Alright, say I’ve never seen what I’ve seen. I don’t rightly care. And you being nauseous doesn’t bother me in the least. And as I’ve said before, I’ve never even heard of Jolt Cola. and no, the screens aren’t too small. And when, exactly, did you call about this? I’ve seen it before. Go to radio shack. Ask around. Go to the one three minutes down the road from here for all I care. They have them. And here’s another link. China’s also been working on movie phones.
http://channels.lockergnome.com/mobile/archives/20050629_cell_phone_movies_big_name_directors_to_hit_the_tiny_screen.phtml
its long true, but i didn;t design in. Have you seen the PSP by chance? A MAJOR source of gaming AND watching movies? UMDs? ever heard of em? Anyway. they have a 5 inch screen. Easy to put in a cell phone. You can take a PSP, give it cell phone functions, and have exactly what you are talking about, especially using satellite reception. PSP works in HotSpots to allow internet access. I have a friend whose laptop screen is bigger than his tv’s. so they watch stuff there. Movies, music, and recorded television. My computer has a television feed. Before long it will be in cars just the same, and then even if my links are wrong, it will be in the devices you are talking about. I didn’t even disagree with you above, but you argue about it. And if you believe in me, so what? Am I supposed to take that as some kind of sick complement? Plus, your talking back. If I’m a forum troll, aren’t you baiting me, meaning you’re not following yours and Tera’s own ideas?
That’s a prediction, folks. Rob says Apple hardware will stop selling while the world waits for the new Apple Intel-chip machines. Let’s see… hmmmm. Apple Macs (hardware) were up an astounding 35-percent since Apple’s Intel chip announcement.
News Flash: most Mac buyers don’t care what the chip is so long as it’s a Mac and NOT Windows. Chatting with the folks in the local Apple Store all I got was a puzzled shrug when asked if traffic had dropped, or Mac sales had dropped since the announcement. Traffic has increased and sales continue to increase.
That’s probably the case. I’d expected sales of Macs to drop following the announcement but it doesn’t look like that’ll be the case. Sad, though. We won’t see a G5 PowerBook, and won’t see a 3ghz PowerMac.
I wonder if we’ll ever see a dual-core IBM chip on a Mac?
It may not matter as most recent developer reports continue to sing the praises of OS X on Intel as faster on single Intel CPU box than a dual 2ghz PowerMac.
OK, by me. I just want it to run OS X and run fast as Tera from a bottle of Clairol.
Gee wilickers, Bambi. I leave for a day and this is what I get? Have a heart. One day, you too will be a tinsel queen. How’s the heat in Vegas? I hear it’s hotter than…
As much as I’d love to see the dual-core IBM chips, I’d actually like to see a PowerMac with dual, dual-core chips. That would be a honker, would it not? Maybe there’s enough love left in IBM to cough up a dual-core the the last generation iMacs, and more dual dual-cores for the last generation PowerMacs.
Who knows what the future will bring. Apparently not us poor Mac sites since the ThinkSecret lawsuit.
I’m new to the forum, love the site, but as charming and fun as it is, would prefer the “babelicious” content be toned down, I hate to say. I liked it better when there was this one intelligent, feisty, unique character by the name of Tera as the visual representation of Mac360. Young, attractive, yes- but the content, substance, and originality do not deserve to be dumbed down with the Babes Are Us shtick- not that there’s anything Wrong with that. In other words, I preferred it before the Bambi tag-team.
Tera (in particular) and Bambi are both such astute observers and commentators on Mac and Apple technology that the writing itself needs no gimmick and the potential audience should not be underestimated- the content is attractive to more than teenage boys.
We won’t see a G5 PowerBook, and won’t see a 3ghz PowerMac.
I wonder if we’ll ever see a dual-core IBM chip on a Mac?
Why stop with dual dual-core G5 chips and with 3.0 GHz? The Xbox is already on the horizon with triple dual-core G5 chips running at 3.2 GHz. I’m still flabberghasted that the PowerMac didn’t get them first. These aren’t even optional extras with the Xbox 360 (no relation—Darn!—to Mac360). The box comes that way at a forecast price of $300, ready-to-play. How ironic it seems to me that Apple is moving to Intel and Microsoft is gearing up with IBM G5 CPUs!
In other words, I preferred it before the Bambi tag-team.
Is this the start of a poll question? I definitely prefer the “after” version. I don’t see it as “dumbed down” (except in a few cases where dumbing has been very helpful for me to understand content which otherwise would have passed over my head unnoticed). I see the “schtick” as pleasant humor that gives a wonderfully light-hearted touch to what could become serious and sometimes dreadfully arid conversation.
Chips used for game boxes (or other special purposes) are not suitable for general purpose computing.
