2.53GHz Pentium

I consider myself a pro user although I'm not using either a video or an audio application, dricci. *smile*

I'm a professional graphics designer and a professional writer. For one job, even a C64 would be enough. I guess most of the time, my TiBook is waiting for my text input, idling away redrawing the various Quartz elements on my screen. The *other* job however requires some stuff of my computer. Photoshop is definitely power hungry, so is InDesign and so is Illustrator. That's also exactly where I *can't* work in a Windows environment, the only competitor environment. So basically I'm screwed if Apple doesn't leap forward, ain't I?

I'm very content with how my TiBook behaves and performs, how it works. I'll be even more glad with Mac OS X 10.2, I'm waiting for some bugs being fixed in all the Adobe applications and I'll buy a new PowerBook in January/February 2003, if all goes as planned.

Will the whatever clockspeed Sony notebook at that time have any appeal to me over the PowerBook? Yes. It will be faster. The battery time may suck, the keyboard as well as the iLink that doesn't feed power (bad idea, Sony). But it will definitely be faster. Windows XP will have some bugs fixed by then, too. But it'll still be a Windows notebook. Sony won't change that. I mean, yikes! I C*A*N*N*O*T get any graphical work done there. I've *teached* Photoshop on Windows, and my students learned some thing, sure. But I'll choose the TiBook even when it'll just be at right about 1 GHz. But I won't actually *like* the fact that it'll be that much slower.

Apple: We're staying with you. We're bearing with you. We're waiting for you. We want you to lead. We thought, the PowerPC platform was clearly the better choice, back when you made the switch from 68K processors.

Apple... OS: Great! Machine design: Insanely great! Innovations in software: Phantastic! And you also didn't forget about the fun of computing! But, and I guess you know it, the processors you're using SUCK performance-wise, compared to the competition.

Btw. Apple should NOT release mice with more than one button. There are enough companies selling nice mice, and actually Apple was *right* about the one-button mouse from the beginning.
 
I don't want to seem accusatory, but this discussion begs the question:

If dual 1.75Ghz G5's w/ *real* 533Mhz bus and DDR came out tomorrow, would you all be lauding the greatness of the mac system as much and saying how is makes you a better creative professional, or would you let out a big collective laugh at the PC world?

I would laugh. I'm just as guilty as the rest. When OS 9 sucked, I said that it was made up for by it's friendly GUI. When the G4 sucked I explained pipeline stages photoshop bakeoffs. Now, when the G4's are sucking again, we discuss how much better OS X is than any XP crap.

The GUI, the pipeline and XP sucking are all valid points, but we can let these excuses get in the way of taking an objective view of the macintosh platform. Without informed decisions on the current state of mac affairs, Apple risks falling into a state of complacency, because it thinks its users no longer care about performance.

Apple must understand that superior industrial design and software will not create the perfect platform.

Apple is doing a great job, but they are risking marginialization if the performace gap widens much more.

Comments? :D
 
The number of buttons on the mouse is debatable. I think Apple should have one button mouse as the default, but have an option on their website to order a Logitech type mouse instead, for those users whoa re so inclined to have right-click (I actually like having a right-click option on a mouse, contextual menus are great)

BTW, sorry for getting somewhat off of the subject

As for the pentium vs. PPC issue:
As I have said before, Apple has great some great stuff, but in our world, mhz really *do* matter, and there is no getting past that. Until Apple (IBM/Motorola) start making better(as in faster) processors, they aren't going to succeed. Also, They need to incorporate DDR ram and faster Bus speeds. I remember reading a post from someone saying something like "If Apple doesn't boost their speed soon, Intel's bus speeds will be as high as Apple's Clock speed" unfortunately, this might be true:(
 
That's gonna take a while. Real bus speed is still 133 MHz, don't be fooled by the number. But you're right all the same, xaqintosh. Matrix Agent: Didn't I say the exact same thing in other words?

And btw. this is one of the threads where discussions start to overleap. People who post now weren't there at the beginning and haven't read the posts. Most of the things have already been said, so maybe it should be locked by the creator. *smile*
 
...This is an interesting Thread to read, coming from an XP User, with no Mac ( Sulks ) and an Athlon CPU! :p

<< Oh, and Mice ...

