Home > Apple > Apple to Announce the ……. at WWDC?Apple to Announce the ……. at WWDC? Eugenia Loli 2003-06-08 Apple 85 CommentsThis story has been removed at request of Apple Computer, Inc. We respect Apple’s wishes to this sensitive matter. About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 85 Comments 2003-06-08 5:12 am Hopefully they will update the powerbook line as well ! 2003-06-08 5:14 am …and will go on costing twice as much compared to a PC with comparable hardware features. Very nice indeed.Until the next overhaul comes to the Apple hardware to keep up with the PC architecture improvements, many new myths will have been invented by Apple fans. Like how much faster IBM PowerPC processors are compared to an IA-64 …Apple has no means to compete with the massive PC hardware industry because of the lack of competition. Until that happens, they will lag behind and cost a lot but look “cool”. It just takes a zealot not to see that they’re ripped off (OS X on Apple hardware compared to FreeBSD on PC hardware). 2003-06-08 5:17 am quote :Until the next overhaul comes to the Apple hardware to keep up with the PC architecture improvements, many new myths will have been invented by Apple fans. Like how much faster IBM PowerPC processors are compared to an IA-64 …will you be able to purchase a desktop pc running IA-64 anytime soon ? And I did say desktop not workstation. 2003-06-08 5:19 am “unconfirmed” would definitely be the operative word. This is nothing more than a rumor. 2003-06-08 5:23 am re: will you be able to purchase a desktop pc running IA-64 anytime soon ? And I did say desktop not workstation.Not soon. When “the next overhaul to Apple hardware” comes Intel is going to come up with desktop IA-64 chips in a few years. Deerfield (the lower cache version of Madison) is for lower-end servers coming this year AFAIK. But their ultimate objective is to migrate to IA-64. 2003-06-08 5:39 am Careful Eugenia, you tread too boldly on dangerous ground these days. The world of Apple related rumors has over a decade of history, and it is full of pits and vipers… and pits full of vipers. Even the most experienced Mac rumor mongerers work a fine line. Those who take Mac rumor sites too seriously risk the reputation of their own site. OSNews.com has always been a reliable site in my eyes, but that is in peril.Apple related rumors are best left to the rumor sites. Keeping track of the reputations of various sites is a difficult task. Some are to easily fooled, and still others post outright lies. More then one legitimate news source has had such a rumor bite them in the ass.Just a friendly warning. 2003-06-08 5:45 am atici: “Apple has no means to compete with the massive PC hardware industry because of the lack of competition. Until that happens, they will lag behind and cost a lot but look “cool”. It just takes a zealot not to see that they’re ripped off (OS X on Apple hardware compared to FreeBSD on PC hardware).”apple’s competition is the “massive PC hardware industry” get a clue 2003-06-08 5:51 am Would you mind kindly explaining what the hell you mean? 2003-06-08 5:55 am Is already present in the latest machines and is supported in LinuxPPC. It’s just not yet supported by Mac OS X.—http://homepage.mac.com/softkid 2003-06-08 6:05 am I hope this rumor turns out to be false, just so that OS News will stop posting Apple rumors on this site, as if it were fact. If people want Apple rumors, they already know to go to thinksecret.com or macrumors.com 2003-06-08 6:20 am What that person means is that if Apple had someone to compete with within the PPC hardware market, eg. Against Apple clone makers, they would eventually have to lower the price of the hardware. They could still sell the OS for the same amount. 2003-06-08 6:40 am this was clearly stated as a RUMOR, so why criticize eugina for posting it. It is news, and its interesting. It wasn’t presented as fact so chill out.. When you start posting stories or run a website then I’ll be interested to hear what you have to say.. until then.. lay off 2003-06-08 6:42 am …and will go on costing twice as much compared to a PC with comparable hardware features. Very nice indeed.The only comperable architecture will be provided by the Clawhammer core Athlon XP systems.This is a full 64-bit workstation supporting the HyperTransport architecture, which will provide incredible degrees of SMP scalability, probably up to at least 8 processors.Until the next overhaul comes to the Apple hardware to keep up with the PC architecture improvementsClawhammer-based Athlons aren’t even out yet. This is the first 64-bit system based upon a HyperTransport architecture being released to consumers.Many new myths will have been invented by Apple fans. Like how much faster IBM PowerPC processors are compared to an IA-64 …What matters is how it compares to today’s processors. A 1.8GHz PPC970 has comparable SPEC scores to a Pentium 4 3.06GHz. SPEC is one of the most trusted names in benchmarking. Here are the scores:DhrystonePPC970 1.8GHz 5220Pentium-4 3.06GHz 7724 (Hyperthreaded), 7009 (without HT)Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25GHz) 6406Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8GHz) 5125Pentium-4 1.8GHz 4119SPECint2000PPC970 1.8GHz 937Pentium-4 3.066GHz 1130Athlon XP 2800+ 933Athlon XP 2200+ 765Pentium-4 1.8GHz 612SPECfp2000PPC970 1.8GHz 1051Pentium-4 3.066GHz 1103Athlon XP 2800+ 843Athlon XP 2200+ 671Pentium-4 1.8GHz 678Sources:http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=60000475http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htmOf course, this is only raw integer and floating performance. These processors also sport an AltiVec unit, which greatly increases performance on applications optimized to use it.A transition to 64-bits allows Apple to use a PPC-optimized Mach-O ABI for 64-bit applictaions, which will greatly increase application performance over the current 32-bit ABI which has been partially blamed for OS X’s performance issues.Of course the most notable transition is a move to the HyperTransport architecture as an interconnect between other processors and their memory, the AGP bus, and the PCI bus. This will allow easy SMP scalability, and hopefully we’ll soon see 4-way PowerMacs and XServes.While PPC970 may not be outperforming x86, it certainly brings Macs back into the game in terms of performance. The 800MHz front side bus and HyperTransport-based chipset means that they’ll be able to take full advantage of that DDR400 RAM. Basically, all bottlenecks plaguing the previous Macintosh architecture have been eliminated, and they’re now on-par with high end PC systems in terms of performance.OS X can move to a 64-bit kernel and ABI. The installer will simply install a 32-bit kernel and libraries if you are running on a G4 or earlier