The Future of Apple's Pro Desktop Line 266
SB_SamuraiSam writes "WWDC is drawing nearer and ArsTechnica has a thorough look at what they think Apple's plans are for their future Pro desktop line. It's a decent read. As always Ars has a competent pulse on Apple and is more reasonable than purely speculative. From the article:
I think Apple's CPU choice is clear cut. Strange as it sounds, the Xeon 5100 series is the best fit for the Mac. If Apple wants to keep the Quad name alive, it's the only option. Dual CPU configurations are not possible with anything else in Intel land, so if Apple wants to offer two CPUs and four cores, Xeon is the only game in town. With the benchmarks we have seen, the Core 2 Duo is a clear winner for Intel, outperforming anything AMD has to offer. The Xeon? With its faster FSB and different memory, it's even faster than the Core 2 Duo."
Windows faster on a Mac (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:2, Insightful)
Although Apple has introduced Boot camp, I find it difficult to believe that they intended the primary OS to be Windows.
I tend to be optimistic, and believe that Apple is trying to woo third party vendors to take advantage of the new architecture, and introduce more applications.
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
What will be most interesting is what Leopard has in store in the way of windows compatiblity. Some think Bootcamp functionality will no longer require a reboot.
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder, would that mean running Windows in a Window (like Parallels), or having a hypervisor and a hotkey to switch between OSes?
Of course, I'd still rather see a complete and 100% compatible DarWINE instead of any kind of virtualization... perhaps Apple ought to put some funding and developer manpower into that!
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:4, Interesting)
I could definitely see Mac supporting Windows inside a built-in "Classic"-type virtualization environment and integrating with the OS, so that double-clicking on an exe file in the Mac would launch it in Windows. I could even see them doing that in "rootless" mode like they did with Classic when they first made the transition to OS X - run Windows applications as though they were running on OS X directly - they draw regular Aqua windows instead of Windows Windows, can be switched to from the Dock, and have the same background as other OS X applications (although Classic still head a lot of the appearance of Mac OS 9).
Some people have suggested reproducing the Windows API inside of Mac OS X, since Apple has been given access to the entire Windows API but I think that would run counter to Apple's commitment to comparmentalizing different APIs inside of different protected memory stacks, so that a crash inside a Windows application doesn't take down the whole host OS with it. While reproducing the Windows API doesn't preclude the possibility of running it on top of OS X, instead of parallel to it, it's not worth the effort when an instance of Windows itself can already run on top of OS X. I also don't think that would be better than virtualizing Windows, since a hack could easily make Windows run applications in rootless mode inside the OS X graphical environment . Then they could advertise that Mac OS X now runs Windows programs just as well as it runs Mac programs - even though really it would be Windows running Windows programs on top of Mac programs.
Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no evidence for this. You can buy a Dell or HP that has the exact same components as a Mac Pro.
Re:Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:2)
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:3, Informative)
Sacrificial entrails refers to pagan rituals involving killing an animal (generally a sheep or goat) and studying the entrails in some strange ritual that was supposed to provide information about the future.
Re:Windows faster on a Mac (Score:2)
The Switch? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Assuming, of course, that Adobe has any competitors.
Re:The Switch? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
I am speaking about Photoshop CS type of applications.
Professionals does not throw out $20k mission critical workstations because Steve Jobs became Intel fanboy recently.
Adobe listens to their professional consumers and I seriously suspect if they will rush a "mactel binary" because couple of Macbook "Pro" users wanted it.
Re:The Switch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Same thing this time: Apple will have new hardware out, and one day when the apps appear, users will be able to buy them and use them that day. Apple will continue to sell G5s, and designers will hoard them, just like they did with the last of the OS-9-booting MDD G4s. The switch to Intel is really no different. Doesn't matter if it's the OS or hardware changing, the effect on the applications is the same: the apps won't run in an ideal manner, so people will either wait to change, or get by with non-optimal systems, untill the apps match the system.
Besides, plenty of people buy nice Macs and don't use CS. Final Cut is already shipping for Intel and Apple's other pro apps will all be universal soon--maybe even coincident with the release of the hardware. I'd expect to see an announcement regarding that at the WWDC as well: "We at Apple have just finished our transition to Intel, and we've also transitioned all of our apps. Yay us!"
