To add to the confusion, the former Dual 1.25 GHz G4 is
technically not even "discontinued." It's currently still offered by
Apple as the "Mac OS 9 bootable" system for $2,499. Just go to the
store, first click on the Power Mac G4, and then look for the small
link that says "Mac OS 9 Systems."
Good point. His Jobsness promised OS 9 booting machines
for those who need them through June 2003. What many don't seem to
realize is that the two "Mac OS 9 systems" Apple has at the Apple
Store are the old dual processor G4s, not 9-booting versions of
the new Power Macs.
The 68030/40 in the IIfx in 1990
was the last time Motorola made a leading edge CPU. Then came the
debacle with the '040 CPU that could not keep up with the 486,
forcing Apple to migrate to PPC.
The NuBus generation was not good, but the PCI generation fared
better. The 9600/350 did beat the
crap out of most PCs, and when the B&W
G3/450 was out, it was leading edge again. However, the fast 604e
and G3 were and are manufactured by IBM, not Motorola.
With no IBM in the G4, the G4 has tormented us for 4 years and
then some. The two main benefits of the G4 are the SMP [Symmetric
Multi Processing] the OS nor applications have supported for most
of the time. The second is the AltiVec that also has had weak support
and obviously is not that important anyhow, as Apple sell G3
computers 4-1/2 years after its introduction.
Yes the G4 truly was Giga Flop CPU.
My hopes are
That the 970 arrives ASAP (and is not called G something)
That long overdue changes in the towers comes along. Like a
sound support better than the plain stereo we have had since the
Quadra
That the 970 quickly migrate to the iMac and eMac, and then
later to the portables. An iMac with a 1.5 GHz G4 is money
invested in a dead end desktop CPU. A equally performing iMac with
a 1.x GHz 970 is an investment in the future.
With the 1 GHz G4 dissipates 30W and the 1.8 GHz 970 is estimated
to be at 42W, there is reason to believe that all CPUs from the G3s
to high end G4 can be replaced by 970s at a rapid pace. PowerBooks
with 970s in the 1.2-1.5 GHz range (about 20W) would be very
nice.
I have understood that SMP support that is going from a single to
dual CPU is quite substantial works in the software. But how about
adding software support for quads? My guess would be that the step
from dual to quads is less than from single from dual, but that is
just my guess.
I have to disagree on the 68040. It was a cutting edge
processor that offered approximately 2.5 times the performance of
the 68030/68882 at the same clock speed. It was definitely a
cutting edge design, and even a 20 MHz Centris
610 with the math-challenged 68LC040 outperforms the "wicked
fast" 40 MHz 68030-based IIfx.
Motorola managed to push the '040 to 50 MHz, as evidenced by
several third-party processor upgrades, but Apple didn't go there.
Motorola designed and abandoned a 68050, then went on to produce a
68060 that from all reports would have outperformed the PowerPC
601 at the same clock speed.
But Motorola was also working on RISC processors (their 88000).
And IBM had already implemented RISC in the Series/6000 computers.
The whole computing industry was rabid about the potential of RISC
CPUs, and even Intel made a pair of phenomenal ones, the 860 and
960. Of course, none of these were backward compatible with the
x86, so the industry stayed in that path right through today's
Pentium 4.
Apple somehow joined forces with IBM and Motorola to leverage
IBM's Power design, Motorola's fledgling 88000 effort, and Apple's
need to move from the dated 680x0 architecture to something new
and modern. Thus was born the AIM consortium and the PowerPC
architecture.
The PowerPC 601 was a bit of a hack, but it worked well and
allowed excellent emulated performance for old 680x0 software. The
original 603 was hobbled with too small a cache to emulate the
680x0 efficiently, but the 603e fixed that. And the industrial
strength 604 and 604e could crunch numbers with the best - and
was even used in some quad processor systems from DayStar
Digital.
Of course, the G3 put an end to all that. By designing the CPU to
work efficiently with existing PowerPC code, the G3 provided about
50% more power per cycle than the 603e or 604e, allowing Apple to
claim a processor "up to twice as powerful" as a Pentium at the
same speed.
I'd definitely say things were cutting edge up to that point,
which is also the last point at which IBM and Motorola agreed on
the future direction of the PowerPC. IBM wanted to push CPU speed.
Motorola wanted to add the complex AltiVec velocity engine. And we
all know which route Apple chose.