PPC, and can install a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit and 32-bit libraries if you’re on a PPC970 system. At WWDC they’re supposed to introduce 64-bit dev tools as well.Finally, one last thing to keep in mind is that thanks to IBM’s new fabrication facility, the processors will end up costing less than current G4s. But at this point, it’s foolish to speculate on how Apple will price PPC970 systems. Saying they’ll be ridiculously expensive with absolutely no evidence is pointless. I would wager that PPC970 systems will cost slightly more than current PowerMacs.As for how PPC970 will compare to future x86 offerings, keep in mind that these processors are debuting at the 1.2GHz to 1.8GHz range. The 1.2GHz model is designed for mobile use, and has a power dissipation of only 19W, about 60% of current x86-based laptops. IBM is set to ramp the clock speed up to at least 2.5GHz. PPC970 should stay competative with x86 for at least the next year, if not longer.Finally, there’s the Power5-derived successor to PPC970 to keep in mind. Boasting SMT and performance levels of 4 times a comparably clocked Power4 processor, the Power5 architecture contains many improvements which will help bring the PPC970 successor to even higher levels of performance, perhaps even surpassing x86 once again. We will hopefully see multicore versions of this processor, probably supporting up to 4 hardware threads.So, to conclude, let me just say this: Apple’s worries about a performance gap between PPC and x86 are over. 2003-06-08 6:57 am How many times they say “This WWDC G5 is coming out” or “This MacWorld G5 is coming out”. Heck, Kelly McSomething of OSOpinion even set aside some money to buy such a Mac two years ago! Sure, the difference is that last time the G5 was from, supposedly, Motorola, and this time IBM. However IBM isn’t all that good in keeping to their release schedules, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. 2003-06-08 7:11 am So, to conclude, let me just say this: Apple’s worries about a performance gap between PPC and x86 are over.…if they come out with that solution in less than a year. 2003-06-08 7:20 am The only comperable architecture will be provided by the Clawhammer core Athlon XP systems. Most of the Mac tasks are in 32-bit. And they are likely to stay that way for the forseable future. And it is very unlikely that 64-bit tasks from other 64-bit architecture (e.g. Sun, SGI) would arrive on the Mac.Clawhammer-based Athlons aren’t even out yet. This is the first 64-bit system based upon a HyperTransport architecture being released to consumers. Still doesn’ negates the point. Besides, it is very likely that AMD releases the their processors before IBM. IBM slates July when mass production comes. By time it reaches the commercial market, it would be 3-5 months down the line, looking at IBM track record. AMD on the other hand (IIRC, correct me if I’m wrong) is already mass producing multiprocessor Clawhammers, I’m sure consumer Clawhammers would arrive shortly thereafter.What matters is how it compares to today’s processors. A 1.8GHz PPC970 has comparable SPEC scores to a Pentium 4 3.06GHz. You used current processors vs. a processor that would be released end of this year, or beginning of next year, with results from IBM themselves. You seriously think that Intel and AMD is gonna sit still until IBM releases their processor? Unlikely.And since released processors by Intel and AMD is around the same estimated speed as 970 1.8GHz, I would worry when it gets released.which will greatly increase application performance over the current 32-bit ABI which has been partially blamed for OS X’s performance issues.I would say the ABI bad port to PPC from x86 is the one to blamed for its performance issues – not the fact that it is 32-bit.While PPC970 may not be outperforming x86, it certainly brings Macs back into the game in terms of performance. The big question is: for how long? A year? Half a year? a couple of months? A couple of weeks? A day? IBM doesn’t have the financial incentive to improve at the speed of Intel and to the lesser extent AMD.Finally, one last thing to keep in mind is that thanks to IBM’s new fabrication facility, the processors will end up costing less than current G4s.G4s is already a fraction of a Macs cost, and some would say cheaper than the equilevent x86 processor. Mac has little incentive to cut prices with 970, and if they want to cut their price drasticly they can do so now.The 1.2GHz model is designed for mobile use, and has a power dissipation of only 19W, about 60% of current x86-based laptops.About 60% of the Pentium 4 for the desktop. Comparison with Pentium M? Or other processors like VIA C3 and Crusoe (which is gaining more and more market against market expectations)?IBM is set to ramp the clock speed up to at least 2.5GHz.I’ll let the quote from your second link talk“The company now says that 2.3 to 2.5 GHz chips will be the generation after the next. In other words, they’re not coming anytime soon.”Finally, there’s the Power5-derived successor to PPC970 to keep in mindBusiness-wise, it doesn’t makes sense for IBM to replace 970 and future versions of it for POWER5-based PPC processors in the near future.We will hopefully see multicore versions of this processor, probably supporting up to 4 hardware threads. Your own link says, “Initial shipments of PPC970-equipped Macs will almost certainly not be multicore-enabled and may or may not support multiple processors. While Apple has, in recent years, favored symmetrical multiprocessing (SMP)-enabled Macs, it may not be coincidental that an IBM press release announcing the “SMP-enabled PPC970″ and a second press release announcing a line of PPC970-based blade servers with full symmetrical multi-processing were both rapidly withdrawn after release.”And if that 2.5GHz 970 isn’t coming out anytime soon, same with this.So, to conclude, let me just say this: Apple’s worries about a performance gap between PPC and x86 are over.It would never be over (unless mysteriously Intel and AMD bankrupts and Microsoft migrates to PPC). It would relieve Apple for some time though. 2003-06-08 7:30 am — “How many times they say “This WWDC G5 is coming out” or “This MacWorld G5 is coming out”. Heck, Kelly McSomething of OSOpinion even set aside some money to buy such a Mac two years ago! Sure, the difference is that last time the G5 was from, supposedly, Motorola, and this time IBM. However IBM isn’t all that good in keeping to their release schedules, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.”This time though, the processor in question is already known to have been in mass production for a little while. IBM has been using them in there own machines. Motorolas G5 was never more than rumors and hat air. 2003-06-08 7:32 am I like my powerbook and hope apple can go head to head or surpass the x86. Apple deserves more respect for its history. Between apple and the linux/unix crowd I cheer for an end to M$. Be it the return of Atari, Amiga anyone please. 