The biggest difference this time, actually, is with Adobe: since OS 9 came out, they purchased Macromedia, and Quark almost dead, so Adobe can drag their feet all they want for the Intel transition.* That's another big reason that Apple would be stupid to wait for Adobe to get a product out the door. (Besides, how would it look for Apple to be waiting on Adobe before releasing new hardware? Very weak, that's how.)
* Plus, the switch to Intel ain't exactly easy. [adobe.com] Same situation at Microsoft. [msdn.com]
Re:The Switch? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dev Kits (Score:2)
Although, I sometimes get the feeling that Apple has intentionally withheld information about the Intel switch from it's development partners to give Apple's own products an edge as far as having universal binaries is concerned.
Re:The Switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Switch? (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't forget Pros using Apple apps - they're UB already.
Re:The Switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have any numbers of any kind to back this up, so take this with several large dollops of salt, but: I suspect that the number of creative pros who rely on Adobe tools is much, much higher than the number of those who rely on the Apple in-house tools.
And don't underestimate the capacity of design pros to drag their feet. For years, I knew graphic artists who refused to upgrade to OS X because Quark wouldn't run natively in it. Of course, when the new version of Quark finally was release, Adobe's answer was arguably much better.
Let's rescue the term "creative pro" (Score:5, Insightful)
Your suspicion is based on the erroneous assumption that all "creative pros" are people who work in graphic design, publishing, web design, etc.
Let's not forget that filmmakers are "creative pros" and a lot of them are using Final Cut Pro Studio and Shake. Musicians are "creative pros" and a lot of them are aready using UB versions of Garageband or Logic. Ableton Live is also already Universal Binary, and very widely used by laptop musicians and DJs.
In fact, a lot of musicians are even using Final Cut Pro Studio, because they loved Soundtrack Pro and their only option to upgrade was an attractively priced crossgrade offer to FCP Studio.
There are many professional creatives already working on Intel Macs to earn their daily bread.
So let's stop acting as if design pros are the only pros who are "creative". They didn't invent creativity, and judging by the current state of the majority of the web, they're not the final word in it either.
Far from 'insightful' (Score:2)
He just definitively informed us that real creative professionals are waiting for the intel powermac to use garageband, and that using Final Cut Pro is the norm with recording musicians.
Re:Let's rescue the term "creative pro" (Score:2)
It's true. You can draw just fine under Rosetta, I do it all the time using my Wacom tablet.
The only thing that's pretty slow is moving layers around, applying filters, and blending effects. But that stuff doesn't need to be as real-time as actually drawing.
And as far as creative pros go, if in a given workweek I code some Java, some Lua, some XML, use Emacs and Eclipse, build a few web pages, draw some graphics, make a Flash toon, record some sound, and crank o
Re:Let's rescue the term "creative pro" (Score:2)
The 7.1 update is where intel mac support comes into play. Of course, the upgrade is only free if you're running 7.0 already. Its a $75 upgrade from 6.x to 7.0 though.
And yes, sound pros are not using garageband. And please, ableton and logic aren't exactly mainstays either... Logic is somewhat of a niche. ProTools is the industry standard, like it or not. And if you're talking about a runner-up, I'd say Cubase is way more widely used than Logic, especially n
Re:The Switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
To stay on topic, I've always felt that Apple releases hardware and then developers create software to take full advantage of it. In short, hardware drives software development. It seems to differ slightly from the WinTel universe where hardware upgrades are often invoked by mew software. Admittedly, I have this perception because I always upgrade when new software runs dog slow on my PC. I don't seem to do that on my Mac as much, though the Intel move will probably hasten an upgrade from suddenly ancient G4.
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Wrong, Quark is/was too expensive, had too many problems and too many bad releas
Re:The Switch? (Score:3)
I don't have any numbers of any kind to back this up, so take this with several large dollops of salt, but: I suspect that the number of creative pros who rely on Adobe tools is much, much higher than the number of those who rely on the Apple in-house tools.
