Prescott, the next big desktop chip from Intel, is slated to come out at 3.4GHz, while Dothan, an energy-efficient chip for slim notebooks, will have a server-size cache and is expected to debut at 1.8GHz, according to computer industry sources. Read the report at C|Net News.com.
Chip Details Leak Out of Intel; 3.6 GHz Early Next Year
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Click on the link.
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-1023436.html
AMD ¨leaked¨ the announcement of the Opteron 246 @ 2GHz and the Athlon64 w/ 1MB L2 cache.
The next day Intel ¨leaks¨ the announcement of the Prescott @ 3.4GHz and the Dotham w/ 2MB L2 cache.
and they all did it after Apple announced their PPC 970 machines.
Nice conspiracy theory. Doesn’t hold up much though. By leaking, they are actually threatening the sales of processors currently in the pipeline, there’s no sense to do that just because AMD leaked information of a processor. In other words, right now, I wouldn’t buy a new computer with P4, rather I would wait till next year, if I was going for the top end. Even if I wasn’t going for the top end, I would know by a release of a significantly different processor would drive other models’ prices lower.
Well, the amounts of “leaks” was higher before Apple released the G5, rather than after. I personally see no reason why either AMD and Intel to see Apple as a huge competitive threat – in the case of AMD, much of the processors are solded to small shops and people who build their own machine. Intel has an high percentage of that, plus majority of their customers are in the enterprise whom which couldn’t be bothered with Apple.
Unlikely Apple has anything to do with this.
> and they all did it after Apple announced
> their PPC 970 machines.
*LOL* AMD Hammer / Athlon64 and Intel Prescott were anounced a lot earlier. It was just a little additional information of AMD and Intel that went to the public.
It’s not a reaction to Apple. Why should AMD/Intel react to Apple? AMD and especially Intel dominate the desktop market. I’m sure they don’t give a f*ck about Apple.
And this KAMiKAZOW, is why you shouldn’t be a businessperson. If you’re on top, it just means that people below you are going to work harder to dethrone you. Apple DOES pose a threat to AMD/Intel, if they decide not to keep up with new technology then they’re going to lose business.
For KAMiKAZOW, ….and you do you give a f”ck about what you are saying or even do you think a little bit before to write.
Of course they care, its not juste because of apple, its because apple uses G5, G5 is a processor of Ibm, that IBM uses too, and the G5 comes from Power tecnologies that make Intel crying. So of course they care, and as Apple is growing more and more in the scientific, pro video, Pro 3D, pro audio markets (not to mention the 2d publishing still dominated by apple), and in the entreprise (as opposite as someone said in this forum), ……yes they care!!!
But of course Intel and amd have annonced their processors before the G5, i am not talking about that.
Intel is crying in fear of G5?
Intel with 90% of the market is not crying , and so do their share holder.
I want a Dothan a Shuttle, so it can be nice and quite, and fast, I don’t need a power hungry P4.
BTW what applications is Dothan better than P4? I mean software wise.
@Nadav
Hakime meant that Power4, of which the G5 is a “consumer” version (and the planned Power5), make intel crying. I do agree.
I did not say that Intel is crying in fear just because of the G5, but that all the technologies involved in the Power processors are really unique and IBM is pushing very hard to impose their technologies which are right now higher than intel’s technology.
And if you add that Linux runs on those technologies, and that The G5 comes from those technologies, ………yes again Intel can worry, because they have in front of them a big alternative, for high end servers, workstations, and high-end desktops computers with for exemple apple’s new and cheap Unix 64 bit hardware, etc…..
If IBM can steer the market to buy more and more of the G5, based on energy savings, and other reasons. The prices for these parts can get cheaper, and then there will be no more need to say “cheaper servers running Linux on Intel”.
That is something I would like to see.
Hakime,
What I really would like to see is Intel getting interested
in developping RISC chips to compete with IBM.
With UNIX or Linux based solutions making some progress in several markets it should soon make financial sense to do it.
From then on, we will have a proper competition with comparable technologies driving prices down and improving the technology and its efficiency.
Intel could use some of their PDA processors as a basis for developpement?
Does it make sense?
I wonder if there are any plans to release a PC or motherboard by IBM based on the 970. Off course using standard equipment and BIOS like x86 boards only then with a 970. And running Linux or BSD.
It would make a cheap workstation. But is there a market for this?
I think there are many people like me who think the new ppc 970 is a good chip and the 980/990 will be even better. But are not interested in Apple or MacOSX or the high prices you pay for the brand, OS updates and locked in hardware platform.
As the ppc is cheaper then the p4 it should be possible to make a nice system and cheap.
Yeah, i like to see IBM create new desktop compatible/clone desktop market running PPC970. and it can run Linux or OS/2 even 64 Bits XP.
but if they (IBM) succed is that mean APPLE’s Market SHares will shrink more?
If IBM were to cater to the free unix market, instead of just supporting XP, then a PPC970 ThinkPad would be nice.
When I start a new job I’ll most likely buy either an x86 laptop and put Linux on it. However, one is discouraged from buying an x86 laptop in order not to run Windows, due to Windows-only hardware. (i.e. inadequate specs from manufacturers). So, the other option would be a 12″ OSXbook.
Either way, it’s a Java platform I want, with a unix shell.
If IBM, the Linux/Java friend, were to produce their own hardware for this purpose, that’d be great.
I don’t think because apple has a unique thing which, i really believe, makes them stronger and stronger : MacOsX.
And i don’t think that Xp can run on powerpc as easily, and needs too much work because windows depends greatly on the X86 hardware and a port on a another platform needs a lot of work. We can see it for the Itanium, and even for the Opteron its already difficult for them because windows is not really modular.
And i don’t think that Xp can run on powerpc as easily, and needs too much work because windows depends greatly on the X86 hardware and a port on a another platform needs a lot of work.
What makes you say that ? NT (2k, XP) was *designed* to be portable. In theory, all that needs to be “ported” is the HAL.
Apple pose little threat to Intel’s business. Apple currently is facing off a niche not all that important to Intel survivor. Sure, it would be nice for Intel to control yet another niche, but certainly they wouldn’t do it in expense of their current markets.
Sure, Power4/5 from IBM poses a competitive threat for Intel. But certainly not G5 workstations from Apple. Itanium is in no way threaten by G5s, maybe so by Power5, but again not by G5s. Pentiums on the other hand again aren’t threaten by Apple. Why should they? Their main business: businesses, the enterprise. Apple’s hold on that? Almost zero. How many companies you know shove thousands of Pentium-based workstations for Macs? I can’t think of any. AMD too certainly doesn’t feel much, if any, heat from Apple. Their main market? Clone makers and DIY computers. Apple hold on that? Zero. AMD target market? Businesses, the same place where Intel is.
There is only one company that is pushing Intel forward – AMD. And there is only one company that is pushing AMD forward – Intel. Apple? Sorry, no influence in this market.