2003-06-08 8:03 am i never get this site….is it a news or rumour site??L. 2003-06-08 8:05 am This time though, the processor in question is already known to have been in mass production for a little while. IBM has been using them in there own machines. Motorolas G5 was never more than rumors and hat air.The processor would be mass produced next month. Unless I’m one month late as think it is still June. Oh wait, this site says it’s June too. Unless this story is a month old. Motorola G5s were also supposed to go into mass production a long time ago. They had working workstations showing it at some trade shows (IIRC).Sure, this has more hope, but would this be yet another false rumour?I would only believe when Apple announces it. Till then, just a rumour (been through too many of them to bother with it anymore). 2003-06-08 8:12 am Still doesn’ negates the point. Besides, it is very likely that AMD releases the their processors before IBM. IBM slates July when mass production comes. By time it reaches the commercial market, it would be 3-5 months down the line, looking at IBM track record.July? Source please! There is currently no definitive information on the production of the PPC970.All your arguments hinge around the PPC970’s timeliness, with you stating that the PPC970 will not be available until next year. I have nothing definitive… definitive information is not available. However by all estimates Apple will either launch PPC970-based systems at WWDC in June or announce them with an expected July launch.Your own link says, “Initial shipments of PPC970-equipped Macs will almost certainly not be multicore-enabled and may or may not support multiple processors.”That was merely information for the SPEC numbers. The other information is out of date. PPC970 will certainly support SMP, so says IBM: http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1…Based on the award winning Power4 design, this processor is an 8-way superscalar design that fully supports Symmetric MultiProcessingAs for SMT support, I was talking about the Power5-derived PPC970 successor. Apparently you misunderstood…Business-wise, it doesn’t makes sense for IBM to replace 970 and future versions of it for POWER5-based PPC processors in the near future.Huh? IBM has said the PPC970 will be the first in a line of new processors. The next generation in the line will obviously use a Power5-derived core.I apologize for including such dated information in my post, but I wasn’t expecting anyone to evaluate it for anything more than a source for the SPEC numbers. There is much more recent information about PPC970 available, I suggest you read that instead. 2003-06-08 8:14 am I would only believe when Apple announces it. Till then, just a rumour (been through too many of them to bother with it anymore).It would be foolish for Apple to announce PPC970-based Macs before they are ready for mass production as it would harm their current sales.By all accounts, Apple should be announcing the release of PPC970-based Macs at the WWDC. 2003-06-08 8:18 am There was also this article at BusinessWeek in which IBM confirmed the PPC970 would work with the Mac platform: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2003/tc20030521_2…No one is saying anything about the release of PPC970-based Macs, so unfortunately there really isn’t much to go on, especially in areas of release schedules. 2003-06-08 8:21 am As I’ve said repeatedly, there isn’t anything definitive to go on as far as release schedules. However, if you’re looking for rumours there are plenty of those:PPC970 production ahead of schedule:http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000056.phpMacBidouille timeline for PPC970 systems from Apple:http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/05/20030505020041.shtml 2003-06-08 8:40 am Lots of hot air from the Mac camp. My local whitebox dealer in Brisbane Australia is already selling Opterons (~AUS$1300 for a 1.6GHZ and ~AUS$800 for a 1.4 GHZ). Athlon and Pentium prices are plummeting – around US$100 for a XP2600+. By The end of the year a 3 GHz processor wil probably be much less than US$150.USB 2.0 , DDR 400 and 800 MHz buses are current mainstream X86 technology and will be standard within a year on even low end machines. 2003-06-08 11:52 am I would love to see a Mac released with a 970 CPU, however, this rumour has been floating around for some time so atbeast, I would say, remain pesimistic then atleast is something really remarkable happens then the excitement will be 2x greater.As for MacOS 10.3, it should be an interesting move. From what I have heard almost 85% of MacOS X should be Cocoa, and Safari will most likely be bundled with it. 2003-06-08 2:17 pm That will be $4000 or around that!! : ) 2003-06-08 2:25 pm Yes, it is a rumor, but if it’s fake, it’s a well crafted fake 🙂1) As mentioned above, this chip actually exists.2) For some time now, the overarching rumor has been that it will be ready to go in the fall. That fits well.3) We do know Jobs will demonstrate Panther at the developer’s conference. It makes sense to announce the G5 that will run Panther.It would be great if the rumor is true. It would mean one less nonsensical argument here on OS Nes. But, on the other hand, it would lead to new ones 🙂 I hope it is true – it’s good for computing all around to have optimized computers. 2003-06-08 3:16 pm G3 and G4 were Motorola names. G5, was at a time, a Motorola branding. It’s fantastically unlikely that new PowerMac sporting 64 bits IBM CPus will be labeled “G5”. Actually, it’s close to impossible. 2003-06-08 3:17 pm Apple’s move to 64 bit computing will be the most important high-tech event of 2003 — whether it happens at WWDC or shortly thereafter, it doesn’t matter.Unlike Microsoft’s non-existent to lukewarm 64-bit Windows, Apple will go full out and shift everything to 64 bits as soon as possible. And Apple has apps and servers that will benefit from 64 bit computing.I’m sure the new machines will be expensive. Everything from Apple is expensive. However, it will be worth it. This is the new era in computing.The company that has blown it is of course AMD. They have a great chip, great interconnection technology and cannot get to market because Intel and Microsoft are fucking AMD over. AMD needs to put more muscle into getting Linux machines out there and doing whatever it takes to get Windows XP/64 shipping. It is likely that Clawhammer will be the same as Opteron, so the time is now.Anyhow, it’s great to see Apple moving forward. The PPC970 is a good chip and it will serve Apple’s needs well. And there is a future for it, not like Motorola’s crippled chips. Now if Apple can get all the indie labels to sign up for iTunes… 2003-06-08 3:34 pm If the G3 is a motorola name why is it that IBM makes the G3’s Apple uses? And if IBM does make G3’s why could they not call it a G5.Anyway who cares what they call it. 2003-06-08 4:04 pm …and will go on costing twice as much compared to a PC with comparable hardware features. Very nice indeed. That might not be true. The 970’s supposedly cost 20-30% LESS than a G4. Which means that you may be able to get a top end $3500 system that is comparable to a dual P4-3.0GhzApple has no means to compete with the massive PC hardware industry because of the lack of competition.Uh, wha? Competition encourages innovation, it is not required for innovation. And considering that we can sit here and talk about market share it is obvious that Apple has competition. 