G5 rumors?

edited July 2002 in General Discussion

Comments

  • edited December 1969
    so what's the latest hype on the next processor speed bump and/or the g5 come out? Let the speculation flow!

  • edited December 1969
    Re: G5 rumors?

    Sadly, from what I've been hearing lately (on tech boards, not fan sites) is that there is no G5. Moto just isn't up to the task. Maybe there are _plans_ for one, but no development at this point.

    People seem to think that next year Steve will most likely go with a desktop version of IBM's Power4 server chip. It's considered most likely because the other options are like Itanium2, something by AMD, or other server chips, even Transmeta, and these are all inferior solutions to IBM's. But I don't really know what any of this means, it's just what I've read.

    Of course Steve isn't talking, but if Moto isn't up to speed, he needs to get a whole new program or he's gonna start dropping share fast.

    So next month we'll probably get piddly little speed bumps. But I hope we get a revolution, cuz without it, big trouble.

    S
  • edited December 1969
    [b]Re: G5 rumors?[/b]

    [quote]
    Sadly, from what I've been hearing lately (on tech boards, not
    fan sites) is that there is no G5. Moto just isn't up to the
    task. Maybe there are _plans_ for one, but no development at
    this point.

    [/quote]
    http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/EREF.pdf

    This document is dated July 2002. If there is no development, they sure are going through a lot of work for nothing :)

    Mind, they've already created an integrated host processor based on the e500 core, the MPC8540. Maybe they have no plans to do a desktop version.

    The Register still seems to think the G5 is coming...
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/25421.html

    They say the development name of the chip is the 7500. I found no mention of the MPC7500 on Motorola's website.

    [quote]
    People seem to think that next year Steve will most likely go
    with a desktop version of IBM's Power4 server chip. It's
    considered most likely because the other options are like
    Itanium2, something by AMD, or other server chips, even
    Transmeta, and these are all inferior solutions to IBM's. But I
    don't really know what any of this means, it's just what I've
    read.

    [/quote]
    OK, then... sources! Where do you get your info?

    [quote]
    Of course Steve isn't talking, but if Moto isn't up to speed, he
    needs to get a whole new program or he's gonna start dropping
    share fast.

    [/quote]
    I'm sure if Moto doesn't come through, IBM will fill the gap. D'ya think they don't want some payback for MS bamboozling them? :)

    --
    Chief
  • edited December 1969
    [b]Re: G5 rumors?[/b]

    [quote]
    http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/EREF.pdf This
    document is dated July 2002. If there is no development, they
    sure are going through a lot of work for nothing :)

    Mind, they've already created an integrated host processor based
    on the e500 core, the MPC8540 . Maybe they have no plans to do
    a desktop version.

    The Register still seems to think the G5 is coming...
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/25421.html They say
    the development name of the chip is the 7500. I found no mention
    of the MPC7500 on Motorola's website.

    OK, then... sources! Where do you get your info?

    I'm sure if Moto doesn't come through, IBM will fill the gap.
    D'ya think they don't want some payback for MS bamboozling them?
    :)

    --
    Chief

    [/quote]
    A few weeks ago Jobs was asked about the chip speed gap and the gist of his reply was that as soon as they're done with the OSX transition (meaning no more critical PPC-reliant code in there) that's when they're going to explore their 'options', and Stevie-boy likes to have 'options.' What to conclude from that? Look for x86 powered Macs in the next 5 years or so.


    [url=http://bs.bungie.org/]Bungie Sightings[/url]
  • edited December 1969
    The Resgister is a big fat lie

    I haven't read the article you linked to, but after the whoppers they told last Dec/Jan about DDR and 1.4 Gig, I will never read their garbage again.

    My sources were just from discussion boards, the only one I remember being osrumors.com (I think). No one there really knew anything for sure, but they all knew more than I did, so I went with what sounded like the concensus (IBM). But trying to anticipate The Steve has sent many people to the loony bin.

    On these boards people said x86 would be an unlikely choice because: A. people would think Macs were just another PC; B. MS controls the PC market and could seriously jack with Intel and AMD to hurt Apple if they needed to. I don't think either of those arguments make much sense. All Intel or AMD would have to do is make a slightly different chip with a different name that's tied more to Apple (the Granny Smith chip, or something equally lame). As long as it didn't run PC software, why would MS care?

    Then again, what if the new chip were similar enough to the PC version to be able to run PC software? We'd get fast chips, the best OS, and every program Windows can use. It would still be under the Apple brand and have the obscene pricing, but it would be sooo worth it. Course, Bill would leave an angry midget in a razorblade suit under Steve's sheets if Apple did this.

    S
  • edited December 1969
    Re: The Resgister is a big fat lie

    Keep in mind that a move to x86 architecture would require a major rewrite of Mac OS. That's a pretty big change.

    Besides that, just having code that runs on x86 doesn't mean it's hot swapable between every OS. You wouldn't be able to run PC software on an x86 Mac anymore than you can run PC software on linux (except for emulation ala wine, but that's not going to cut it for games, which is probably what most people would want to do with it ;) )

    I can see Apple contracting with Intel or AMD to make an x86 chip specialy for Apple, but I'd be really surprised if you could drop a stock Athlon or Pentium into a Mac.

    A move away from Motorola to IBM sounds like the most likely outcome to me.

    -Mori
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Lest I leave any misconceptions

    (except for emulation ala wine, but that's not going to
    cut it for games, which is probably what most people would want
    to do with it ;) )

    Ummm... Wine and WineX can actually perform *better* than a native Windows OS for some FPS games (UT, Q3, etc.)...

    Ratbert
Sign In or Register to comment.