I understand your point and I wouldn’t dare disagree with it. I bought a Speed Queen washer and dryer set 15 years ago and it’s still going strong. The machines have touchpads and digital readouts instead of the clockwork cranks and it occurred to me at the time that they must have some kind of CPU in there running the show. There’s no way of telling without taking the machines apart whether or not their brains are Pentiums (Pentia?) or even 80386 CPUs, but there must be something in there calling the shots and regulating water flow, temperature, cycles, heat and all the other if/then/else things that washers and dryers do. The brains are likely the special-purpose chips that you’re thinking of. (I know that I can’t log onto the Internet from my dryer.)
Jeff Mincey - 25 July 2005 10:54 PM
See this PDF file for an explanation:
Thanks very much for sending that to me. It’s a good explanation and I followed most of it. The author used the example of chips that control cell phones being unsuited to use in general-purpose (PC, Mac) machines. I follow that. But I’m still left with a niggling question that you may be able to help answer. If someone were to tell me that my dryer had (for argument’s sake) a Pentium4 CPU, I may not know the exact designator, but I’d know the family and I’d think that it was a general-purpose CPU that was adapted to run my dryer. If I found out instead that it was an Intel Septium CPU controlling my dryer, I’d know that it is not a general-purpose CPU because I know that there are no general-purpose machines (PC, Mac) that use a Septium CPU. Perhaps you can understand my confusion, then, when I find that the Mac uses an IBM G5, a general-purpose CPU, and that the Xbox also uses an IBM G5, but that’s not a general purpose CPU. It’s a special-purpose CPU that has the same nomenclature but is otherwise completely different. How confusing! Even if we confine our alphabet to single-letter usage and our numbering system to single-digit application, there are still quite a few unused combinations at IBM’s disposal to differentiate the Mac CPUs from the Xbox CPUs. Yet IBM chose G5 for both of them. Reading about the Xbox, I discovered that the G5 CPU is a dual-core chip. So I figured that the PowerMac and iMac must also contain dual-core CPUs. My jaw hit the space bar when I saw that Ms. Patricks’ wish list included a dual-core chip for the PowerMac. I thought it already had one! Very confusing! Reminds me of Gallagher wondering why there’s no “wuh-wuh” letter in “one,” yet we pronounce “one” as if it did. Meanwhile, there’s a “wuh-wuh” letter in “two,” but we don’t pronounce it! How confusing! I don’t demand that we change the English language or the IBM CPU designators to suit my mood, but I’d have thought that IBM would have chosen a designator for the Xbox CPU that was as dissimilar to the Mac CPU as its application seems to be.
In other words, I preferred it before the Bambi tag-team.
Is this the start of a poll question? I definitely prefer the “after” version. I don’t see it as “dumbed down” (except in a few cases where dumbing has been very helpful for me to understand content which otherwise would have passed over my head unnoticed). I see the “schtick” as pleasant humor that gives a wonderfully light-hearted touch to what could become serious and sometimes dreadfully arid conversation.
Jebedee, sorry. Sometimes you’ll get us yammering on individually and as a group of two. Or more. That’s what a forum brings to the table that basic articles can’t (usually; though Jack Miller and I have done a few successful Point-CounterPoint… I like those; let’s get Jeff involved).
Mostly, you’ll get me. Sometimes no one. Sometimes both of us at the same time, so cover your eyes.
There’s no way of telling without taking the machines apart whether or not their brains are Pentiums (Pentia?) or even 80386 CPUs, but there must be something in there calling the shots and regulating water flow, temperature, cycles, heat and all the other if/then/else things that washers and dryers do.
Lets see if I can simplify this topic. There are three major considerations:
1: Instructions set. This is what the programmer sees and deals with. In practice it includes the programming tools available for that machine. The same instruction set may be used in different classes of chip computers.
2: Computer implementation or archecture. This is how the instructions are executed. If you are building a general purpose CPU, today you make it good at making decisions and executing instructions very fast. If you are building a calculator, you make it it very low power and small which means relativly slow. On one project I worked on, the processor was smaller than a dime and that included rom for the program, 256 BYTES of ram and the cpu. CPUs like this are often refered to as micro controllers.
3: interface to the outside world. A general purpose cpu has a high speed memory bus that allows it to rapidly access gobs of memory. The micro controller mentioned above had individual data lines connected to external sensors and devices. To a modern general purpose cpu, the IO looks like memory, without any special purpose instructions to access the outside world.
The two examples used above, a general purpose CPU and a micro controller are two extremes of single chip processors. There are many shades of gray in between. The game box CPUs are optimized for executing long strings of instructions with very few decisions. two sites that publish analysis of chips are igeek.com and arstechnica.com. BTW, the most used chip, for a long time and may still be, is the TI 4000 series, a 4 bit processor. It was used in all the TI calculators and in other specialized applications like micro wave oven controllers.
