, which killed Moto's 68050 processor. Intel since proved that CISC is scalable after all.
> 
> But maybe you have more details than that. *



Well it goes much further back than that.  Back to a different time and age (picture your screen going hazy and wavy around the edges).

Back in the early 80's Mot ruled the high end cpu landscape.  At the low end you  had the Z80 and 6502.  In the "middle" you had x86 and 68k, and on the high end you had the 68k.  Now by high end, I'm referring to computers.  Note that back them, pretty much the ONLY computers running x86 were pc clones.  Most of the workstation manufacturers were using 68k (Sun, HP, DEC, SGI, etc).  Then this RISC thing came along, and Sun (who was even back then the big boy in workstations) went to Mot begging for them to come up with a RISC chip.  Mot declined/drug their heels.  Sun gave up in frustration and went forth with their own design (SPARC).  By then HP had PA-RISC, DEC had MIPS then Alpha, SGI had MIPS, and IBM had ROMP then RIOS/POWER.  Motorolas hold on the workstation market evaporated.  Way too late Mot came up with the 88000, which was a nice chip, but by then all the big boys had theirs and there weren't any more major manuf. left to use the chip.  They did manage to get Bull and Data General to sign on.  DG came out with the Aviion line.  It was rumoured that NeXT had a dual proccie 88k motherboard to supplant the 68k, but then they dropped hardware and that was the end of that.  Sun also used the 88k in some deskside graphics subsystems.  (As a side note AMD suffered a similar problem (late to market) with their RISC effort, the 29000.  It did see some success however as an embedded controller, used esp. in laser printers).

Fast forward a little and Apple realizes that they are being left in the dust performance wise and needs to do something "radical".  In steps IBM and Mot.  88k lives on a bit in that part of the PowerPC uses tech from the 88k (bus and glue logic I hear, but I don't know the details).   BTW, I believe that Mot was working on the 68060 at the time, not an '050 (now that's interesting eh, we're discussing the same skipping over of '5' with G4->G?).  Some '060s shipped in products (I know some Amiga accelerator boards shipped with them).  Performance wise, the '060 would probably hold it's own if not beat the early 601, but by then it was too little too late.  Even back then Mot was having issues ramping up the clock speeds in the 68k series (see, some things NEVER change).

So had Mot played their cards right, they themselves (all alone without IBM's help) would be the #1 selling RISC processor, powering Sun workstations/servers and Apple, plus probably several other workstation manufacturers machines.  Of course this pales compared to where Mot would be now (and conversly Intel) had IBM picked the 68K over the 8088 for the PC, but thats another story  

As for Intel and CISC.  Yes and no.  The current line of x86 processors are really RISC processors at their core (literally and figuratively).  So they proved that you could design a chip that executes CISC instructions quickly, but that it takes basically a RISC "chip" to do it.

And finally, Pentium being 586.  Well that was true way back when, but had Intel stuck with the numerical model names (which they changed for marketing/legal reasons), you can bet that todays P4 would be way past 586.  986 if you take (Pentium == 5) + 4.


----------



## Arden (Apr 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by adambyte _
> *In fact, the first "G3" systems were not made by Apple, but were actually Mac clones.... was that UMAX, or Power Computing who made the first "G3" Mac? *


'Twas in fact Power Computing who made the first G3 systems.  They must have had something like 25 Mhz bus speeds, because I remember they had 250 or 275 Mhz clock speed models.  However, Mac Wars: Disband of the Clones set in not long after.

Xiao: Unless you need lots of screen space for your video editing (which is always useful), wait for Apple to make 15" AlBooks and buy one.  If you like the 17" model, I would recommend that because it has great extra features, a large, vibrant screen, and it's available now.  Plus, it's got a Superdrive, so you can create, edit and burn your movies all on the go.


----------



## Androo (Apr 21, 2003)

> > > iBooks
> > > May 1, 2001
> > > October 16, 2001
> > > January 7, 2002
> > > ...



So then a new ibook should be coming out soon..... hurray, i'm getting it!


----------

