[snerdini]

The new PowerPC chip

They actually mention that Mac OS X will run on this thing, albeit not without some tweaking of the operating system. But ~ 2ghz? This would silence alot of the whiners!

[Millennium]

Half of me is looking at this calmly and rationally, noting how IBM seems to have managed to do what Motorola couldn't: keep the processor improving at a steady rate. Keeping the superior PowerPC architecture would definitely be a huge plus. And not having to deal with the whole architecture-switch again is certainly a Good Thing; I remember the whole mess back in the days of the PowerPC transition (I had one of the first 6100's) and the mess it caused. Certainly not as bad as it could have been, but rather annoying nonetheless.

The other half of me is saying BWAHAHAHA!!! No Intel for you! We won't succumb to the lure of cheaper-over-better! Score another one for the good guys! IBM has saved the day!

In short, if this is true (and it seems incredibly likely), it's a Good Thing all around.

[snerdini]

I agree; I want the PowerPC chip to be great...the Pentium architecture as I understand it is inferior to the RISC based systems(in design, not necessarily from a performance aspect). The only way Pentiums can keep up with performance is to crank up the clock speed...and I imagine they have to be running hot.

But because Motorola is dragging their feet on this one, I say let's jump ship and swim over to IBM. It seems like a win-win situation to me: we get much faster processor speeds (roughly double the current ones) and we get to stick with the better RISC-based chips.

[Appleman]

I agree: I liked the news, the idea.

But on the other hand, I actually do not really care if there's an IBM, a Motorola, an AMD or an Intel inside my Mac, as long as it is fast, fast and fast, and doesn't run extremely hot which equals bad battery life.

Ok, the Risc is supposed to be better than Cisc. But at what price, how much more expensive is an IBM instead of an AMD or Intel? After all, the pricing IS interesting for me as well.

You all noticed the fact that this processor is scheduled to ship late 2003? This means lots of time will pass until we see it in our Macs..

Steve

[Appleman]

Whithin a year let say. Stil far better than 2005 of M$, which typically wil be 2006 (remember their stupidity of naming the successor of Windows 3.1 Windows 95

[snerdini]

Heres another update:

From MacUser

Things are getting exciting!

[clebin]

I think this would be a good move, as long as IBM can ensure a quick ramp up from 1.8ghz. I would hope for more than that a year from now, even from a 64-bit chip.

We must get rid of Motorola. In terms of broken promises, you don't get much bigger than the PowerPC lie. When the Mac (and my beloved Amiga) ran on 680x0, it was better chip than the 80x86.

The Mac community went through a large amount of upheaval, while the parentless Amiga community was strangled at 66mhz. And for what? For us trail behind the 80x86 7 or 8 years later?

I don't care about the clone-market either - I never saw Motorola make a big push for PC users.

And with the G5 still not with us, I don't see any reason to support them now.

IBM all the way.

Chris

[clarkgoble]

Those who don't read the hardware forums here might be interested in the thread on this over in the powermac forum.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...postid=1049402

They have some people discussing this who are quite well informed.

I admit I'm a bit skeptical. First off it means we'll be getting further and further behind in the speed race over the next year. (I love my dual 867, but I have no illusions that it is as fast as the equivalent priced PC)

Even if it is twice as fast as P4 at the same MHz, the relatively low MHz of the chip gives one pause. It is also unfortunate that Apple isn't keep the dual processor and large cache of the equalent Power4 architecture. Of course a lot is speculative and until chips are released almost everyone is speaking out their ass. (Remember all the threads about the G5 that was supposed to be out before this summer?)

[KidRed]

Any news about DDR or FSB?

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by KidRed:
Any news about DDR or FSB?

Check out the sticky thread in the PowerMac forum.

They have a 900 MHz point-to-point connection that is as fast as the one for the Intanic II (6.4 Giggles/s).

[mitchell_pgh]

I'm just tired of speed being the main issue holding PC people on the fence from switching to Apple. At times, I even find myself saying "Are you serious" when I do something as simple as clicking the minimize button on a Finder window.

We will still be fighting the MHz myth for a long time, but onsidering that we will have the opportunity to have 2x 1.8Ghz systems in a year makes my mouth water a bit... Granted, Intel will be well beyond the 3.5+ GHz mark by them.

At times I think... who cares... just start using their crappy chip and forget about it... then all of the Windows jerks can shut up about who is faster etc... but it wouldn't matter...

[KidRed]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm just tired of speed being the main issue holding PC people on the fence from switching to Apple. At times, I even find myself saying "Are you serious" when I do something as simple as clicking the minimize button on a Finder window.

We will still be fighting the MHz myth for a long time, but onsidering that we will have the opportunity to have 2x 1.8Ghz systems in a year makes my mouth water a bit... Granted, Intel will be well beyond the 3.5+ GHz mark by them.

At times I think... who cares... just start using their crappy chip and forget about it... then all of the Windows jerks can shut up about who is faster etc... but it wouldn't matter...

Actaully, it's been reportd a few times that the average user no longer cares about speed. They could care less what ghz Intel is at. They are happy with their current machine and see no reason to upgrade. I don't think a 3.5ghz will assist my parents surfing the web any better then their current iMac. Yes, we have the pro's, but Apple needs hords of average users as well. So once we get closer to 2.0ghz speed no longer becomes a real issue for mac users either.