The game box CPUs are optimized for executing long strings of instructions with very few decisions. two sites that publish analysis of chips are igeek.com and arstechnica.com. BTW, the most used chip, for a long time and may still be, is the TI 4000 series, a 4 bit processor. It was used in all the TI calculators and in other specialized applications like micro wave oven controllers. Hope that helps.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand. Can you tell me why all the CPUs are named IBM G5?
The game box CPUs are optimized for executing long strings of instructions with very few decisions. two sites that publish analysis of chips are igeek.com and arstechnica.com. BTW, the most used chip, for a long time and may still be, is the TI 4000 series, a 4 bit processor. It was used in all the TI calculators and in other specialized applications like micro wave oven controllers. Hope that helps.
Thanks for the explanation. I understand. Can you tell me why all the CPUs are named IBM G5?
If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually “Power 5” which is an IBM name. The “G5” is Apple’s name, and derived from what happens when you name chips G3, G4, etc.
Maybe we’ll see something new with the Intel chips. Or not.
What I think we’ll see is Apple touting the latest from Intel, say, on the order of a Pentium M (latest version) for laptops and Mac mini, and dual, dual core Pentium D for the desktop PowerMacs, perhaps a single core D for the iMacs.
If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually “Power 5” which is an IBM name. The “G5” is Apple’s name, and derived from what happens when you name chips G3, G4, etc.
I was thinking, “Why the ‘G’ in the name? What does it signify?” I came to an interim (meaning, tired of thinking about it) supposition that it might be Generation 3, Generation 4, and so on. Your explanation is as good as any I’ve heard.
Tera Patricks - 26 July 2005 02:17 PM
Maybe we’ll see something new with the Intel chips. Or not.
I like what Intel did in numbering the CPUs (560, 650, 740) until they started going wonky (635J) for no discernable reason. I know they had chip architectures named Willamette, Tualatin, Multnomah, Tillamook and other apparently meaningless names unless you come from Oregon/Southern Washington and recognize the landmarks (River, Town, County, County+Town). But then I get Intel confused with Microsoft who names preliminary software versions similarly. I don’t know the differences between the CPU architectures, either, so I can’t tell whether Willamette or Multnomah will be better for my use.
Tera Patricks - 26 July 2005 02:17 PM
What I think we’ll see is Apple touting the latest from Intel, say, on the order of a Pentium M (latest version) for laptops and Mac mini, and dual, dual core Pentium D for the desktop PowerMacs, perhaps a single core D for the iMacs.
You’re making that up… and it’ s a terrific rumor. Are you making up the part about there being such a thing as a single-core Pentium D? Or did you mean Dual D in the PowerMac and Single D in the iMac, each Pentium D being dual-core? (Give me another month here and I’ll be able to know the answer to that last clarification request without asking.)
Tera Patricks - 26 July 2005 02:17 PM
Dual, dual core anything would be welcome.
I realize that your wish does not reflect the limit of your imagination, Ms. Patricks. Yes, it would be a welcome interim. What amazes me is that dual duals are already here and their next generation is in development as we wish for old technology to finally appear with an Apple logo on it. Cell CPU architecture just astounds me. Apparently the most efficient transistor design is one which has three states, not two. That’s already been invented, but it’s not ready for prime time yet. I still haven’t gotten my head wrapped around the architectural differences between the Pentium M and the Pentium 4. Apparently a 2 GHz Pentium M will perform equivalently to a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 (or something like that). So why bother with a Pentium 4 furnace when you can do the same work running a cooler and quieter Pentium M? It’s a mystery to me.
If IÌm not mistaken, itÌs actually ÏPower 5Ó which is an IBM name. The ÏG5Ó is AppleÌs name, and derived from what happens when you name chips G3, G4, etc.
Close. The G5 chip is actually based on IBM’s Power4 architecture. Until the Intel announcement I had been hoping for a “G6” which would use technologies unique to Power5. Of course, now that IBM has divested itself of its PC business unit, the Power5 has a future strictly as a server/enterprise cpu.
Since the Meriom(sp?) desktopÒderivative of Yonah/Pentium will be a radical departure in architectural priorities for Intel, and may mark a generational “cusp” for them, I’ve long held the secret suspicion that the first desktop Macs will in fact sport Intel Sextium processors.