Interesting, but I don’t think they would be able to do that. IMO, they must have a contract with Apple preventing them to do stuff like that. It would hurt Apple, as even OS X wouldn’t be exclusive to them (I don’t know if they can prevent it to run on non-Apple computers?).
Apple pose little threat to Intel’s business. Apple currently is facing off a niche not all that important to Intel survivor. Sure, it would be nice for Intel to control yet another niche, but certainly they wouldn’t do it in expense of their current markets.
Sure, Power4/5 from IBM poses a competitive threat for Intel. But certainly not G5 workstations from Apple. Itanium is in no way threaten by G5s, maybe so by Power5, but again not by G5s. Pentiums on the other hand again aren’t threaten by Apple. Why should they? Their main business: businesses, the enterprise. Apple’s hold on that? Almost zero. How many companies you know shove thousands of Pentium-based workstations for Macs? I can’t think of any. AMD too certainly doesn’t feel much, if any, heat from Apple. Their main market? Clone makers and DIY computers. Apple hold on that? Zero. AMD target market? Businesses, the same place where Intel is.
There is only one company that is pushing Intel forward – AMD. And there is only one company that is pushing AMD forward – Intel. Apple? Sorry, no influence in this market.
If it is true that Intel would want to leak something to burst IBM’s hype, they would leak about Itanium, not Pentiums. I do hope you know the difference.
Part of the license of OS X is that you can only run it on Mac’s. There’s no actual way of stopping you from running it say on the Pegasos system except whether you are exceptionally moral…
Though equaly you might be suggesting that they lock it to their platform somehow through some means in which case, why not?
Itanium is a much different platform than PowerPC in comparison with x86. How long it took Microsoft to port Windows XP there? Nobody knows, but it certainly wasn’t a century. Microsoft also have ported to Alpha, mind you. And that same version was also ported to PowerPC. While I doubt it would be as easy as a recompile, in addition to the fact either (or both) IBM and Microsoft have to build in fast x86 emulation (Virtual PC?) – but it certainly wouldn’t be long. The Microsoft Israel team that build NT built it to be portable.
Now, if Microsoft would be porting Windows Me – now that would be hard.
The only possible way I can think of where Win XP depends on x86 is drivers and some small components, and of course those optimized parts. Porting them, for Microsoft, would of course be trivial.
So of course they care, and as Apple is growing more and more in the scientific…
Agree, as long as they don’t need computers with >2 CPUs.
…pro video…
It depend on the support, but I believe it’s good enough.
…Pro 3D…
I wouldn’t be ready to say that. It depend if the major 3D applications used in the PC industry are ported to the Mac (and I personally don’t know if they are).
…pro audio markets…
I though they were already dominating that market?
Sadly, those 4 markets (5 if I include publishing) combined are, what, 3% of the market? Many of them are already using Apple computers, so they won’t increase their userbase by much. The two most important markets are the home & enterprise market, and…
…and in the entreprise (as opposite as someone said in this forum)…
I don’t think so. Yes, G5s have a good price/performance ratio, but enterprises can get up to 3 to 8 PCs for the price of a G5. I don’t think Apple can make great deals like that for the moment.
……yes they care!!!
Of course they do. However, I don’t think they’re worried for the moment. If Apple sell more G5s than expected, perhaps they will, but if the G5 launch is like the G4 launch, they probably won’t.
Note that I can be wrong, but I don’t think I am. x86s are still here for 5 or 10 years even if they’re less powerful.
It’s a shame that AMD continues to suffer losses, because they are without a doubt my favorite CPU manufactorer. They’ve always sold affordable processors, which, granted, are slightly under par when compared with Intel CPUs, but for the price, the little bit of performance advantage that Intel chips offer is definitely not worth their price. Back in the day when I first started buying computers, AMD was an absolute lifesaver. I could buy an AMD processor for half the price of a comparable Intel chip. Now, the prices are begining to converge, as intel has somewhat dropped the price of their chips in the past 3 years or so. However, I will always buy AMD processors for as long as the company is in business. They were there for me when I had very little money to buy a computer, and I will be there for them when they need customers like me to help keep them in business.
It’s so well said I almost dropped a tear.
BTW They were there for me too
Just want to replay to some os these posts.
1) Intel is pushing the I2 for servers. IBM is pushing POWER4. On the TCP-C benchmarks, the 32 POWER4 1.7GHz processors out perfermed 64 I2-Madison 1.6GHz processors by about 20%.
2) Intel is currently pushing P4 for the desktop market. From all the current benchmarks; the PPC970 2GHz is between 20% slower to 150% faster then the P4 3.06GHz. (Even though the PPC970 is sometimes slower then the P4, the fact that Apple makes a 2-way box supports there claim of making the Fastest PC).
3) Intel’s current stated plans are to drop the x86 line of chips by 2010. At this point they expect people to use IA64 processors for the desktop.
4) Intel does have a RISC chip! Its the IA64 family.
5) IBM’s SMT will be faster then Intel’s HT. Yes they are basically the same thing, but the implemention is where the difference is.
5a) The P4 design is narrow and deep (they only have 4 instruction paths); thus they can only issue 4 instructions per clock and each instruction takes 20 clocks to clean the chip. Branch prediction is thus the major bottleneck; to fix this, HT will switch to a 2nd stream of instruction instead of risking mispredicting the branch. IE: I don’t know if I should branch or not, so I’ll just do something else I know which way to go.
5b) The PPC970 is wide and shallow (they have 8 instruction paths); thus they have 8 paths to issue instructions to and it takes up to 12 clocks for any instruction to clear the chip. Since the PPC970 can only issue 4 instructions per clock, 4 instruction paths are left unused; SMT will fix this by having a 2nd instuction path that will issue instructions to the other instruction paths. SMT will have a minimum of a 25% improvement to a maximum of 100% improvement; I expect it to average more in the 60% range (IE: the second set issues only 2 or 3 instructions per clock).
6) IBM will be making PPC970 blades, workstations, and low-end servers. Any of these will be able to run Linux.
7) PPC is used in the enbedded market because of power reasons. A 100MHz PPC only uses .18W (no this is not a typo). There is nothing in the x86 family that can get that low of a W rating and still have the processing power of the PPC. The main compition in the enbedded market is between ARM and PPC.
My answer: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! But only if it’s fast and cheap.
The problem with this is that right now the only viable OS for this platform would be Linux. For me this would be great but I think hardware vendors would be a bit skittish since it might require the hardware vendor actually get involved with some direct marketing.
Some current companies that could likely support this:
IBM with Power or PPC.
Transmeta without the x86 translation unit (new instruction set perhaps?)
China and their MIPs like processor.
Companies who had the chance and blew it:
DEC and Alpha chip
“I wonder if there are any plans to release a PC or motherboard by IBM based on the 970. Off course using standard equipment and BIOS like x86 boards only then with a 970. And running Linux or BSD.