We need better prices to gain market share, but the speed won't hurt

[clarkgoble]

It really depends upon what you use your computer for, whether you need the speed. Right now the main drive for speed is in games. They really push what is possible since the eventual goal is interactive realtime photo-realistic games. Likewise as they become more and more network based bandwidth will become more and more of a limit.

If you primarily do a bit of word processing and then surf the web, then almost any computer out today is sufficient. If you want games, buy yourself a cheap PC just for that. (Or if you don't care about PC games as much, go get an XBox or Gamecube for less than a quarter the price)

I will say this though, OSX's interface does utilize the computer a lot more than OS9 or much of Windows. Therefore faster computers for OSX does make an appreciable difference in the experience of using your Mac. I was shocked using a 400MHz G4 vs. my new dual 867. I can't imagine having to go back. Yet on my PC for the types of applications I run I don't see a huge difference between a 450 MHz P4 and a 1.6 GHz P4. Yea it is faster, but not in a way that really affects me.

Having said that though I think that if Apple could deliver something akin to a dual 1.6 GHz G4 that I'd have no compelling reason to upgrade my hardware. It would do everything I need at a more than sufficient speed. (Assuming they upped the bus at the same time)

The next big bottleneck is internet bandwidth - unless one plays games a lot. And to be honest the only game that has really caught my attention of late is Halo for the XBox.

[clarkgoble]

It really depends upon what you use your computer for, whether you need the speed. Right now the main drive for speed is in games. They really push what is possible since the eventual goal is interactive realtime photo-realistic games. Likewise as they become more and more network based bandwidth will become more and more of a limit.

If you primarily do a bit of word processing and then surf the web, then almost any computer out today is sufficient. If you want games, buy yourself a cheap PC just for that. (Or if you don't care about PC games as much, go get an XBox or Gamecube for less than a quarter the price)

I will say this though, OSX's interface does utilize the computer a lot more than OS9 or much of Windows. Therefore faster computers for OSX does make an appreciable difference in the experience of using your Mac. I was shocked using a 400MHz G4 vs. my new dual 867. I can't imagine having to go back. Yet on my PC for the types of applications I run I don't see a huge difference between a 450 MHz P4 and a 1.6 GHz P4. Yea it is faster, but not in a way that really affects me.

Having said that though I think that if Apple could deliver something akin to a dual 1.6 GHz G4 that I'd have no compelling reason to upgrade my hardware. It would do everything I need at a more than sufficient speed.

[file]

I spent a lot of money on the tibook i use now. i paid the 3 grand and whether it was a bargain or not...i am thoroughly satisfied.

Reading about Macs is a hobby as i am interested in technology. When i read this thread about the latest processor and if indeed Apple decides to use it, i wonder if in my next upgrade cycle i would even bother to purchase it.

For what reason you ask? In 2003-2004, it will be roughly 3 years since i will have had this tibook. As of the moment, it is still very fast and despite what anybody says...i dont even see a need to upgrade a year from now.

i have a tibook 500 with 768 ram. i am a web developer that runs many mid-range apps like macromedia mx and adobe design suites as well as the usual programming apps for databases and etc. i think of myself as a power user.

I currently estimate that new upgrade cycles may reach 4+ years and that with newer machines, possibly more. I have had vast experience with a dualie 533. That is a heralded machine that a friend has owned and that if i bought instead of this tibook...would definetly last me even longer than this tibook.

my point is, i think i am a good representation of 90% of all mac users, professional or not. I am a creative/tech that uses the latest and best selling apps...(adobe, macromedia and productivity). The 10% of whoever else in the high end processing arc should be excited (about the possible GPUL) but as i see it, computers are lasting longer and longer and longer in our households and offices.

This new chip and OSX may lead to people finally realizing that there is a alternative to those looking for a way out of a MS world. As i see it, you dont have to make MS crumble. If Apple gains 1% in market share that is like a 15% increase in your market.

[Graymalkin]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm just tired of speed being the main issue holding PC people on the fence from switching to Apple. At times, I even find myself saying "Are you serious" when I do something as simple as clicking the minimize button on a Finder window.

We will still be fighting the MHz myth for a long time, but onsidering that we will have the opportunity to have 2x 1.8Ghz systems in a year makes my mouth water a bit... Granted, Intel will be well beyond the 3.5+ GHz mark by them.

At times I think... who cares... just start using their crappy chip and forget about it... then all of the Windows jerks can shut up about who is faster etc... but it wouldn't matter...

The counter megahertz myth is just as bad as the megahertz myth. You'd have a point if you were talking about 450MHz Pentium 2s but you're talking 1GHz processor of the same generation as the P2 versus a chip two generations more advanced and clock speeds three times higher. PowerMacs are still using a cheap 133MHz connection to main memory, on the newest systems this paltry bus bandwidth is shared between two processors. Just because you're happy with your PowerMac doesn't mean you didn't pay WAY too much for the amount of performance you'll ever eek out of it.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Just because you're happy with your PowerMac doesn't mean you didn't pay WAY too much for the amount of performance you'll ever eek out of it.