OSNews

1. Release a **fast** system. They need to increase the speed of their CPU (G5, power4, whatever), increase their RAM speed (currently 133MHz), increase their bus speed (also 133MHz), use a faster GPU (GF4-4600), faster harddrives (at least 7200 RPM).

Custom PowerMacs come with GeForce Ti 4600, and new PowerMacs come with 7,200rpm HDDs.

2. Make OSX as fast as BeOS. Introduce journalling to HFS+/UFS. Use a MIME type filesystem with attributes, with database features (or port XFS or BeFS). Improve display speeds. Scrolling through a directory listing via Finder is still sloooooooowwwww.

So in other words you want Apple to ditch OS X and buy BeOS from Palm or use OBOS? Anyway, if the rumours are true, the next major release of Mac OS X (not 10.x) would include a database metajournaling file system (but, then, it is just a rumour). Scrolling speeds have improve a lot, and if Jaguar is anything they say it is, scrolling would be very fast, provided you have a pretty good GPU. (Besides, perhaps Finder's speed may attribute to HFS's speed)

IBM never liked Altivec (what Apple calls the Velocity engine). It would indeed be interesting for Apple to move everyone to a 64 bit G5 when they are still trying to move everyone to Mac OS X. It does give them bragging rights in the future "all of our stuff is 64 bit vs the PC world still stuck at 32. Even with Opteron around, where is the incentive to switch"

What's the incentives to switch the consumer market to 64-bit anyway? The limitations of 32-bit HAVEN'T yet been a problem, and people who need 64-bit in the first place are already using it. 64-bit is not twice the speed of 32-bit.

However, if you really need a 64-bit OS in a desktop computer, you can get a Sun Blade 100 for less than a grand.

I almost bought it, but then I saw there wasn't any new consumer Linux distributions when the computer was release, I shoted the idea down.

try to think outside the square. A 64 bit OS is useful for more than just high end servers. Current 32 bit OSes are already constrained by the size of disk drives and memories which even modest workstations are capable of.

These is not problems of 32-bit itself. It is problems with the chipset and the processor. I have yet to see a workstation to even support the limit of memory and storage 32-bit allows.

The Nintendo uses a version of the chip. So I don't think that IBM will be that stupid to charge Apple $1000+ per chip when Nintendo get it at a cut down price.

I thought Nintendo uses custom PowerPC. Anyway, for the same price for a Game Cube, I could get a PS/2 or a XBox... which have better specs.

If I remember correctly, the PowerPC architecture IS a POWER4 derivative design.

Wrong, it is the other way around.

Nothing new about outpreforming a PC... all Mac-users know that even the current 800 MHz G4 outperforms a current P4 by 237864%, runs circles around it, bla, bla... the only question remaing is why they actually need new CPUs at all with the current gear being so damn fast as it is...?!!

Yeah right :-D. Even Apple go that far in lying. Everybody rational enough knows that the 2.56GHz Pentium 4 coupled with RDRAM is the fastest 32-bit workstation processsor.