It would make a cheap workstation. But is there a market for this?”
I’ve been thinking… this is a posabible strategy that Apple may choose to adopt.
“I think there are many people like me who think the new ppc 970 is a good chip and the 980/990 will be even better. But are not interested in Apple or MacOSX or the high prices you pay for the brand, OS updates and locked in hardware platform.”
High prices?! Where? Apple’s prices are very competative. As a matter of fact, Apple’s prices are either only slightly more expensive, the same prices, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive if you match the PC’s hardware and software exactly (or as close as possible) to the Mac.
[i]”As the ppc is cheaper then the p4 it should be possible to make a nice system and cheap.”[i]
I’m all for more competition if only to get choice… even if the prices aren’t likely to come down much further from the current price point right now.
dont forget intel and their xscal processsor which runs
the RiscOS.
Phil
Is Apple a threat?
Check this out?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1187358,00.asp
Apple appears to be more of a threat than anyone had anticipated.
“dont forget intel and their xscal processsor which runs
the RiscOS.”
I’ve got mixed feelings about the XScale, but in addition, it also can run Linux ( http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLanding/0,1058,1016,00.html ), though I still don’t think it’s that much of a competitor, all things considered.
>High prices?! Where? Apple’s prices are very competative. >As a matter of fact, Apple’s prices are either only >slightly more expensive, the same prices, slightly less >expensive or significantly less expensive if you match the >PC’s hardware and software exactly (or as close as >possible) to the Mac.
I agree with you that an Apple is not more expensive then a brand x86 machine. However let me explain why I meant.
If you buy an apple you have no real choice in configuration. I have no need for bluetooth, firewire and giga network. I grand you that these are not the most expensive parts of the Apple G5 but this is not all. I just like to buy and configure any hardware I like. For instance just popping into my local peecee dealer and buy a modem. It has a bigger chance of working under linux then on OSX. Or setting up my own low budget webserver based on off shelf components and the ppc970. Also I have no money and the will to buy everything I want in one go. I tend to buy a graphics card here and a bigger hard drive there and later maybe add one of those fancy new sound cards with dolby and stuff. I can’t see you doing any of these points on an Apple. If IBM would do a structure like Intel does with its motherboards and CPU’s. Meaning allowing clone’s it could be something for the more fancy user.
Also you don’t have to pay for updates for a new version of gnome/kde or the kernel.
I have other reasons why I don’t like Apple but they are more personal then logical. Don’t get me wrong 4 years ago I bought an Apple Classic just as an souvernir. But I just don’t like their business model. Nor do I like people who hate MS.
However I’m reffering to pro-users not joe sixpack. Anyone who has trouble with computers and OS’s should stick to Windows or OSX.
I don’t think MS will port Windows to a new platform that easy not because of technical reasons but business. If MS does port Intel will be upset and do anything to stop it and maybe even divorce and marry Linux or at least flirt with Linux. It would be then Lintel?
High prices?! Where? Apple’s prices are very competative. As a matter of fact, Apple’s prices are either only slightly more expensive, the same prices, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive if you match the PC’s hardware and software exactly (or as close as possible) to the Mac.
Do you like have that in your clipboard or something?
Verbatim copy with your previously.
Don’t feel like debunking it the nth time.
Couple of corrections:
1) The IA-64 is VLIW, not RISC. Basic breakdown:
CISC – Usually variable length instructions
RISC – Fixed 32-bit instructions
VLIW – Large (128+ bits) packets of multiple instructions
2) If the G5 is 150% faster than a P4 on a given benchmark, that seriously calls into question the quality of the code. The G5’s bigger brother (the Power4) can claim those kinds of benchmarks, but that’s largely due to the insane 128MB of cache, which the G5 lacks. If you are seeing numbers like that, what’s most likely happening is that the data set fits entirely in cache, so the AltiVec units can run in parallel with the FPU units at full-speed. This case, where there is enough parallelism to keep both the dual AltiVec and the dual FPU units busy *and* the dataset is small enough to fit in 512K of cache, is rare. Once the dataset spills out of L2, you’re basically limited to how fast data can be streamed from memory, which is dual DDR-400 in both cases.
What happened on this thread is an overflow of the RISC <> CISC thread.
Basically Intel is releasing a new version of their P4 and people don’t see much point in it.
PPC970 is a great new little performer and people would like to see more of it. Prices need to go down and choice needs to increase.
The only way we’ll see more of it becomes used in more than just Apple and IBM’blade servers.
This will only happen if some serious buds(i.e Intel) gets interested in targetting that market.(RISC market)
They have some serious R&D which they could put behing it, the PowerPC code design can be is licensed from IBM but so far there is no interest as they only have Linux to run on whatever RISC chip they come up with.
What we need is for Microsoft to release a XP version running on RISC.
People will notice, competition will seriously appear and prices will start to go down.
So far we haven’t got anything. Even the G5 based Mac is 2 months away.
“If you buy an apple you have no real choice in configuration.”
Why would you say that. You can configure Mac’s too you know. Perhaps you’re thinking that all Macs are all in one units?
“I have no need for bluetooth, firewire and giga network.”
I don’t understand. If you don’t need them, don’t add them on.
“I grand you that these are not the most expensive parts of the Apple G5 but this is not all.”
Asside from Firewire, these are build to order options.
“I just like to buy and configure any hardware I like.”
As do many other Mac users.
“For instance just popping into my local peecee dealer and buy a modem. It has a bigger chance of working under linux then on OSX.”
I guarantee you that at that same store you can buy a modem that will work in OS X.
“Or setting up my own low budget webserver based on off shelf components and the ppc970.”
PC’s are more configurable, but “less expensive” isn;t an accurate statement anymore.
“Also I have no money and the will to buy everything I want in one go.”
Buy a lw end system, and upgrade as you see fit. (no, its not a custom build each component-type solution, but it works for me)
“I tend to buy a graphics card here and a bigger hard drive there and later maybe add one of those fancy new sound cards with dolby and stuff.”
Apple certinly isn’t doing anything from restricting you from doing this. I’ve upgraded my graphics card on my Mac a few times. I’ve also upgraded my hard drive as well as my sound card. Again, its not like these systems restrict you from upgrading them.
“I can’t see you doing any of these points on an Apple.”
Perhaps its time you take a second look.
“If IBM would do a structure like Intel does with its motherboards and CPU’s. Meaning allowing clone’s it could be something for the more fancy user.”
Clones would add more competition yes, but it would only allow you to upgrade the motherboard… (the only aspect of the Mac you can’t upgrade as easily)
By that same token, having clones introduces more incompatibilities. Many people think that adding clones would lower prices. Considering the fact that Apple’s prices run in paralyl with PCs of the same hardware and software configurations its unlikely.