My Personal opinion is that you swallow your pride (Donate Dollars to the DEMON ! Mu hahaha!:p ), and ALL Buy Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer's! (hehe!) ... I Love Mine!!! :D

NeYo
 
I'm actually using a Microsoft IntelliMouse Optical, although I'm defending one button mice at Apple. I think it would be very, very inconsistent if Apple would start selling mice with more buttons, be it as a choice or 'at all'. I also think mice and monitors should live longer than CPUs, which is of course wrong in a notebook like my TiBook.
 
OK, so can we all agree on the RAM and bus speed needs? I think so.

I think the real problem here is not MHz, but the chip architecture. And I am quite afraid of the future frankly.

I am no tech head and couldn't explain much past pipeline stages, but I think the advantage of the PPC design philosophy is quickly eroding, and soon will be gone altogether. The RISC chip was a fine idea, and at the beginning made significant gains over CISC chips that Intel was making. But over time the line is blurred. There are elements of RISC in x86 chips now, and the sheer cycle speed of those chips makes any advantage of how efficient a chip is increasingly meaningless. I have a 400 MHz G3 powerbook and a 550 MHz AMD K6-III+ both running Linux. The PB is noticeably faster than the K6. So it can easily makes up a 150 MHz gap. However, given a 2.5 GHz vs 1GHz gap... you just can't make that up.

So why am I afraid?

A) Apple has hitched its wagon to Motorola. Motorola is basically inept. Sorry to anyone who may work there, but I feel it's true. Their whole company structure is stoic and doomed. My father-in-law worked in R&D there (cell phones, not CPUs). They managed to let a firm grasp on the market slip away to Nokia because they would not or could not innovate and understand what the market wanted. They have a basic attitude of "this is how we do things, it worked in the past, it will continue to do so." They also treat their R&D guys like dog crap (at least on my father-in-law's teams, and his associates in other locales had basically the same experiences). I really don't think Motorola has what it takes to innovate on the PPC, and I don't think the PPC has any inherent design advantages over the x86 anymore.

B) I don't know if Steve Jobs has the humility to admit PPC was a mistake. Well, maybe not originally, but now it's not up to par. Forgive my lack of knowledge in Apple history, I don't know if Jobs was still on board when the decision was made to jump to PPC. But at the least I know that he has raved about the G4, and the prospects of the PPC. Now I know it's part of his job to rave about anything Mac, but I question whether or not he would endorse such a radical change if the bottom line is not desperate. If Apple were sinking fast, such drastic measures might be more palatable. Plus, Steve is in love with the notion of quiet computers, and PPCs are lower energy/lower heat CPUs. I think Steve would make this a bigger deal in an arrangement with AMD than it deserves to be (MHO).

C) The shock to the system would be huge. All those aps, worthless. People would be faced with rebuying new versions to run on a new architecture. If Apple keeps things closed, then a new AMD based chip would mean buying a new AMD based Mac and then all your software (unless they cook up another emulation scheme). Given the prospect of such a financial load, I think many people may think "I've got to buy a new PC that runs on an AMD chip, why not just buy this one here from Dell (or whoever)?"

To end this rant, I'll give my solution. (Are you ready? I bet you can't wait, right?) Apple needs to hook up with AMD. AMD makes great chips. But the timing needs to be right. If they basically make an x86 version of OSX, they lose a ton of money on hardware since everyone will run it on an el cheapo Dell. They would have to change their business model and become more Microsoft-esque. They could conceivably get AMD to make a chip that is different enough that the OS won't run on standard x86 hardware. But the timing of all this is the 64 vs 32 bit OS. Theoretically the G5 might be able to do both. This would make for a smooth transition. But anyway you slice it it's going to be a rough transition anyway. There's the chance to make such a huge leap, and give people a tangible reason as to why it's worth the cost. Squeeze all the life you can out of the PPC, get a G5 out now, and as soon as you can get together with AMD and make a 64 bit chip that runs in top of the line Macs.

OK, so brevity is not my strong suit.
 