Isn’t Pentium M mainly for laptops? I’m fairly certain I’ve heard that before. Laptops chips don’t always work too great with desktops. Plus many times they are much more expensive, so it could also be a cost issue. There is a foresight that Intel will easily break 6 Ghz in common computers by 2007 or so. I don’t hear it very often, but I do hear it. It would be pretty incredible. But what happens if the chips are bigger than today’s chips? Computers are shrinking, but the chips are (as previously stated) getting harder and harder for companies to use due to the fact of getting traces to the leads. Unless they come up with something new, cubic chips perhaps, they are going to have problems very very soon.
If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually “Power 5” which is an IBM name. The “G5” is Apple’s name, and derived from what happens when you name chips G3, G4, etc.
I was thinking, “Why the ‘G’ in the name? What does it signify?” I came to an interim (meaning, tired of thinking about it) supposition that it might be Generation 3, Generation 4, and so on. Your explanation is as good as any I’ve heard.
Tera Patricks - 26 July 2005 02:17 PM
Maybe we’ll see something new with the Intel chips. Or not.
I like what Intel did in numbering the CPUs (560, 650, 740) until they started going wonky (635J) for no discernable reason. I know they had chip architectures named Willamette, Tualatin, Multnomah, Tillamook and other apparently meaningless names unless you come from Oregon/Southern Washington and recognize the landmarks (River, Town, County, County+Town). But then I get Intel confused with Microsoft who names preliminary software versions similarly. I don’t know the differences between the CPU architectures, either, so I can’t tell whether Willamette or Multnomah will be better for my use.
Tera Patricks - 26 July 2005 02:17 PM
What I think we’ll see is Apple touting the latest from Intel, say, on the order of a Pentium M (latest version) for laptops and Mac mini, and dual, dual core Pentium D for the desktop PowerMacs, perhaps a single core D for the iMacs.
You’re making that up… and it’ s a terrific rumor. Are you making up the part about there being such a thing as a single-core Pentium D? Or did you mean Dual D in the PowerMac and Single D in the iMac, each Pentium D being dual-core? (Give me another month here and I’ll be able to know the answer to that last clarification request without asking.)
Tera Patricks - 26 July 2005 02:17 PM
Dual, dual core anything would be welcome.
I realize that your wish does not reflect the limit of your imagination, Ms. Patricks. Yes, it would be a welcome interim. What amazes me is that dual duals are already here and their next generation is in development as we wish for old technology to finally appear with an Apple logo on it. Cell CPU architecture just astounds me. Apparently the most efficient transistor design is one which has three states, not two. That’s already been invented, but it’s not ready for prime time yet. I still haven’t gotten my head wrapped around the architectural differences between the Pentium M and the Pentium 4. Apparently a 2 GHz Pentium M will perform equivalently to a 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 (or something like that). So why bother with a Pentium 4 furnace when you can do the same work running a cooler and quieter Pentium M? It’s a mystery to me.
Sorry, that should have been a “single D” not single ‘core’ D. Based on just how Intel names their chips (Klamath, Willamette, Multnomah) they probably cut Apple special discounts to help them with future product names.
Isn’t Pentium M mainly for laptops? I’m fairly certain I’ve heard that before. Laptops chips don’t always work too great with desktops. Plus many times they are much more expensive, so it could also be a cost issue. There is a foresight that Intel will easily break 6 Ghz in common computers by 2007 or so. I don’t hear it very often, but I do hear it. It would be pretty incredible. But what happens if the chips are bigger than today’s chips? Computers are shrinking, but the chips are (as previously stated) getting harder and harder for companies to use due to the fact of getting traces to the leads. Unless they come up with something new, cubic chips perhaps, they are going to have problems very very soon.
Tom’s Hardware I think it was used a socket adapter to plug a Pentium M into a desktop mobo and overclocked it to 2.5Ghz. In the following benchmarks the Pentium M then handily beat the current high end Pentium 4’s in a majority of benchmarks; in fact the few weak points it had by comparison are readily addressed by the improvements expected in Yonah, the dual core 65nm next generation Pentium-M.
Intel has actually recently stated the P4 Netburst architecture doesn’t have legs and its future development will be focused on the Pentium M architecture, starting the the dual core Yonahs in 2006, the desktop oriented Merom shortly after, and dedicated multi-core desktop CPUs including 64 bit functionality in 2007.
If Steve Jobs were to use the Pentium 4 in a shipping consumer machine, he’d look like an ass since it is one of the worst performance/watt situations currently in the industry.
The 6Ghz thing no doubt is a holdover from the point a year or two ago when Intel and IBM would announce a chip, and in their ecstacy of self-promotion announce that due to their supreme confidence they’d be at 6Ghz in 2 years and 10Ghz in four. (clock speed and lead out subject to change due to quantum uncertainty).
Have a heart. One day, you too will be a tinsel queen. How’s the heat in Vegas? I hear it’s hotter than…