Is the competition needed to keep prices low? Absolutely, but its not as if Apple is creating computers in a vacume. They compete for users just like any other PC manufacturer. In recent years they’ve been very competative with their pircing, so there’s no reason to belive that prices would come down even further.
“Also you don’t have to pay for updates for a new version of gnome/kde or the kernel.”
You can run Linux on OS X too. Shoot, if you wanted to, you could run Darwin (and not pay for updates to the kernel) and run those windowing enviornments on top of it if you’d like.
“I have other reasons why I don’t like Apple but they are more personal then logical.”
Considering the fact that you are a bit out of touch with Apple hardware, perhaps its time you take a sendond look… this time a much closer look. I have a feeling you might be surprised.
“Don’t get me wrong 4 years ago I bought an Apple Classic just as an souvernir. But I just don’t like their business model.”
What don’t you like about it?
“Nor do I like people who hate MS.”
I don’t like people who hate MS for the simple sake of hating MS, but you have to admit, Microsoft has been giving consumers more and more reasons to dislike and distrust them.
“I don’t think MS will port Windows to a new platform that easy not because of technical reasons but business.”
I don’t think they will either. They want to be the only ones within a platform. They’re certinly not going to move their OS on a platform where there already is a very healthy competator… no matter how much better PPC is than x86, they wont do it.
“Do you like have that in your clipboard or something?”
Its funny you ask that but dont ask the individuals which seem to have the “Macs are more expensive” misconception quote in their clipboard.
“Is Apple a threat?
Check this out?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1187358,00.asp
Apple appears to be more of a threat than anyone had anticipated.”
Wow, that’s pretty interesting.
A good Apple is always needed in the computer industry. I wonder what would of happen if Apple really chose Intel? I guess that might not never happen. But I do like thier choice over Moto.
Its funny how apple pops up everywhere. I thought this thread was on Intel. Coming from an Apple user, I would like to learn more about Intel.
Look. I can go to pricewatch.com, spec out a high end dual Athlon system for $1500. Sure it might have some cheap parts, and sure some of the minor bits like CD-ROM drives and whatnot are scavanged from my bottom drawer, and it might have tech support scattered among dozens of companies, but to tell the truth:
(a) hardware has gotten so commoditized, that not a single one of the dozen or so machines I’ve built using the pricewatch method have yet failed on me,
(b) I haven’t used tech support since I was 12 years old.
You can customize some of the options on a Mac, but its plain impossible to get a dual G5 machine for $1500. Heck, the cheapest G5 machine is $2000. That buys you a single 1.6GHz G5. For that price, I can put together a dual 2Ghz Athlon MP machine with a ton of memory, the most expensive graphics card I can find, and still have enough money left over for a trip or three to the Olive Garden
Look: I just bought an iPod. The damn thing costs almost twice as much as what I would have payed for something like an e.Dig Treo. At the end of the day, they both just pump sound into my headphones. Still, that’s the best $400 I’ve ever spent, because the iPod is *worth* it. Now that the G5 is out, nobody can claim that Apple stuff isn’t high quality. However, its still expensive. But so is a Porsche for that matter…
Let’s see, a whois lookup shows that Rajan’s ISP is based somewhere in Malaysia. A whois lookup shows that my ISP is based in Atlanta. Further research shows that the “nv.cox.net” domain is in Northern Virginia. So unless I’m posting through a Malaysian ISP just to piss you off, I highly doubt we’re the same person…
Interesting article, but sadly it doesn’t mean anything. That survey show that Mac owners are happy of their purchase… but we don’t know how many of them are! Maybe only 40 Apple users (for desktop PCs) took the survey. Same thing with server. How does that make them a threat?
>By that same token, having clones introduces more
>incompatibilities. Many people think that adding clones would
>lower prices. Considering the fact that Apple’s prices run in
>paralyl with PCs of the same hardware and software
>configurations its unlikely.
I can say almost nothing about almost all your other comments for the simple fact I don’t own a mac. But the quote I pasted above I disagree with.
Apple is using almost 100% x86 tech and so its normal that those parts are eqeaul to the once offerd on the wintel platform. And those parts have a low price due to the clonng bizz. And so this is what keeps the overall price down of the mac.
“Apple is using almost 100% x86 tech and so its normal that those parts are eqeaul to the once offerd on the wintel platform. And those parts have a low price due to the clonng bizz. And so this is what keeps the overall price down of the mac.”
But a Mac is only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive when compared to a Mac with the exact (or as close as possible) hardware and software configurations.
Cloning doesn’t add a cost advantage, however it does allow for greater configurability of a computer, be it at the expense of much more incompatibilities.
But a Mac is only slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive when compared to a Mac[…]
I guess the copy/paste function is conspiring against you.
It’s not even copy and paste! S/He’s actually typing it out each time!
CTRL-C
CTRL-V
Even works in KDE?
Hey, that rhymes…
“Look. I can go to pricewatch.com, spec out a high end dual Athlon system for $1500.”
Nobody said that PC’s weren’t more configurable. The fact that you can construct a build it yourself system proves that. The issue at hand is whether or not you can build a dual Athlon system with the exact same (or as close as possible) system in both hardware and software at a significantly less price. At this point, the answer is no, however, you can come semi close with home built systems.
“Sure it might have some cheap parts, and sure some of the minor bits like CD-ROM drives and whatnot are scavanged from my bottom drawer, and it might have tech support scattered among dozens of companies, but to tell the truth:
(a) hardware has gotten so commoditized, that not a single one of the dozen or so machines I’ve built using the pricewatch method have yet failed on me,
(b) I haven’t used tech support since I was 12 years old.”
That’s funny because we are a Mac and PC shop. Of the PCs we use, we use PC OEMs for the simple fact that they (or at least the companies we buy from) use better parts.) When they are built from the “bottom of the drawer” they are significantly less reliable. If you havn’t had problems, consider yourself very lucky.
“You can customize some of the options on a Mac, but its plain impossible to get a dual G5 machine for $1500.”
Again, PC’s are more configurable, but its plain impossible to get an x86 machine with the same parts that come standard on the G5 in a PC for less than what Apple will sell them to you for.
“Heck, the cheapest G5 machine is $2000.”
You are mistaken. The cheapest G5 machine is (US)$1,770.
“That buys you a single 1.6GHz G5. For that price, I can put together a dual 2Ghz Athlon MP machine with a ton of memory, the most expensive graphics card I can find, and still have enough money left over for a trip or three to the Olive Garden
“
And yet it still wouldn’t match the G5’s hardware configuration.
“Look: I just bought an iPod. The damn thing costs almost twice as much as what I would have payed for something like an e.Dig Treo.”
And yet the ipod is better in so many more ways.
“At the end of the day, they both just pump sound into my headphones.”
True, but its important to consider battery life, skip protection, weight, size, UI…. when you do, the ipod is the better value.