Apple and Adobe seem to have had a 'falling out' of sorts in the past few years, namely that Adobe's been relucatant to support Apple's latest and greatest technologies for the sake of preserving platform-compatibility with Windows. Adobe's becoming les
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
If you've got a PC around, you might give RawShooter [pixmantec.com] a try. Although it lacks much of the advanced retouching features of Photoshop, it's a great RAW Converter/Organization tool that works great for about 90% of the images I process (the other 10% requiring some sort of adjustment in Photoshop, because as you've said.... it does everything).
And unlike Adobe's products, RawShooter's multithreaded, which makes it fast and responsive on just about any hardware.
As an interesting development, Adobe
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Quite true.
Video editing on the mac is pretty much entirely occupied by users of apple's pro stuff. In its price-range, Final Cut is easily the best video-editing solution out there. Adobe doesn't even suppor
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Re:The Switch? (Score:4, Informative)
They are rumored to be starting work on a new compositing app which may or may not be shake-like, but which will certainly take some time to develop. Some of the shake support people have been laid off, but AFAIK the developers are moving over to the new shake-replacement project.
See http://www.fxguide.com/article359.html [fxguide.com] (podcast with Dion Scoppettuolo of Apple), http://www.highend3d.com/boards/index.php?showfor
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
I can buy it right now, and it's available on Mac & Linux. Granted, it's just a wee bit more on Linux...
http://www.apple.com/shake/ [apple.com]
And they're working on a new version. Yeah, it may not be just a typical upgrade, but it's not being discontinued. I'm guessing it will be Intel only for the speed.
http://www.capria.tv/2006/06/21/farewell-shake/ [capria.tv]
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Listen to Dion's podcast, http://www.fxguide.com/article359.html [fxguide.com]. Shake as we know it will cease to exist. Support is already ending (note they're not transferring existing support contracts to this "shake replacement"). The new product (rumored to be called "phenomena") will be a "shake replacement" but nobody has any clue how shake-like it w
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
Whatever Apple or designers will be holding, I hope it won't be their breath. CS3 for Intel Mac is said to be out next years fall if they will feel lucky.
Re:The Switch? (Score:2)
I'm still not fully convinced. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm still not fully convinced. (Score:2)
Re:I'm still not fully convinced. (Score:2)
One wonders when the quad-core chips are coming out. AMD plans them for 2007. What about intel?
Re:I'm still not fully convinced. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but here, I don't think there are any single-core chips in play. The de
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Right, therefore Apple's high end would move to dual quad-core chips. There will always be a place for multiple (physically separate) processors.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Unless it improves bandwidth somehow there's no benefit to multi-package as opposed to just having all the cores in a single package. For AMD of course, it would, since AMD's processors are utilize NUMA. Unless/until intel goes NUMA, there's no benefit to having multiple CPUs, just multiple cores. (Unless there's cache-space issues.)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Well then, that's a problem, because methinks that Apple will release a new desktop before Intel releases a quad-core xeon. Therefore, for the time being, the one-chip vs. two-chip debate is irrelevant. Obviously they'll switch to a single chip when that's available but currently it's not.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Yes they are. It's even on their Roadmap. Kentsfield is the quad core desktop chip and Clovertown is the quad core server chip. But they're not scheduled for release unti 1Q2007 and 4Q2006 respectively -- Apple would have to delay nearly 6 months if they want to go down that route. That's just silly when they can provide Xeon 5100 based systems now that will provide nearly the same leve
Re:I'm still not fully convinced. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is doing what is possible whith the chips that are available. And of course its a no brainer that as soon as a CPU with four cores or more is available from Intel, Apple will be looking for ways to get it in a Mac.
pure speculation (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I'm waiting on an Intel XServe.....
Re:pure speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a workstation.
Abd sadly, AMDs advantage rather violently evaporated the last 2 weeks.
Re:pure speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Amd Also has plans for Hyper Transport based cards and Co-processors that sound like the next thing to have in the high end market and people in it who are not into games may want to go for it.
Re:pure speculation (Score:2, Interesting)
Again, Intel lags behind. It was a mistake not to have Conroe not be multi socket capable.
Re:pure speculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Why unfortunately?