2003-06-08 4:08 pm How many times they say “This WWDC G5 is coming out” or “This MacWorld G5 is coming out”. Heck, Kelly McSomething of OSOpinion even set aside some money to buy such a Mac two years ago! Sure, the difference is that last time the G5 was from, supposedly, Motorola, and this time IBM. However IBM isn’t all that good in keeping to their release schedules, so I wouldn’t hold my breath.The difference here is that for a couple months the rumors have all pointed to WWDC. If WWDC comes and passes with no release of a 970 based Mac then there will be lots of finger pointing and all future rumors will likely be ignored (except by those zealots with a short memory).So let’s just wait and have this part of the discussion after WWDC. It’s only a couple weeks folks… 2003-06-08 4:26 pm I love when stuff like this happens… I don’t understand why people are so all over it?Let me give you a clue about apple: I’ve just got a laptop 2 days ago, a Compaq Presario 2100. It has 1.8 Ghz Celeron, 256DDR Ram, ATI Mobility Radeon 64MB, CD/CDRW/DVD combo, 15″ display, 30GB hdd for barely $900. After getting it, first thing I’ve removed Windows and installed Linux on it. MDK 9.1, thus it was the one with the most hw support. Now a Powerbook with the same specs would cost me around $2000, and it has a 867Mhz CPU, and no, that G4 at 867Mhz is not faster than a Celeron. Just don’t trust benchmarks, test stuff on your own to see whats better for you. Sure I would like a PowerBook, it looks cool, it has a nice design, and it would be cool to show up with it everywhere, but the Presario has also a cool design. As long as they will keep their prises so high, I wont buy theyr products. 2003-06-08 4:45 pm wazoox wrote: “G3 and G4 were Motorola names. G5, was at a time, a Motorola branding. It’s fantastically unlikely that new PowerMac sporting 64 bits IBM CPus will be labeled “G5″. Actually, it’s close to impossible.”I think “G3 and G4” are actually names dreamed up by Apple marketing, but it doesn’t matter. They shouldn’t call the new machine “G5”. A Power Mac G5 implies just one more incremental step in processor development. The PPC 970 is a quantum leap ahead for Apple, and they should exploit the hell out of the fact that it will be the only 64 bit production desktop computer on the market.Of course, they wont do that. Apple “marketing” has done jack shit to show the value of OS X over XP. Why expect them to do anything substantive to show the superiority of the 970 over the x86 family of chips? We’ll just get inane feel good, image ads that say little and generate even few sales among Windows/Intel users. Apple is just counting on 2 years of pent up demand for pro desktop systems to make the 970 a hit. 2003-06-08 4:51 pm Most of the mac rumor sites(mac rumors.com)are right half of the time. So it’s a good bet that this information is correct. I would say that the 970 has to be a brain child of IBM and Apple, made for Apple. Because it includes AltiVec. 2003-06-08 4:51 pm http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-8.html#appleThe 970 was made for Apple“At this point, it’s not clear to me that these two extra transfer stages have any impact on performance, because they don’t add anything to the vector instruction latencies. However, the extra stages do serve to illustrate the hackish nature of the addition of the vector unit to the original Power4 core. And for me, this in itself says something else very clearly: this chip was put together for Apple. The fact that the Altivec unit was slapped onto the design, leaving some room for improvement in future iterations, leaves no doubt that the 970 achieved its present form under pressure from Apple and that Apple will be rolling out systems based on the new processor. This is the most plausible and reasonable explanation for the way the vector unit looks. If the 970 were solely intended as a Linux desktop platform for IBM, they would’ve preferred to reduce the 970’s die size, power consumption, time-to-market, etc. by just leaving out the Altivec unit altogether, instead of shoehorning it into the design the way they did.”Interesting 2-part article:Part 1http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.htmlWho knows? Maybe there is some truth to it. 2003-06-08 4:57 pm Based on Apple’s track record with recent hardware releases, if you ordered a G5 the day it is announced it would probably take several months until it reaches your door-step. 2003-06-08 5:08 pm This guy talks very very clearly about apple’s future…http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/satoruyokouchi.htmlAlso, all the others are rather amusing, this just made me laugh this morning:) 2003-06-08 5:10 pm This one realy talks about the future of G5… You have to see what he has to say:)http://www.apple.com/switch/ads/nobukishiba.html 2003-06-08 5:24 pm john blink: “What that person means is that if Apple had someone to compete with within the PPC hardware market, eg. Against Apple clone makers, they would eventually have to lower the price of the hardware. They could still sell the OS for the same amount.”They have to lower the price because of PC hardware. Would they have to lower it more if there were clones? maybe. but that means that clones would just be MORE competition. It is simply false to state that apple has “no” competition. Apple has tons of competition from the PC side 2003-06-08 6:32 pm I haven’t heard any talk about compilers here. Ultimately, a processor is useless without a compiler. Of course, the PPC instruction set is assumed to be the same (or very similar), so it shouldn’t matter, but in order to take much advantage of a new processor, optimizations are quite important. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject in particular. I’m sure changing an ABI would most certainly affect things. 