“Still, that’s the best $400 I’ve ever spent, because the iPod is *worth* it.”
Yep.
“Now that the G5 is out, nobody can claim that Apple stuff isn’t high quality. However, its still expensive.”
But that’s the point. The G5 is NOT expensive. Expensive can only be declared if the same system from an alternate sourcecan give you an identical (or as close as possible) package for less money. So far, no vendor can. Does the G5 cost a lot. Yes. Does a competing system cost more. Yes. Therefore, the G5 is NOT expensive.
“Let’s see, a whois lookup shows that Rajan’s ISP is based somewhere in Malaysia. A whois lookup shows that my ISP is based in Atlanta. Further research shows that the “nv.cox.net” domain is in Northern Virginia. So unless I’m posting through a Malaysian ISP just to piss you off, I highly doubt we’re the same person…”
Woah there buddy, I saw somebody call you on it because they recognized that the nmaes were sometimes being used interchangably with the same IPs.
When the individual had fun with you and posted comments using your name, YOU RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT YES, THE TWO NAMES “Remaja” AND Rayiner Hashem COME FROM THE SAME SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.
You can’t go back. you already blew your cover.
“It’s not even copy and paste! S/He’s actually typing it out each time!
CTRL-C
CTRL-V”
I’ve NEVER EVER in my entire life used CTRL-C, CTRL-V to copy and paste on any machine that I’ve ever owned.
However, I do on occation, I use the CMND-C, CMND-V to copy and paste.
I don’t copy and paste when typing out my response to the oft misappropriated phrase, “Mac’s are more expensive”. (As if it matters anyways. You people are really bizzare with the ways you try to troll people. This one doesn’t even mean anything.)
You are mistaken. The cheapest G5 machine is (US)$1,770.
Are you sure? I mean, I just went to The Apple Store website and they claim that the PowerMac G5 start at 1999.00$ US.
Damn, what a surprise…
A story about Intel’s next batch of processors turns into another stupid Mac vs. PC dogfight.
Enough already.
I figure Jobs is not that bad. Is one thing what he said, is another what Maczealots do with it.
For instance on 6-23-03 Jobs said:
[source: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1149444,00.asp ]
“From now on, anybody who tells you that a Macintosh is more expensive than a high-end PC—you can tell ’em where to look,”
And that an idiot[Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—)] turned into this mindless reply anytime anyone points out the fact that macs are more expensive than pc’s in general:
-“But a Mac is only slightly more expensive, the same price, -slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive -when compared to a Mac with the exact (or as close as -possible) hardware and software configurations.”
I mean, I bet Jobs didn’t mean it like this. Say if Job had a mistress, not even the mistress would be as submissive as this kinky idiot. Not only this guy drinks Kool Aid like there is no tomorrow, but S/He is also Steve knee-pad girl. In fact there isn’t a cheapest h*re turning tricks in the Web forums than Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—).
Who thinks I’m the same person as someone else? Who is this Remaja guy? Rajan is a different individual entirely. The IP addresses prove it. The only weirdness I remember with my IP is that somebody thought that someone else was posting as me because I usually post from gatech.edu, and during the summer, I post (from home) nv.cox.net.
“Are you sure? I mean, I just went to The Apple Store website and they claim that the PowerMac G5 start at 1999.00$ US.”
He said the cheapest g5 Apple will sell you is $2,000. He didn;t factor in that you could take out the Super drive and make it a combo drive. Additionally, you can take out the modem.
Does it matter, anyway? Anyone with the same host could use your name…
Couple of corrections:
> 1) The IA-64 is VLIW, not RISC. Basic breakdown:
> CISC – Usually variable length instructions
> RISC – Fixed 32-bit instructions
> VLIW – Large (128+ bits) packets of multiple instructions
CISC – Complex Instruction Set Computer
Variable length and the ability to do LARGE scale calculations. The Last Vax chip could do polygon multiples in hardware. (I think the limit was 8 or 16 exponents)
RISC – Reduced Instruction Set Computer
Fixed length instruction size, Usually the word legnth of the computer, SImple instructions. The idea being if you can do 1+1 fast enough no one needs 1+x. Okay I over simplified the example but it’s the idea.
VLIW – Very Large Instruction Word
Thus is a RISC instruction set where multiple NON co dependent instructions are pulled into the cpu at the same time. These instructions with NO co dependecy are the executed at the same time. Note the NO CODEPENDECY is key. The best research seems to limit this to 2.5 instructions per flight wgich means that I2 is pulling in NOPs for half the data.
> 2) If the G5 is 150% faster than a P4 on a given benchmark, that seriously calls into question the
A single G5 is about a 2.5 Ghz P4 ( Adual G5 could be faster or slower depending on the memory access patters. RTemember Apple with a UMA memory model. Opteron kicks it’s ass)
Donaldson
“And that an idiot[Anonymous (IP: 12.105.181.—)]”
Sigh…
“turned into this mindless reply anytime anyone points out the fact that macs are more expensive than pc’s in general:”
But Macs AREN’T more expensive. They’re more configurable. A Mac is only slightly more expensive, the same price, -slightly less expensive, or significantly less expensive -when compared to a Mac with the exact (or as close as -possible) hardware and software configurations.
“I mean, I bet Jobs didn’t mean it like this.”
Who cares if Jobs said it or not… its true.
“Say if Job had a mistress, not even the mistress would be as submissive as this kinky idiot.”
sigh… (agan)
“Not only this guy drinks Kool Aid like there is no tomorrow”
Drinking Kool Aid implies that I’m somehow wrong. I am not.
“but S/He is also Steve knee-pad girl.”
Is that the best you can do to defend your argument? You’re pathetic. Eugenia (if you’re reading) please ban this individual’s IP number. His behavior is unacceptabile.
“Who thinks I’m the same person as someone else?”
You yourself said it!
“Who is this Remaja guy? Rajan is a different individual entirely.”,/i>
perhaps but you have posted under the same nick.
[i]”The IP addresses prove it.”
No it doesn’t. That’s easy to spoof. YOU YOURSELF SAID IT.
“The only weirdness I remember with my IP is that somebody thought that someone else was posting as me because I usually post from gatech.edu, and during the summer, I post (from home) nv.cox.net.
YOU YOURSELF SAID THAT THE TWO NAMES WERE POSTED BY YOU!
When did I say I posted under that name? Link, please. And I don’t post under a nick, never have.
Well, the guy isn’t THAT bad. I mean, he’s right with the G5, although I think it comes with too many software that most people wouldn’t use IMHO. However, the G5 isn’t out, so we don’t know how it does really perform in the Real World(tm) (I don’t trust any benchies sponsored by a company (be it Apple/IBM, AMD or Intel), even if they’re done by an “independant” body) and it’s not really true with the G4 (according to the prices I’ve seen on The Apple Store).