Let's leave brand loyalism out of this. The whole purpose of capitalism is for this exact phenomenon to happen. The "underdog" company (AMD) came up with great products, people bought those products, the big bad corporation (Intel) got spooked and was forced to play harder to catch up. Result? The stunning results we're seeing from Conroe.
As long as we're moderately sure that Intel is playing fair and not leveraging their position to kick AMD out, I don't care who has the best processors
Re:pure speculation (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, considering their already buying bulk from Intel, adding another line of chips to
Re:pure speculation (Score:2)
Apple's "Pro" stuff has always been quite a bit different.
For one, it took *forever* for the G5 to make its way from the PowerMac to the iMac (at which point, it stopped completely). The G5 was a radically different architecture from the G4, not to mention that Apple's been flip-flopping between IBM and Moterola for years. Apple, of all people, should have learned the lesson not to put all of its eggs in one basket after their falling out with IBM subsequent to Motorola exiting the market.
Re:pure speculation (Score:2)
What would save money would be the generally lower cost of AMD chips.
Re:pure speculation (Score:4, Interesting)
And you're wrong, AMD no longer has the high-end edge. They won't regain it until 2008 at the earliest.
Re:pure speculation (Score:2)
You miss the fact that Apple locked itself to Intel brand.
Those Intel guys speaking in conference, cheesy games like not supporting Firewire 800 because people still see USB2 as a joke...
If you want AMD from Apple, I don't think it will happen.
Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple desperately needs to update their powermac line; its embarassing when compared to any current PCs.
Apple:
Dual-core 2.3GHz PowerPC G5 processor
512MB of 533MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-4200)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
16x SuperDrive (double-layer)
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 with 256MB GDDR SDRAM
$2,499.00
Dell XPS 700:
Dual-core 3.0ghz Pentium D
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
320GB Serial ATA Harddrive
16x DVD-ROM
16x Dual-Layer DVD+/-R/RW Dvd burner
Dual 256MB nVidia GeForce 7900 GS in SLI
20 inch UltraSharp(TM) 2007FPW Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
$2503
For $4 more, you get a faster processor, 4 times the memory, more harddrive space, dual optical drives, SLI, and a 20" LCD. Apple has done a good job of making sure that they add a lot of mac only accessories (or gimmicks depending on your point of view) that make direct comparisons to a PC harder. Stuff like backlit keyboards with light sensors, integrated webcam, frontrow, firewire, small formfactor, etc.
On a tower, things like expandibility, quiet operation, and size are pretty important and apples last workstation was fairly poor by that standard. The powermac looks nice, but 2 harddrive bays and 1 optical bay aren't going to cut it in such a large case.
Apple's brand is strong enough to command some premium, but they certainly are immune to market pressure and may need to realign their pricepoints. Mac minis need to start at $500, imacs at $1000, and Mac pros at $1500. Notebooks should start at $800 and $1500 respectively.
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it doesn't change much to your conclusion. A decent dual-core, dual cpu rig powermac G5 from Apple with 2GB of RAM, the Nvidia 7800 graphics card and a 20-inch monitor costs about 5k, whereas the similarly specced Dell Precision costs 3.5k. The difference is substantial.
However the Powermacs are nice, well made and powerful enoug
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:5, Insightful)
Capacity of 16GB of memory. (the Dell maxes out at 8)
The video card has a Dual-Link DVI capable of driving 30" displays. (not on the standard Dell, probably an option)
Apple has two 4x PCI-Express slots and one 8x slot open. (the dell has one 1x and one 8x open.. but in fairness does have the space for SLI)
The Apple has FireWire 800, which if you are doing video is a god-send. (not an option on the Dell... you just can't pump that data over the busses if it is not connected to the NorthBridge and expect to have decent performance)
Optical audio in and out (probably an add-in option on the Dell... possibly third-party)
Go look at Dell's site for things that have those sorts of specs and you will be in the "Workstation" class products, and you will be looking at a large price jump.
And your summary judgement that the G5 is not as good as the Pentium D is very arguable. The two processors are in the same class as each other, to the point where saying either one of them is "faster" is misleading at best. You have to be very specific about what "faster" means in order to have an honest comparison. Anything else is simply a lie.