2003-06-08 6:44 pm There is a lot of rumoring going about but to say that Apple and the PowerPC 970 have no connection is just stupid. The chip is made with Apple in mind and the chip is real. So its not the question of Apple using it or if it is a real product, The question is when will Apple use it. From a business standpoint the sooner the better.IBM also has the capability to deliver product so these ramblings about the 970 not being real and not being delivered are just hopeful remarks from the haters out there.Apple’s execution minus the slow evolution of the G4 processor has been great. On my XP PC I get bug fixes. Just got an IE security update a few days ago. On MacOSX I get bug fixes overshadowed by improvements to the software and OS. I end up having new features or better compatiblity versus having a hole in my OS or app constantly being patched up. The point is Apple has been delivering with great execution and I don’t see any foreseeable reason for it to stop. At WWDC we will see Panther at least and Steve Jobs is always a showman so we may even see some new hardware.Regardless, its definitely keeping the Mac and PC camps tuned in as you can see. Its funny that the PC fanboys are spouting that the new 970 Macs will cost $10,000 and that it will be slower than a Celeron and it won’t compare to a whitebox PC peiced together from the lowest prices on Pricewatch. So even on the PC camp their is admission that something is on the way. 2003-06-08 6:54 pm marc,your the first person I have ever heard of bragging about owning a Compaq laptop which everyone knows are super cool and unique. You can feel the quality by the flexing of the plastic. its so different and uniques make sure you tell all your friends.Also the fact that it has a blazing mobile Celeron is something to fear as well. CNN should have got those instead of those cheesy PowerBooks for mobile video editing. Who cares if the laptop is heavy. Its not like you carry a laptop around anway right?I also like the fact that Compaq sticks with the standard aspect ratio for the laptops across the line. Widescreen displays suck. 2003-06-08 7:14 pm Oberto, I have also installed Mandrake Linux 9.1 and everything works great, I have even got that Winmodem working!!! I also found a small howto how to make my HP Photosmart 320 digital camera work. This Compaq is realy a great piece of work!!! Cool:) I am glad that I’m not the only one who likes it:) 2003-06-08 7:29 pm Apple probably heled design the 970, it’s obvious Apple has partnered with IBM(moto too)to developed ppc, this is old news. But the 970 is new and knowing Apple, it won’t say anything about it. Hopefully the chip does have AMD/Apple technologies in it. 2003-06-08 7:40 pm Clearly Motorola is trying to avoid losing Apple sales, they had announced 2 improves in this week:http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30993.htmlhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/31026.html 2003-06-08 8:07 pm I haven’t heard any talk about compilers here. Ultimately, a processor is useless without a compiler. Of course, the PPC instruction set is assumed to be the same (or very similar), so it shouldn’t matter, but in order to take much advantage of a new processor, optimizations are quite important. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject in particular. I’m sure changing an ABI would most certainly affect things.Support for PPC970 has been added to gcc. See http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/gcc/gcc/config/rs6…There seems to be no compelling reason why Apple could not offer an “enhanced” ABI for 64-bit PPC, remedying the current performance issues being exhibited by its rather antequated ABI. They’ve had a significant amount of time to add 64-bit support to their dev tools, the reason why the original 32-bit ABI from NeXT was preserved in OS X. 2003-06-08 8:42 pm How muchos for this ?Not a couple of thousands anyways, so no thanks i prefer my home made pentium4 3.0 Gig. 2003-06-08 8:55 pm Oh geez not again…..Now a Powerbook with the same specs would cost me around $2000Actually, that’s not true because you can’t buy a powerbook that is as heavy as the Presario 2100 (well, ok, the 17″ powerbook comes close to the 2100 in weight).Sheesh. Some people are really, really dumb. 2003-06-08 8:56 pm DhrystoneiPod 0.000001GHz 5487379868020 8mhz 56588Pentium-4 3.06GHz 7724 (Hyperthreaded), 7009 (without HT)Athlon XP 2800+ (2.25GHz) 6406Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8GHz) 5125Pentium-4 1.8GHz 4119Much better numbers:SPECint200068020 8mhz 75775iPod 0.000001GHz 64346937Pentium-4 3.066GHz 1130Athlon XP 2800+ 933Athlon XP 2200+ 765Pentium-4 1.8GHz 612SPECfp200068020 8mhz 47478iPod 0.000001GHz 64959941051Pentium-4 3.066GHz 1103Athlon XP 2800+ 843Athlon XP 2200+ 671Pentium-4 1.8GHz 678*Higher numbers are better.Source: http://www.ipulledthemouttamyass.org 2003-06-09 12:19 am I agree, Michael!I thin something s going to happen. I think Steve Jobs has been sitting there with steam coming out of his ears because of Motorola’s falure. They have cost Apple alot. All this time now, high priced, beautiful hardware and pitiful little speed increments as Apple continues to lose market share. The bottom has dropped out of the Power Mac market, so Jobs says, “This is the year of the laptop!”.Anyway, Jobs isn’t one to sit and do nothing. And, when he does something, he usually makes it something big. He’s probably filled with so much pent up anger that, when this happens, he’s going to take off like a rocket. He has put so much good stuff together at Apple – this will be his crowning achievement. 2003-06-09 12:31 am But it’s been rumored so many times…I’m still saving up though for a G5. 2003-06-09 12:52 am This attitude is ludicrous.“Apple isn’t going to have a next generation processor. They were rumoured to have one before, and that didn’t happen. Therefore Apple will never have a next generation processor ever again!”Give me a break… 2003-06-09 1:17 am They will. But they want to go on with PowerPC, that’s why their chances are getting slim *unless* they’re going to switch to IBM. And even if that happens, that won’t make Apple hardware so attractive, because PC hardware is cheaper and better. Because of the competition among hardware makers.Unfortunately Apple customers don’t realize what kind of hardware they are purchasing. Because they’re not technically oriented and can’t realize today’s Apple hardware is two years behind of PC’s. Apple can’t beat the costs of PC mobo manufacturers, and that’s why they’re doomed unless they figure out a way to bring competition. Just like Sun and SGI… 2003-06-09 1:34 am atici, Mac users do realize what’s going on. They’ve been waiting patiently. Jobs and company have put together a great package you get when you buy a Mac. The processor is the missing piece of the puzzle. It’s coming – soon! Just you wait and see 😉 2003-06-09 1:45 am The processor is just a single piece. The bus speed, the chipset, USB2, AGP8x, Serial ATA, … all of these are factors. Once one mobo manufacturer raises standards all of them in PC industry should do. The chipsets are renewed almost quarterly. The processor by itself is not sufficient for good performance.Apple as far as I can see never mentions these details, because they don’t have anything to boast about. 