Anyway, I won’t go further as it’s clearly off topic. That said…
I thought Intel would release a 3.6GHz CPU sooner. I hope they have some aces up their sleeves or they could face serious competition from AMD (if the Athlon64 live up to its hype).
“When did I say I posted under that name? Link, please. And I don’t post under a nick, never have.”
It was in the forums. I tried searching but OS News doesn’t search forum posts.
It’s alot worse than a 3.6 GHz cpu. THe current P4 core makes it to 3.7 GHz to 4.1Ghz on air , Intel has been sandbagging cpus again. I expect If they wanted to they could bin out 5GHz in 4Q of 2004.
AMD and IBM have serious threats there. (The I2 on the hand is crap)
Donaldson
Long live the Alpha!
Yeah, I know, but I’m pretty sure you have to increase the voltage to get >3.6GHz. Maybe that’s why they don’t want to ship them. Perhaps the Prescott will solve that. I’m not sure of its new features. Better bus speed, improved HT, and…?
Anyway, I don’t think they’ll do nothing if AMD/IBM are raping them.
“Well, the guy isn’t THAT bad.”
Stop trolling.
“I mean, he’s right with the G5, although I think it comes with too many software that most people wouldn’t use IMHO.”
I’m right about the G5 and all other Apple’s computers.
“I mean, he’s right with the G5, although I think it comes with too many software that most people wouldn’t use IMHO.”
I’m not sure if “most” consumers use them nor are you so making such a blanket statement such as that is misleading.
“However, the G5 isn’t out, so we don’t know how it does really perform in the Real World(tm)”
We don’t have it now, but we saw how it performed in real world test at WWDC and in the tests completed by independant research company viritest.
“(I don’t trust any benchies sponsored by a company (be it Apple/IBM, AMD or Intel), even if they’re done by an “independant” body)”
A Nasa engineer gave us some real world tests which verified Apple and Veritest’s results.
“and it’s not really true with the G4 (according to the prices I’ve seen on The Apple Store).”
It wasn;t true with the prices Apple had for the G4s before. But not it certinly is.
“I thought Intel would release a 3.6GHz CPU sooner. I hope they have some aces up their sleeves or they could face serious competition from AMD (if the Athlon64 live up to its hype).”
Agreed.
Actually, Intel is headed towards the 75% mark.
:^o
Tell me about it.
The signal to noise raio is getting really bad lately.
RE: 4GHz P4’s
Here is a link to someone boosting an 2.4 to 4. I still want someone to take a benchmark and calculate the efficiency of these cpus. (Amount of die used in real world, Percentage of maxium performance being shown etc.)
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=617492
Donaldson
I’m trolling because I’m saying what I think of your claims, (some that are good, and some that are stupid)? What a plonker.
I’m not sure if “most” consumers use them nor are you so making such a blanket statement such as that is misleading.
And how it’s misleading? What’s the point in shipping a buttload of software (and bragging about this) if people don’t actually use them? Anyway, I never claimed that I was saying the absolute truth, hence the “IMHO”.
A Nasa engineer gave us some real world tests which verified Apple and Veritest’s results.
And how many people are using calculation software everyday? It only show us that the G5 is a badass CPU for calculations, pretty much like the G4 was. That’s not what I call a Real World(tm) test. If you believe in those numbers, your choice, but obviously not mine. I’ll believe the results when the G5 will be out to the public, even if they are better than the ones they have shown to us.
I’m right about the G5 and all other Apple’s computers.
[…]
It wasn;t true with the prices Apple had for the G4s before. But not it certinly is.
Do you even bother to read my argument before you write clueless statements like this? I’ve just checked their official prices at The Apple Store, did a comparison, and I’m sure they’re still higher than a PC with a similar configuration. Anyway, you’ll say I’m wrong no matter the proofs I give to you and we’re still off topic so I won’t comment further on that. You can start a thread in a forum and I’ll gladly participate, but I won’t add anything here. We don’t help the signal to noise ratio that way (and you are included in the “we”).
Hmm. Quite impressive. I’m starting to believe that Intel does “sandbag” their CPUs like you said. I guess that’s because they don’t have much competition from AMD these days.
RE: G5 and NASA
How messed up is this, the most used piece of software ever
is word and it has close to 0 in fp calculations. The most
common application to use fp is 3D game engines. (And they
use it in spades) And the ONE MAJOR software hole for Apple
Computer Inc. is in games.
Just on a side note, I’ll put my alpha with it’s specialized math unit in the fight any day of the week. Even the 21264A had a specialized vector unit. Didn’t save the cpu. Also if you want to see how relevent fp is go look at the linux kerenl. Umm no FP is allowed. The only place the “Specialized vector units” get used seems to be for string clears and some block manipulation.
<RANT>
RE: Price (G5 researched)
I went and looked in depth at the prices, The component prices (drives, bluetooth) look very close to real world, The memory seems overpriced but it’s an old model and the pc world is already moving on so I’m guessing Apple is making a profit here. The motherboard, case , PSU seems to be the real cash cow for Apple computer inc. In comparable features etc the motherboard should be bout 500$ the cpus 450-600 dollars and the PSU 90 and case 160. So Apple’s are more expensive. so F**K WHAT, If you want the Apple GUI you pay the damn price. Take the cost difference between the computers and make it the cost of the FIN GUI. I payed extra for Alpha cause I wanted an ALPHA, There is no shame in it, just try to be honest about it. This is like saying SCSI is cost comparable with IDE, BullS**T. SCSI is fin faster, is the precentage of speed and performance improvements equal to the cost increase. ummm NO, Same thing for the MAC line, is the cost percentage increase equal to the non hardware benefits, NO. If you want a MAC then buy it. I am so fin sick of this cost argument. People pay more for macs, They don’t have better hardware, they don’t have secret powers the f’in OS could be run under an Powerpc emulator. They cost more based on hardware and software, so be it. Apple makes profits and Apple users are willing to pay for the machine because they want to, be honest about it. You know like kenneddy said a few days ago….
“A don’t need George Bush’s tax cut, I’ve never worked a day in my life.”
Apple sells computers, on looks and the quality of the GUI. The G5 isn’t a super cpu either (21364 is though) and just to sum this up the F’in power line is a 32 bit damn design. GOD, Power PC derives from the Power2 thus from the Power 1.
The G5 design uses a 64 bit design with 32 fetching. But the originall Power PC was NOT F**KING 64 bit.
</RANT>
Donaldson
“I’m trolling because I’m saying what I think of your claims, (some that are good, and some that are stupid)?”
No, you’re a troll because some of the things you say are troll-like.
“And how it’s misleading? What’s the point in shipping a buttload of software (and bragging about this) if people don’t actually use them?”
What makes you think that nobody uses them?
<i.”Anyway, I never claimed that I was saying the absolute truth, hence the “IMHO”.”[/i]
Okay, then i wouldn’t expect you to protest if someone were to say, “what’s the point of including a factory mouse if nobody IMHO ever uses it?”