As for the efficiency of additional processors, because of the
overhead involved in managing the CPUs themselves, the data cache,
and memory writes to system RAM, there is generally about a 10%
decrease per processor added. That means a dual G4 will have about
1.8 times the power of a single G4 at the same clock speed (90% x
2), and a quad G4 system would provide roughly 2.4 times the power
of a single CPU (60% x 4).
This is a rough figure, and the more that overhead can be reduced,
the more viable it is to increase computing power by adding more
and more processors. IBM's Power architecture, on which the
PowerPC 970 is based, is explicitly designed for two CPUs on a
single core and up to 32 CPUs in a computer. To make that at all
practical, IBM had to find a way to reduce MP overhead to well
under 3% per processor added, so it's conceivable that a dual PPC
970 system would offer 190% as much power as a single CPU (95% x
2), and a quad processor system would likewise provide 360% as
much power as one CPU (90% x 4).
For those who need ultimate power, the step to quad processors
could be just what the doctor ordered.
In a follow-up email, Eberhard writes:
Perhaps I phrased it poorly. I agree that the '040 was better than
the '030 (a 25 MHz LC 475, a
great machine for its time, did beat the 25 MHz IIci
by quite margin I remember when trying out Marathon :-) I just got
the impression that the '040 had problem keeping up with the 486.
And I totally agree about the 604E and the G3s.
The G4 was questionable from the start. The main advantages SMP
was not supported by either OS nor application and as such useless
for several years. AltiVec does give a boost of some things in some
applications, but it has largely been a disappointment. The real sad
thing, though, is not the initial manufacturing problems but the fact
that there has been no sign of reducing the 2x MHz gap during more
than 3 years. In fact, the trend seem to be closer to sliding back to
a 3x MHz gap.
I have understood that rewriting application from one to two CPUs
is a substantial work, but I have not found any information about the
step to quads from duals.
The efficiency is of course very important in multi CPUs. With a
10% penalty per CPU the 1.8 to 2.4 really makes the dual setup the
useful limit ( doubling the CPU cost for a 60% gain) and having 8
CPUs would be slower than one! With a 5% penalty the dual score of
1.9 instead of 1.8 is marginal but for the quad 3.6 instead of 2.4
would be a very substantial boost with a 90% gain by doubling the CPU
cost
I will save my money for the next generation non-G4. (That is, I
will not buy a box were the CPU has been grafted in what basically is
the previous generation like the NuBus PPC line and the Beige
G3s. Both of these lines was far less impressive than the
following PCI PPC and B&W G3 even if they had the same CPUs
Thanks for the extensive and informative reply.
For most of the past year, the fastest G4 has been roughly 46%
as fast as the fastest Pentium 4 in clock speed. Now quite as bad
as a 3x ratio, and a bit better than the 42% figure it was a bit
further back, but Motorola is still lagging.
I don't understand your antipathy toward the beige G3, which has a
whole new motherboard in the same basic case as the earlier
Power Mac 7500. The 66 MHz bus
was one-third faster than in earlier Power Macs and the onboard
video was better as well. There were some issues with slave
drives, and the IDE bus was awfully slow (at least by today's
standards), but it was a nice step up from earlier models.
Still, the blue & white G3 with its 100 MHz system bus, faster
IDE bus, and support for both USB and FireWire was a much nicer
computer. Waiting for the second generation of hardware generally
gives you a better machine with fewer teething problems.
Nice article, although I'd like to add one thing and take the
whole concept of fluidity one step farther.
Aqua really is beautiful, but do these icons have to be so
large? Why can I only choose between this size of icon and no
icons at all - why not a smaller set of icons?
Control-clicking on the toolbar gives you quite a few display
choices, although not small icons as you request.
Overall, Mac OS X cries out for a much larger display than the
512 x 384 or 640 x 480 screens of early Macs. Under OS X, an 800 x
600 display seems crowded, and 1024 x 768 seems to be the least
resolution you want to really work comfortably.
I completely agree.
How about the same kind of thing in AppleWorks instead of the
discrete 50%, 66.7%, 100%, 200%, and other settings? Sure, leave
the standards in place, but why not add a slider that lets us zoom
in or pull back fluidly in real time?
The dock does it. The Finder does it. The technology is already
there in the Quartz rendering engine. Apple ought to tap into it
in other areas as well.