2003-06-09 1:51 am PC hardware is cheaper because of the competition. It is clearly not better. Any fool can tell this. What they HAVE gotten better at is cutting corners in order to compete with Dell (the ultimate corner cutter).Yes, lots of Apple customers realize what kind of hardware they are buying. I have been a professional developer since since 1994 and building my own computers long before that. Everyone I know that owns a Mac is in a similar position.Did you get a mail order MBA? Is that why you know so much about business?FYI, IBM would be a better comparison to Apple. The only difference is that IBM uses the commodity OS and Apple doesn’t. Your knowledge of the computer industry doesn’t seem far ahead of your general business knowledge. 2003-06-09 2:02 am What kind of a troll are you?> PC hardware is cheaper because of the competition. It is clearly not better.Is that a joke? Are you living on Mars? What’s Apple mobo’s bus speed? 166MHz?> What they HAVE gotten better at is cutting corners in order to compete with Dell (the ultimate corner cutter).Dell? Do you mean Intel is improving its chipsets to compete with Dell? Dell is their customer!Before using derogatory words, go and read a little bit. 2003-06-09 2:20 am Is the fact that Apple AMD among others are planning to use hyertransport in there comtherboards. So this is a leap in the PC area in general. As well, the IBM 970 is suposed to use this technology. This is always what has happened over the years. leapfrogging technologies. The new IBM chips with the new advancements will put the new apple line above the PCs.As for the 64 bit proccessor it seems Apple always seems to release higher bit CPUs but that alone will not keep them on top.So I expect the 970 to TBA and that it will carry hypertransort among all other updated hardware. Now the real question is will it be at the WWDC at the end of the month or not.Your guess is as good as mine. 2003-06-09 2:41 am Remember when AMD started actually competing with intel? That is when x86 competition started to heat up, that is when apple hardware started to really be slower.Talk to a intelligent EE about which arch. he likes more. ppc/openfirmware/mips/64bit/etc (this is not ONLY about apple), or x86/legacy hardware/bios/isa slots/the constant kludging done.Macs would be dirt cheap if they could manufacture parts on the same scale as intel/asus/amd/etc have been. It is rather amazing they are able to even be the prices they are now.All this talk about next generation bios, 64bit migration, next gen OSes that take advantage of gpus, hypertransport, rapidio, etc. For mass market consumer products all of these techs have been or will be done on macs first.Apple has had little control over one major section of their hardware, the one that has always been behind. Their moto chips. Moto has even had to LOSE money making apple g3s (or g4s) by having ibm do it because they could not handle the orders. And with so few macs being shipped at that time one really has to wonder who is in charge over there and what the hell are they doing.Moto seems to be a sinking ship, and I am thanking god Apple is switching to ibm (g3 procs from ibm are able to get up to something like 1400mhz at 7watts (maybe 1200 at 7, and 1400 at 10? I forget exactly), motos have had to be overclocked to reach those speeds in desktops. Seriously from a business perspective alone Moto hasnt been delivering and I am wondering if a lawsuit is going to happen. I cannot believe moto hasnt screwed up more then 2 contracts for cpus with apple by now. And I can understand apple not wanting this information public as it might hurt their sales more then stagnant product lines have. 2003-06-09 2:42 am You said (very very trustingly I might add),atici, Mac users do realize what’s going on. They’ve been waiting patiently. Jobs and company have put together a great package you get when you buy a Mac. The processor is the missing piece of the puzzle. It’s coming – soon! Just you wait and see 😉Trouble is, Mac users have been waiting patiently ever since there have been Mac users. Keep waiting. I am gonna keep buying fast, powerful inexpensive hardware that just works. 2003-06-09 3:00 am LOLWho is the troll?If you meant that MOTOROLA needs competition like INTEL and AMD have perhaps you should say so. But you chose to talk about Apple. Apple competes with other PC manufacturers like Dell and IBM. The things you speak of are mostly out of Apple’s hands (yes, Apple does design the mobos but they are limited by the processors they have).So instead of oversimplifying things and tossing around vague generalities perhaps you can say something informed and insightful? I am waiting….I’d love it if you would expand on your business analysis of Apple customers versus the typical PC customers (are we talking about Apple again and not chip makers? Just wanted to make sure). I’d love to hear you argue that Dell is the top PC manufacturer because everyone knows they make first rate stuff and are technically excellent. Please, thrill me…. 2003-06-09 3:04 am Trouble is, Mac users have been waiting patiently ever since there have been Mac users. Keep waiting. I am gonna keep buying fast, powerful inexpensive hardware that just works.Yay. Another broad, oversimplification that says nothing. The pure definition of a troll.There was a time when Mac hardware was excellent – unquestionably better in every way compared to PC hardware. Of course there were software and pricing issues back then that hindered adoption.But it does seem. now that software has been much improved (great OS, many games) that the hardware issue is about to be solved. 2003-06-09 3:24 am Again these Mac articles deteriorate.PC hardware is fast and inexpensive. The quality is there too but you still end up with a PC running Linux or Windows. PC cases other than CoolerMaster and Alienware look cheap.Sure Macs are expensive but its not stopping people from buying them. Go to any Apple store and you will see that the system rolling out there are $1500+ not the eMacs and low end iBooks.I think what irks people is that with the 970s on the horizon the speed gap may be closing. Apple will finally have hardware that can run along with a great OS, and cool hardware. 