You included the IMHO which theoretically obsolves you of responsability for making an outrageous claime, but because your point was moot to start, it probably shouldn;t have been said in the first place because its misleading.
“And how many people are using calculation software everyday?”
Few, but does this change the fact that its not a real world test (a test done outside the confines of Apple or a independent research organization) as you stated? No.
“It only show us that the G5 is a badass CPU for calculations, pretty much like the G4 was. That’s not what I call a Real World(tm) test.”
Whatever…
Real world tests have already been done. The fact that you don’t accept them as real world test is irrelivant.
<i.”If you believe in those numbers, your choice, but obviously not mine.”[/i]
Fine, then you shouldn’t have any problem calling you out on it each time you mention that no real world tests have ever been completed.
“I’ll believe the results when the G5 will be out to the public, even if they are better than the ones they have shown to us.”
sigh…
“Do you even bother to read my argument before you write clueless statements like this?”
Nothing about my statement was clueless, and the reason why i responded to you the way i did was because you were wrong.
“I’ve just checked their official prices at The Apple Store, did a comparison, and I’m sure they’re still higher than a PC with a similar configuration.”
I’m telling you that I did the same and (depending on the configuration) the Mac was either slightly more expensive, the same price, or slightly less expensive when comparing both hardware and software against a PC with the exact same configuration (or as close as possible). (Significantly less expensive only comes with the G5 from what I’ve seen.)
Your tests (as with all other comparitive tests that have been presented thus far) have shown nothing more than the fact that the PC is more configurable.
“Anyway, you’ll say I’m wrong no matter the proofs I give to you”
You’re saying this as if you’ve present a clear case to support your argument. You have not, nor has anyone.
“and we’re still off topic so I won’t comment further on that.”
Agreed. Please stop making incorrect, misleading or troll-like statements so that I/we dont have to continue correcting you thus causing the topic to get even more off…
“You can start a thread in a forum and I’ll gladly participate, but I won’t add anything here. We don’t help the signal to noise ratio that way”
I don’t want to debate you. I just don’t want FUD to be spread, so i correct it when I see it. Because the article discussion list is more heavily read, I will utilize my time here.
“(and you are included in the “we”)”
Offering clarity to an otherwise misleading statement is noise? No wonder you’re so mixed up.
“The memory seems overpriced”
Never buy Ram from Apple. Apple purposfully over prices their ram so that resellers can have something they can bundle in to give insentive to buy from them.
“The motherboard, case , PSU seems to be the real cash cow for Apple computer inc.”
What matters most is the complete system. Apple takes a loss on many parts of the total system makes but makes up for it in other areas such as the PSU as yo mentioned.
The end result is that when compared to a PC, Apple’s computers are either slightly more expensive, the same price, slightly less expensive or significantly less expensive when both hardware and software are compared against competing systems of the exact same (or as close as possible) specs.
“Apple sells computers, on looks and the quality of the GUI.”
You’re forgetting that they all sell them based on technology, power/performance as well as integration advantages.
“The G5 isn’t a super cpu either”
While it certinly isn’t the fastest that can be had… (its a high end consumer processor that is just as powerful (in some cases significantly more so) than most workstations. Apple IS correct in saying that it the fastest desktop computer on the planet.
“The G5 design uses a 64 bit design with 32 fetching. But the originall Power PC was NOT F**KING 64 bit.”
Who here said that?
Re sandbagging,
In my NSHO i feel that initally in the GHz race AMD have an edge. Intel responded and built up some headroom. Now Intel has gone back to making profit. The key issue is to always have one CPU faster then AMD and overcharge for it.
Here is an rough pricelist.
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00422/
3.4 for 640$ is pure profit. Chip binning has got to be the biggest scam ever. (I worked for Terradyne, and they sold chip testers to Intel, talk about Intel killing their suppliers) But back to my point if a 2.4 GHz chip can almos get an 80% over clock Intel has some serious headroom left in the P4. Since the P5 is comming soon, I’m guessing theor keeping it in the can in case the P5 has “issues”.
Their is another posibility here to. If the PIII had a 100% clock frequency to CPU work ratio, the P4 had a 90% efficency, Well the P5 may be 80% and they want to avoid the problems they had before, (Includeing lawsuits)
In my NSHO if AMD dosen’t get the Opteron, AGP motherboard out soon Intel may try to kill them next year. I’m feeling for some reason Intel feels that they might not need AMD for anti trust reasons. ( And no I don’t think the repulicans in office has any reflection on this. Remember the FIRST anti trust case against MS was brought and won by the Regan administration)
O well, The only 2 good things about this…
1. Cheaper faster CPUs
2. Now with a little processor add on I can overclock my Dual Athlons which means I can wait till next year for a major upgrade on my game machine.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030703/index.html
Owell off to Starbucks for a 10 shot mocha
Donaldson
> Apple takes a loss on many parts of the total system
> makes but makes up for it in other areas such as the
> PSU as you mentioned.
From what I could work on from the pricing I don’t think Apple Computer loses money on any component. From the CPU to their design firm. The only way I could see them lose money is if they were to take the design cost, Shape it into a sepearte bussiness unit(read shell corporation), sell the design back to the primary company and use that as an deduction. I don’t see them doing this beacuse the market would hammer them.
> Apple IS correct in saying that it the fastest desktop
> computer on the planet.
Nope, I got a dual proc athlon that will take the Dual G5 and a hyperthread 3.2 P4 will take the single processor G5. Also the fatest desktop on the planet is still the 21364. Is it competive, you bet,. Most people don’t need the raw power. After all I just bought the Parent an 1.2 Ghz AMD in a small Shuttle case 640 all total. More than fast enough for the web and email. Is the G5 fastest, no. Consedering the speed bumps from the IA-64 and IA-32 planned and if the G5 was not to bump at all I think it would be considered competive till late 2004. IBM way be able to beat Intel/ AMD/ VIA next year but I doubt it. a 4+ GHz P4 and something around a 4.4+ Ghz P5 will keep the G5 behind them. It will still be ver competive and Apple dosen’t have to try to “justify” a slower (read lower performance) CPU any more. I would prefer that Jobs quit lying on stage. I can’t wait to him claim the worlds first 64 bit laptop. At that point I will sue him. (Alpha was the fist and I think tadpole makes a 64 bit sparc laptop now)
>> “The G5 design uses a 64 bit design with 32 fetching. But
>> the originall Power PC was NOT F**KING 64 bit.”
>
>Who here said that?
Sorry I’m also be reading the article “Analysis: x86 Vs PPC” Post number 178.
> Ugh
> By stingerman (IP: —.ny325.east.verizon.net)
>
<clip>
>PowerPC Architecture had the foresight to be well
> designed as a 64-bit RISC instruction set since its inception.