Before Apple does something so drastic as embracing the x86 architecture, they have a much better migration option... The IBM POWER4 architecture. It's binary compatible with the PowerPC code, it's 64bit, and it's blazing fast. I don't think its cost is too outrageous either, considering IBM is slowly putting it into their entry and mid level servers. Unfortunately it doesn't have AltiVec...

Here is an excerpt from the Colorado Engineer Magazine about it...

---

IBM Power4

The IBM Power4 chip will be the successor to its current Power3 chip. IBM used to work with Motorola on producing the PowerPC chips that Apple uses in its computers. However, there was a falling out, and Motorola and IBM went their separate ways. Apple is currently using Motorola chips, but the PowerPC chips that IBM is currently manufacturing for its enterprise servers are still compatible with Apple's architecture.

The Power4 chips will, like the Hammer series, feature two processor cores on one chip. However, unlike the Hammer series, IBM has decided to take this a step further and has designed a schematic for a multi-chip module. The multi-chip module couples four Power4 dice on a single module for a very efficient 8-way symmetric multiprocessing system.

The actual specifications of the Power4 are quite impressive. IBM claims that the chip core can run in excess of 1GHz, but taking into account the new manufacturing process with which the Power4 will be made, it will probably be capable of speeds up to 1.5GHz. The Power4 is also equipped with a 144 GB/sec L2 cache bus and a peak memory bandwidth of 8 GB/sec.

The Power4 chip is a force to be reckoned with. Highly scalable, fast and designed by IBM, this chip is sure to be something special. Moreover, the familiar RISC architecture of the Power4 chip will make both software and hardware compatibility a non-issue. Unfortunately, the success of the Power4 may face a downfall in IBM's tendency to shy away from marketing individual products. So, there is a good chance that the chip will only be used in its enterprise servers.
 
Yeah, that sounds good. Do that. :D

Seriously though, I agree that there are steps that could be done before going x86. I really see Apple moving to x86 as a last gasp effort. If they're going bankrupt again, I'd bet they would drop an x86 OSX on the world to see if they couldn't reinvent themselves as a software company.

The Power4 would be good. Letting AMD take over Motorola's role in the Apple/IBM/Motorola arrangement sounds real good too. Like I said, I just don't think Motorola can push the PPC to do what it needs for Apple. I have far more faith in what AMD could do with the technology.
 
Yes, Apollos are just updated G4 chips. 7460 and 7500 are evolutionary developments of the original 7400 and the more recent 7450 chips that Apple uses in PowerMacintosh G4 computers.

AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola - not the chat application) have talked about using 4-way processor cores on one processor module for a long time. The G4 was once rumoured to implement this - it did not. Now the G5 (PowerPC 8500) is rumoured to implement it.

Whatever: Apple needs both faster processors and a development roadmap that promises (and DELIVERS) more.
 
I'm just wondering:

Would Apple be able (money-wise) to actually buy Motorola? Or maybe just Motorola's Processor division?

If Apple could do that, then they would be in charge, and I'm sure they would be able to get better processors and DDR ram and Faster Bus Speeds. It would be Great because Apple would be in full control of itself.

(Just an Idea)
 
You can buy a lot with four billion dollars...but as far as moto's willingness to let go of their proc unit, who knows?

Even if Apple was able to buy the rights to the PPC and altivec, what would they do with it? Who would run the R&D? At first you might say the people who originally worked for moto, but how do we know that they are even competent.

It could be bad employees, it could be bad funding, it could be bueracracy. Its a big mess. But, by no means should OS X ever be ported to x86. That would be a disaster on a completely different level than to have the press backlash of Apple falling a whole 2Ghz behind the masters of deception. (intel)

:D
 
First, any AMD solution is basically pointless, they are not in command of the x86 market, so why would moving to them in particular be of any advantage (versus any of the other chip makers out there)?