And as to the prices you say that Apple "has to" have. I think that Apple's continued existence over the last few decades means that they have a good idea what they "have to" do. And if you look at products that are comparable (and I challenge you to find a product that is comparable to the Mac mini... remember size is a real feature) I think that your illusions of Mac's being significantly more expensive disappear.
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:2)
For $4 more you don't get a Mac.
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:2)
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:2)
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:2)
I wonder how much it actually costs to manufacture these things, and how much is profit.
I bet my intel core solo mac mini cost less than $300 to make.
Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others (Score:2)
well, the link i went to... (Score:2, Interesting)
there are better articles out there on the new mac pro. i just haven't had a chance to read them yet.
Quad CPU is expensive software wise too (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is Applications. I keep monitoring Applications CPU usage, I see many of them use single CPU, mencoder like open source stuff uses single CPU while iDVD happily uses all 4 CPUs (360% CPU usage)
Legendary mac shareware uses single CPU while saving TIFF files. To use all CPUs you need professional applications and they are expensive.
Photoshop CS, AVID comes to mind.
Games are just beginning to use SMP and can't expect 4 CPU.
There is advantage of Quad CPUs but don't expect too m
Re:Quad CPU is expensive software wise too (Score:4, Insightful)
If your needs justify the expense of a Quad-core computer, then your needs also justify the expense of the professional software needed to drive it properly. After all, "professional" means that you are making money doing that.
Re:Quad CPU is expensive software wise too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quad CPU is expensive software wise too (Score:2)
Opteron (Score:2)
Re:Opteron (Score:3, Informative)
Prediction on the Outer Case (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you noticed how Apple likes a certain symmetry between applications (iTunes brushed aluminum, Safari brushed aluminum) and the Pro enclosure (G5 brushed aluminum)? Apple seems to be experimenting with a lighter, smooth metal theme as seen in the current Mail.app. I hereby conjecture that the new Pro Mac enclosure will likewise be a very light-colored, smooth metal with a similar look.
Thoughtful Speculation (Score:2)
Re:Xeon are for the XServe! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Xeon are for the XServe! (Score:2)
Whatever processor they go with, Apple will use the same motherboard for all models- which means either Xeons on the low end or no quad. I think Apple will go with Core 2 Duo and skip the four core model until January, which is when Intel's roadmap shows quad-core proc
Re:Xeon are for the XServe! (Score:5, Informative)
Umm... you apparently haven't been paying attention since 2005. Intel rearranged their ship dates months ago. Xeon 5100 series [slashdot.org] (aka Woodcrest, aka Core 2 Server) is already shipping and available [google.com].
Re:Xeon are for the XServe! (Score:2)
In my defense, The Register had this article [reghardware.co.uk] today about "Intel 'Tulsa' 65nm Xeon MPs to ship 27 August?". I thought those were the 5100's, and didn't realize they were 7100's.
Re:Xeon are for the XServe! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Xeon are for the XServe! (Score:2)
Incorrect: Core 2 based Xeons are out now. (Score:2)
The Xeon 5100 series chips are Core 2 (Conroe) based. These chips are code named Woodcrest and started shipping in June. See the page 2 of the article [arstechnica.com]. You must be thinking of the older Intel roadmap.
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:5, Insightful)
People like you - the PowerPC devotee - make me embarrassed to be a 20+year Mac user.
Wasn't your Quad worth the money you paid for it when you bought it? You do realize Apple has to keep revving it's product line, don't you?
Face it - Intel's latest offerings are a better than the 970FX, which is a several-year-old design. The Core 2 has longer legs than the G5 in any form.
Apple's done it's users a favor by moving to a faster, less expensive, more readily available microprocessor part. They've also done users a favor by producing an easily-portable OS and gracious backwards compatibility.
You may pine for the days when you could argue the vagaries of microarchitectures you don't understand on Slashdot, but some of us actually have work to do and look forward to faster, more productive machines - and don't mind paying a few extra dollars for Apple design and the Mac OS. We like the relative simplicity Apple has brought to the x86 platform and we'll enjoy using our faster machines while you moan about your "Four by four monster style" PowerPC.
Go complain up a rope.
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a Mac Mini specifically for FrontRow and specifically so I could stream my video collection from iTunes, and I have never been more embarrassed or dissatisfied with a piece of Apple hardware in a very very long time.