Donaldson
For a really good aticle from the embedded world I would
like to direct all readers of this thread to the following article. Some really goog points.
“Ten lies about microprocessors”
http://www.embedded.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10700169
Now the tease, first line from the article:
Processor selection too often turns into a religious war.
Donaldson
Ps. To qute the sub-humans
“Religious wars are no reason to die.”
…I found IBM’s “unofficial” SPECfp/SPECint scores for the 1.8 GHz PPC, done way back in November (and called “conservative”). Guess what? They’re faster than Apple’s test indicated, too. Since most of people’s screaming about Apple’s tests was based on not using the fastest possible scores for their competitors, I figure it’s fair to use these scores, SPECint2000 937 and SPECfp2000 1051, and extrapolate from the 1.8 GHz machine tested to a 2.0 GHz clock speed. We’ll use Intel’s own scores for the P4, and AMD’s scores for the Opteron 144, their fastest single-processor part.
The first numbers are intiger and the second are floating point
PPC 970 2.0 GHz 1041 1167
P4 3.06 GHz 1088 1077
Opt 144 1.6 GHz 1170 1219
Is everybody happy?
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A2CE393ABF2…
Most people in the x86 world don’t realise this but the PowerPC ISA Spec has had things built into it from day one for the day that the 32-bit Based PowerPC systems would be moving 64-bit. Unlike the X86 platform which seems to be mostly patch work and a prayer.
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardw are/whitepapers/power/ppc_arch.html#arch
In my NSHO i feel that initally in the GHz race AMD have an edge. Intel responded and built up some headroom. Now Intel has gone back to making profit. The key issue is to always have one CPU faster then AMD and overcharge for it.
Yeah, it seems to look like that right now, especially in Canada. Intel chips tend to be quite expensive when you compare them to AMD chips. Fortunately, they can overclock well!
In my NSHO if AMD dosen’t get the Opteron, AGP motherboard out soon Intel may try to kill them next year. I’m feeling for some reason Intel feels that they might not need AMD for anti trust reasons.
Hmm. I thought the nForce3 was supporting AGP? Anyway, I don’t think AGP for the Opteron really matters. It’s a server chip, after all. IMO, it would only help them in the 3D workstation market. However, the Athlon64 will *need* one or they could fail… Anyway, AGP will die in one or two years because of PCI-Express (if it comes out someday).
Btw, thanks for the reads!
Unlike the X86 platform which seems to be mostly patch work and a prayer.
Yeah, well, it was designed for a 8-bit CPU if I remember. It’s quite amazing that it survived more than 3 decades in the ever-changing world of computers. I’m not aware of any computer standard that managed to live that long. However, I must admit that the PPC seems to have a brighter future and might be the way to go unless someone else comes with another innovation. A PPC with an x86 emulation layer (or anything like that, I’m not a CPU architecture specialist) could be great.
“A PPC with an x86 emulation layer (or anything like that, I’m not a CPU architecture specialist) could be great.”
I’ve been wondering about this idea too.
What would be nice is if Apple took advantage of the increased speed of its chips and emulated win32. Apple could replace any instance of Microsoft’s API with Aqua.
Some might feel inclined to remind everybody that it was a strategy similar to this which helped kill IBM’s OS/2 operating system.
What negative affect would there be to Apple if some programmers continued to write to the Win32 API if the end result was more Mac hardware being sold. And If applications written using native Cocoa or Carbon APIs produced software that was significantly faster, I would bet that there would be more adopters than defectors as was the case with OS2.
Well, I wasn’t thinking of running x86 stuff on Apple computers, but more like the Itanium does with x86 stuff. However, now that you mention it…
I believe Apple would either need to licence the Win32 API from Microsoft (unless they already have one) or reverse-engineer it like WINE…. and I seriously doubt MS would give them a licence if they don’t have one already. I’m sure MS is not dumb enough to commit suicide as many people would probably “switch” (I don’t like that term) because they’re tired of their business practices and shoving-up-your-throat stuff. I guess we’ll see what will happen in the following months/years.
Oh, you can bank on the fact that Microsoft would never license the API. Microsoft would never want to have a level playing field and that certainly would establish one.
I was talking about something more along the lines of Emulation… which of course wouldn’t require microsoft licensing the API, although might require a license of Windows.
Assuming Apple doesn’t have its own WINE-like product, WINE would definately be a nice alternative, even if it doesn’t retain 100% compatibility… such a solution would be nice because it would be performing win32 instructions without emulation but nativly.
nforce 3 isn’t shipping till late august, the only Opteron boards right now have PCI – (something) and no AGP. Don’t know why unless the AGP-Hypertransport chip is not shipping yet. (Same one apple’s using).
Instead of moving an Xe86 emulator to Apple you could move a PPC emulator to ix86 and dump the PPC hardware. (Yes it could be done for linux relatively easily and for windows too. They key phrase is FX32! or em86) I have been looking for a PPC emulator. If I find a good public domain one I might just cut a version of em86 for intel to run ppc code. (Just to piss Steve off)
Grin
Donaldson
Calculation of prices. Quickie very Quickie
This tries to make the same two system, same features. (Actually I gave the PC better features in some ways, all of office and better sound, and this is piecemeal, no discounts.) If you add any options from Apple you’re wasting money, buy third party. NOTE: I added Office to the intel box because everyone uses it.
Mac base cost 2770.00
Memory Adjustment – 80.00
Hard drive Adjustment – 189.00
Video Card Adjustment – 179.00
Keyboard/Mouse – 30.00
CDRW DVD Adjustment – 155.00
——–
2038.00
(Case, PWS, Cable, Mother board, OS, Software Left)
Antec 550W Power Supply For TRUE550 EPS12V 125.00
TYAN Motherboard for Dual AMD MP Processors, Model# S2466N-4M 206.00
11 Bay ATX Tool Free MidTower Model 6066SATX 48.00
MD Athlon MP 2800 2.08GHz PROCESSOR CPU – Retail X 2 578.00
36-Inch. IDE ATA 100/66, Flat Cable 3.00
1394b FireWire 800 PCI host Adapter 76.00
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum 167.00
——-
1203.00
Windows 2000 277.00
Office Complete 450.00
VideoWave Power Edition – ( ver. 5 ) 77.00
Easy CD & DVD Creator 6 Platinum Edition 77.00
MS Visual C++ .NET Standard 2003 100.00
——-
981.00
Total 2184.00
Less than 150 difference and more software …
LINKS:
http://www.newegg.com/
1394b FireWire 800 PCI host adapter
http://store.yahoo.com/jinco/11bayatxmidc1.html
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=10345146&loc=101
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20305922&loc=105
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20338645&loc=105
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20348667&loc=105
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=20352974&loc=105
@rajan r
> in the case of AMD, much of the processors are solded to
> small shops and people who build their own machine
Are you forgetting HP-Compaq’s AthlonXP/nForce2 machines?