I personally think that the correct course of action is a combination of phatsharpie's and xaqintosh's ideas. We should move to IBM, but we should buy out the rights to AltiVec before leaving Motorola (IBM makes G4s, just not with Motorola's AltiVec included). IBM is a computer company, and Motorola is not (and that should make all the difference). IBM uses their own products, so they have good reason to want to improve them. I am worried that the last line of products using IBM chips (the iBooks) may not be using them much longer, and I would not want a relationship between Apple and IBM to go cold at a time when the future of Motorola is so questionable. IBM could put out a 1.5+ GHz G3 type chip today if their biggest customer was Apple and not the imbedded chip market, but Apple would not buy any G3 with higher clock speed than the current G4 (IBM had 700+ MHz G3s, but Apple would only buy them at 500 MHz a few years ago because Motorola couldn't get past 500 MHz with their version of the G4*). The only real short coming of the G3 series is the cache which keeps it from working nicely in multiprocessor systems.

In the short term IBM could make G4s with Apple licensing the AltiVec to them (which would give us a very quick speed boost), but in the long run we should flow with IBM's R&D and take full advantage of what ever they come up with. As has been pointed out the POWER3 and POWER4 series (both based on the architecture of the 604 series, the same as the G4 series) are both great chips and are being used in IBM's servers and workstations running AIX. Moving to POWER3 now (it is optimized for 32-bit code) and later the POWER4 (the 64-bit version) would be safe moves at this time.


* NOTE: IBM was able to produce G4s at 600+ MHz when Motorola was unable to supply Apple with 500 MHz chips when the G4 series was first released.
 
Thanks RacerX, I was hoping to see your input on this topic. You're really knowledgable in this area, so it's nice to see you agree (mostly) with my assessment. I think the POWERx architecture would be great for the Mac, they can finally be in the same league as other UNIX workstations from SGI and Sun. Buying out the AltiVec rights from Motorola would be a good thing too. But is AltiVec really necessary on the POWERx platform? I don't really know, so just wondering. To me, Apple's offloading of Quartz onto the GPU instead of optimizing it using the AltiVec shows that they are moving away from tying themselves to the AltiVec core.
 
I think Apple has a better shot trying to make the G5 work on the desktop than moving to a completely incompatible arch so quickly after moving to a new OS.

The G5 was supposed to address some of the issues currently plaguing the G4 arch, such as lack of support for next-gen RAM like DDR/RAMBUS (IIRC), and HyperTransport is still a ways off.

Really, the big things going for the G4 right now is that it is smaller, cooler, and less power-hungry. To increase performance, it would have to give up those things going for it. Intel/AMD gave up on trying to make an efficient processor (in waste energy/heat) to eek out a little bit of performance. Moto/Apple appear to be taking the smaller/cooler route while they work out issues of moving the G5 to a desktop platform. IIRC, Apple was supposed to have a hand in the G5 designs, plus there was the fact that the 256-bit Altivec II wasn't ready by Moto's announcement. 256-bit Altivec would be required or it will severely cripple the G5 down the road only supporting 2 64-bit chunks. Altivec needs to continue offering 4 chunks at the chip's optimal bitsize, or it will just lose any edge Altivec can give in OS X as it is.

Not fun, is it?
 
Thought id make a celebrity appearance :D

Ive said it before and ill say it again, Apple will one day, dont know when but one day jump on the AMD clawhammer/ sledgehammer bandwagon.
 
That's a good question, which I hope someone knows the answer to. Hopefully it's about up :D .

I think it's a good point that IBM would use their own product in a similar capacity to Apple, and that this is a good thing. Motorola uses the PPC as an embedded systems chip, so lo and behold they make very cool running low energy chips that aren't terribly fast.

As to Apple doing all of this inhouse by buying Motorola's processor department? Uh... I think that's a bad idea. My one gazillionth ownership of the company would have to nix that, I think that's financial disaster. You'd be talking about sinking a sizeable amount of that 4 billion reserve to basically start a whole new company in a very volatile industry.

Buying Altivec on the other hand seems more reasonable, and more in line with what Apple has done in the past, investing a large sum to have a say in how key technologies are developed.

I still think AMD could do a good job with the PPC chip if they had an interest in buying out Motorola's role in AIM. But easiest would be to just hitch our wagon to IBM instead of Motorola.

Motorola has shown that they can't even meet demand for the slow chips they make, let alone get them up to speed. I just hope that Appple is well aware of the problem, and is seeking change. Are there any solid indications to indicate that they might be leaning away from Motorola, or just heresy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top