2003-06-09 3:31 am YOu must be one poverty striken troll to consider AUS$1499 for an eMac as “expensive”. Sorry, even as a *student* I can afford it and still have enough to get a tablet and some graphics applications. 2003-06-09 4:10 am atici, you’re right, I should have clarified that. Apple does need all those things you mentioned. I believe they have been waiting on all that stuff until they have the whole package put together. That’s one of the reasons I agree with Michael about this possibly being the biggest computer story this year. 2003-06-09 4:11 am I’d love to hear you argue that Dell is the top PC manufacturer because everyone knows they make first rate stuff and are technically excellent.Does that really matters? I mean, would you prefer to get a slow, outdated and expensive computer with a pretty casing or a so-so, cheap, but very fast PC? I would personally choose the latter. PC clones are even much better in the price/performance category.Macs will stay a niche market as long as Apple is charging an outrageous premium for their computers… and that’s why PCs are better, IMO. 2003-06-09 4:45 am Having used both PC and Mac hardware and software first hand I can tell you that each is a completely different playing field. PC hardware is much much better on the price/performance ratio, and generally is cheaper even for the higher end stuff. However, Apple hardware holds it’s own even with a much weaker processor/bus and comparitively higher price because using a Mac is much much nicer than using a PC regardless of what is in the respective machines. The promise of the PPC970 is that it will increase the performance of the Mac. Macs will still be more expensive and PCs will still be faster, but while on the Mac side the performance gap is closing, on the PC side the usability gap is still very great. However, this will not cause Apple’s market share to rise significantly regardless and it will not lower the availabilty of PCs.Skipp 2003-06-09 4:48 am Wratwrat: Does that really matters? I mean, would you prefer to get a slow, outdated and expensive computer with a pretty casing or a so-so, cheap, but very fast PC? I would personally choose the latter. PC clones are even much better in the price/performance category.The PowerMac systems which will most likely be launched in June at WWDC will not be slow or outdated in any respect. They will be sporting 1 or 2 processors with the equivalent raw integer/fp power of a 3.06GHz Pentium 4, and will be featuring a HyperTransport-based architecture for communicating with memory controllers on other CPUs as well as the AGP and PCI busses. This is a similar architecture to an Opteron system, except Opterons are also quite expensive. The PPC970 is rumored to be cheaper than current Motorola G4 processors, see the following:http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000070.phpThese systems should also be launched in June or July, well before the Clawhammer-core Athlon XPs. Apple will be the first to push this architecture on consumers.As for price, we can’t even speculate. All we have to go on is the rumor about the lower price of the processors.So I’d say these systems certainly won’t be “slow” or “outdated”. As for “expensive”, we can’t really say how they’ll compare to a comparable x86 system based on a HyperTransport architecture.atici: [i[The processor is just a single piece. The bus speed, the chipset, USB2, AGP8x, Serial ATA, … all of these are factors. Once one mobo manufacturer raises standards all of them in PC industry should do. The chipsets are renewed almost quarterly. The processor by itself is not sufficient for good performance.[/i]The bus speed is 800MHz (or 800MHz DDR, with a native speed of 400MHz sending two bits per cycle) That is certainly top-of-the-line for the time being, and should be until June-July when the launch is expected. Also keep in mind that there is no reason to assume that IBM won’t increase the bus speed over time as both AMD and Intel are doing.The chipset is most likely being produced by AMD and will provide a chipset that contains both the memory controller and a bridge from the synchronous memory and CPU busses to the packetized HyperTransport architecture. The 800MHz bus is expected to deliver 6.4GB/s, the same theoretical speed of HyperTransport.The bottom line is these systems will be modern and will be deserving of their price. 2003-06-09 4:53 am Whether this rumor is true or not remains to be seen. In reported benchmarks, the PPC970 performs approximately 30% faster than a P4 at the same speed. The flaw in that argument is that the top of the line P4 is now running at 3.06GHz, not 1.8GHz! These benchmarks are comparing today’s apples with yesterday’s oranges.In 1994 when Apple switched from the 68K to the PPC, the marketing droids created a graph showing how the performance of the PPC chips would continue to grow while the Pentium based chips would level off. Apple needs to face the fact that that marketing droids were wrong, Intel and AMD are winning the price and performance race. Regardless of what is said about the MHz myth, in a customer’s mind 2.4 > 1.8, therefore a 2.4 GHz P4 is faster than a 1.8GHz PPC970.But, the question is not whether the PPC970 is faster then a P4, or even whether Apple will ship a PPC970 based PowerMac at this years WWDC. The question is, what is the best way to get the CPU cycles to the users that need them? Although I am a recovering Mac-Addict, I have learned to “Think Different”; by thinking different, one can find an elegant solution that does not require purchasing a $4000 computer.Put simply, Apple can’t compete on sex appeal alone, they need to find a way to eliminate the emphasis placed CPU speed. 2003-06-09 5:03 am However, Apple hardware holds it’s own even with a much weaker processor/bus and comparitively higher price because using a Mac is much much nicer than using a PC regardless of what is in the respective machinesSkipp, well, that’s your opinion. We could argue about this for hours… Bascule, you’re right… if they are released and available soon. They will be slow, outdated and expensive if they are only available to the public next year. I hope the rumor will be true though. I’m not a Mac fan, but it’ll be nice to see some competition against the aging PC/x86 architecture. 