The *only* thing this machine is doing is running iTunes & FrontRow.
More often than not iTunes is pegged at 100% CPU that the entire machine becomes so unstable that I have to pull out the power cord because
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:4, Informative)
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2)
iTunes is fucking garbage and as soon as I find another player that does all the things that it does that I actually use, I'm going to can it. I actually use it on Windows because I really love the interface. I tried that open-source competitor, the one based on Mozilla; it was even crappier, slower, chunkier... But when it spins up I gleefully look forward to ditching iTunes.
Don't blame the Mini for iTunes' failings. The mini is a gutless, non-expandable, IO-poor unit, but it's more than capable of pla
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:3, Interesting)
I also see you pay $100 yearly to
Apple does not announce professional workstation line because there is NOTHING from x86 (Intel) to have Quad G5 specs right now.
People becoming Intel fanatic after WWDC calling concerned Quad G5 owners make me sick indeed.
You call a 64 bit, RISC processor having vector processing unit several year old design... When will Intel reach Altivec spec
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2, Informative)
Please don't comment about professional workstations, they have nothing to do with your consumer grade shareware applications or games.
I believe that there are more professional workstations using intel products than that of the G5. I would even venture a guess that there are more workstations running SPARC than either x86 or POWER, because of the age of the SPARC and scientists don't always upgrade their computers. At least that is what I have observed.
I haven't used an Apple product for quite a while.
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2)
Where did I praise Intel? I'm just glad Apple is offering competitive boxes again.
I also see you pay $100 yearly to
I admit that
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:5, Insightful)
For games consoles with dedicated software? Perhaps.
For scientific computing and HPC? Sure.
As an off-board number cruncher and accelerator chip? Yup.
As a desktop? Heck no, a multi-core x86 or indeed PPC knocks it in to a cocked hat.
BTW, I own both a dual 2GHz G5 and a dual-1.8 iMacIntel. The intel box smokes the G5 by a long distance.
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2)
For games consoles with dedicated software? Perhaps.
For scientific computing and HPC? Sure."
Yes but that is only with the current core that IBM is using.
The SPE could be tired to a full PPC core with out of order execution.
To be honest unless you have programed the Cell I am not so sure that even those first three statements are facts. Until we see some machines that use the Cell it really is just one big maybe. Maybe IBM can work compil
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2)
IBM sold their desktop/laptop business to China. They don't want to bother with end users one by one anymore.
IBM is not "hurt" by Apple giving up PowerPC, PowerPC is not "dead" because Apple gave it up. PowerPC 970 (G5) is only a single, feature cut model of PowerPC line.
As you guys worked at IBM and working at IBM does not care to tell these simple facts, we feel urge to say it. See there are people who th
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:3, Informative)
How many G5's has Apple bought? Three million? There's no 3GHz G5 because Apple's orders would not cover IBM's investment in creating it.
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2)
No Mac has ever used a PPC chip that primitive. The original PPC Macs used 6xx-series chips.
The cell is approximately equivalent to 8 Gamecube processors all strapped into a single die and pumped to a faster clock rate. You don't want a desktop based on that.
Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach (Score:2)
Wow! So Steve Jobs managed to convince Ken Kutaragi, Satoru Iwata and Steve Ballmer to use PPC chips in their new consoles, thereby removing IBM's incentive to make PPCs for desktop computers and to make any kinds of improvements to their PPCs during the next five years since consoles don't need faster chips? Interesting!
But... Why in the world did he do that?
To what? A P
Re:Meta discussion (Score:2)
You're only supposed to get it if you agreed to be a part of the survey and then went through a little tutorial on it. At least, that's how I got it. I guess slashdot just changed it for everyone now?
I've found the interface to be fairly buggy. It has some great potential, but sometimes the scripts freeze up and the sometimes show controls is there, sometimes it's not. I hope they work
Re:Not buying a Mac? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll probably wait to see if Apple is going to use the Core 2 Duos in any of their machines (iMac, Mac Pro, etc) and wait for a second revision of those before making the plunge. By then I'll have more money saved up, more apps will be native/universal, and I'll have the new chip as well.