2003-06-09 6:59 am Everyone seems to miss the interesting opinion that Motorola’s competition is in the embedded market, not the desktop/workstation market.The 750/74xx PPC CPUs are really embedded PPC’s being used by Apple, so the lack of speed is pretty understandable given that for the embedded market, heat and cost are more important factors over clocking high speeds (well, that benefits the laptop market, as well).If IBM can fill in the missing market (ie, desktop/workstation) with a good solution with their 970, this will clear things up. Motorola as it is are doing well on the embedded market, and have no major incentive to match clock-for-clock with AMD/Intel – rather they will match Transmeta, ZFLinux and the other embedded CPUs.If you really want to get silly, you could design a CPU that runs at 8 GHz but does everything in a ridiculously long pipeline… but time will tell what happens what with the 970 or Apple soon. 2003-06-09 1:53 pm Better is such a subjective term and vague term. The immediate question that must be asked is, “better in what way?” because something is seldom better in every way possible. Thankfully you spelled out why PCs are better for you.Of course you kind of glossed over why many people prefer Macs. The “pretty” PowerMac case is actually a very nice case. It doesn’t by itself warrant the price difference but it is more than just pretty. And the OS matters a lot to some people too.As far as price goes, it’s been shown time and again that yes, the Mac desktops have a worse price/performance ratio and Mac laptops have a similar price/performance ratio compared to PCs.But, honestly, most people would just never consider buying a Mac and it has nothing to do with price. They just don’t even consider a Mac an option because “everyone uses PCs.” Until Apple can get past this mental block and give people a compelling reason to switch, Macs will remain a niche. Price isn’t going to be “that reason” but the desktops certainly need better price/performance before the business world will jump onboard en masse.I am really curious to see how the 970s are priced when they finally appear. If they are priced similarly to the current G4 lineup ($1500-$2700 for low to high end – more if you get all the bells and whistles obviously) then things will become interesting again 2003-06-09 2:40 pm “SPEC is one of the most trusted names in benchmarking”? Pshaw, I say. SPEC is slanted towards deep-pipeline, high-clock-speed processors like the Pentium line. In general, I find benchmarks worth slightly less than the paper they’re printed on (or the electrons used to generate them). That goes for Apple’s Photoshop bake-offs too, by the way. To turn a phrase: there are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks. 2003-06-09 3:32 pm to get everyone who DOESN’T like Apple’s products to come out with the preverbial…“But it cost twice as much”“They’re are faster offerings on the PC”“RSN…yeah right”If you’re not looking forward to purchasing a new macintosh, or if you don’t care about Apple Computer in general…WHY DID YOU READ THE POST?Some of you think Apple is a joke…. 2003-06-09 3:35 pm Replace “they’re are” with “there are”.ROFL.😀 2003-06-09 6:39 pm “Apple Computer Inc. is nearing the release of desktop systems featuring IBM’s 64-bit PowerPC 970 chip, sources report?but a 64-bit version of Mac OS X may lag behind by a month or two. ……” 2003-06-09 6:40 pm For the same reason that Linux zealots are posting in MS news, and vice versa? 2003-06-09 6:40 pm http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1121730,00.asp 2003-06-09 8:21 pm This is the first time I’ve seen a hardware build number and the mention of an interim MacOSX with a code name as far as the new 970 hardware is concerned.In a few weeks we should be getting a better picture of what will be in store at WWDC. 2003-06-09 10:26 pm so if this is true…then only Macs will be “IBM compatible” 😎 2003-06-09 11:35 pm This is a similar architecture to an Opteron system, except Opterons are also quite expensive. The PPC970 is rumored to be cheaper than current Motorola G4 processorsSimilarities with Opteron, yup, but Opteron is aimed at the server space and the price of the Opteron is set for that market. The Athlon64 will be priced much cheaper when released RealSoonNow(tm).For the price Apple currently charges for a PowerMac I’d say you wont see any cheaper Macs even if the 970 is cheaper to produce than a G4 (which is cheap already).These systems should also be launched in June or July, well before the Clawhammer-core Athlon XPs. Apple will be the first to push this architecture on consumers.Launched is not the same as shipped. There’s a big chance Athlon64 (Clawhammer) is shipped before the 970 Macs are.As for price, we can’t even speculate. All we have to go on is the rumor about the lower price of the processors.Again, you don’t buy a cpu and a mobo as many PC users do. You’d have to buy a completely new PowerMac to get the 970 and then the price of the 970 is next to irrelevant.The chipset is most likely being produced by AMD and will provide a chipset that contains both the memory controller and a bridge from the synchronous memory and CPU busses to the packetized HyperTransport architecture. The 800MHz bus is expected to deliver 6.4GB/s, the same theoretical speed of HyperTransport.AMD will most likely not produce the chipset. The Apple-AMD collaboration is most likely just the Hypertransport. AMD produces chipsets because they’ve had to (to get their architechture to pick up momentum and then stopped manufacturing it) not because they wanted to.The neat thing about the Opteron/Athlon64 is that for a single CPU the memory IO is separated and does not go over the Hypertransport bus so that the Hypertransport bus is free to serve PCI, PCI-X, AGP etc with full bandwidth and not having this traffic share the Hypertransport link with the memory. For multiprocessor systems the Opteron NUMA uses the Hypertransport to ship memory data between the CPUs in an ingenious way.The bottom line is these systems will be modern and will be deserving of their price.Apples so called “top-of-the-line” hardware have never had a price they deserved historically (neither have the top PCs had a price they deserved) and I have no hope this will change now. 2003-06-10 10:00 pm THis confirms it…..woo HOO….thanks OSNews 2003-06-17 3:57 pm Argue hardware specs all you want…but what it comes down to is the software you need for what you’re doing. Apple is not about gaming, it’s not about benchmarks…it’s about multimedia. On a PC, to even attempt to do what you can do on a Mac with Video, Audio, 3D, DVD production, etc, you’re not using Unix, Linux, BSD, or any other reliable, efficient OS…you’re using Windows…enough said. Windows is complete @ss for multimedia…period. Real-world proof you ask? Find me one serious video, audio, or 3D production studio in the industry that runs windows…ummm, no. So all your Intel hopeful hardware platforms, your AMD hopeful platforms, and all the associated benchmarks…they mean absolutely nothing to anyone who uses a Mac for what it’s built for…why? Because they all run Windows in order to even attempt be a media production machine. An oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one. Someone go out and develop a unix-based true multimedia OS for the x86 that performs half as well as Mac OS 10.2…then we’ll talk.