Why not return the Mac to WYSIWYG? One inch on the screen equals
one inch in real life. I want one to one text size as the system wide
default, with a preference panel for setting it up. My ideal system
would keep the text size the same at any display resolution. Those
who want everything on their screen smaller or larger can adjust the
WYSIWYG preference accordingly, independent of display resolution. As
you say, the technology is there.
I think Apple will wait until Classic mode disappears before
trying anything like this. Another two years is my guess.
Thanks for the interesting article.
Although I think Apple should offer 1:1 correspondence between
screen size and printout as an option, I don't think it should be
the default behavior. Think about it - the 12" and 14" iBooks
both offer 1024 x 768 displays, and those who have older eyes or
need to share the screen in a presentation choose the larger iBook
so everything displays a bit bigger.
They can do that because both screens show exactly the same amount
of information.
Now imagine going into an Apple dealer and seeing the two iBooks
side by side if their displays corresponded to the 72 points per
inch world of the typesetter. Instead of the 14" iBook displaying
things bigger than the 12", it would display everything the same
size and simply display more information. Conversely, the 12"
would be a harder sell because it would show so much less if there
were a 1:1 correspondence with physical screen size.
That's what some people expect of a different display size, but
many pick it because they want or need things displayed quite a
bit larger than on the 12" iBook.
Still, Apple should provide some system options where the screen
would default to current behavior, have a 1:1 physical
correspondence as a standard option, and also offer behaviors that
would make the make more palatable to the visually challenged.
The underlying technology exists. I hope they will make it
accessible.
Affordable Comm Slot II Ethernet Card
Scott Solin writes:
I been reading your site a ton and getting a lot of great info off
it.
I wanted to add DSL service to my Power PC Performa
6400/200, but with a video card and a USB card in there. That
took up all my PCI slots. I read on your site that a Com Slot II
ethernet adapter card is available. I did a search around and found
most around the $70-90 range! Then I did a search out of the blue and
found a great store! It's in Hayward, CA, so shipping is kinda steep
with tax and all. But they have the card in stock for $14.95!
I thought this was an exceptional deal and just wanted to tell you
and maybe let others know on the site. Here is the link to it in case
you wanna check it out. http://store.yahoo.com/justdeals/faret10basco.html
I enjoy the site and the emails everyday. Keep up the good work.
Gotta keep the old Macs current and up to date!
Thanks again!
Scott, thanks for the link. I think you'll make a lot of
people happy with this source for inexpensive Comm Slot II
ethernet cards.
UPDATE: Several readers have noted that the above card is marked
as a Comm Slot card, not a Comm Slot II card. Although the two
slots are different and some cards only work in one or the other,
some cards are designed to be compatible with both slots. Based on
the writer's success, I have to assume that this is one of those
cards. dk
Will OS X Speed Up My Power Mac?
I have a Power Mac 8500 that's
been upgraded to a G3/300 with 206 MB of RAM. It's currently running
Mac OS 9.1. Would it run faster if I used XPostFacto to install OS
10.1.x on it? Please let me know.
Anything but. Your Power Mac will run slower with OS X
installed. Mac OS X is a very different, very powerful, very
nice operating system, but because of all the work going on in the
background, it is not as fast as the classic Mac OS.
For more on the pros and cons of upgrading, check out 10
Forward.
Letters sent may be published at our discretion. Email addresses will
not be published unless requested. If you prefer that your message
not be published, mark it "not for publication." Letters may be
edited for length, context, and to match house
style.
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
Mac of the Day: PowerBook 170, Oct. 1991 - At 25 MHz, the PB 170 was at the top of the original PowerBook line.
List of the Day: The iPhone List Low End Mac's forum for discussing and supporting Apple's iPhone.
August 30 in LEM history: 99: The truth about USB speed - 00: Could Eazel kill the Mac? - Mac OS 8.1 on a IIci and LC III - 01: Beyond MHz and GHz - Getting a handle on email - Thanks for the IBM PC, Dad - Apple's anniversaries - 02: Mac OS X v10.2 - iBook video out - 04: Things that freak out my students - 06: Nvu and SeaMonkey can't replace Home Page - 07: DVD-RAM support
Recent Content on Low End Mac
Looking for a Content Management System That's as Easy as Mac, Dan Knight, Mac Musings, 08.29.
Low End Mac needs to move to a content management system, but the few we've tried just don't cut it for people used to the simple elegance of the Mac.
Best Power Mac G4 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.29.
Used 450 MHz AGP, $75; 500, $99; 800 QS, $199; 1.25 GHz MDD, $375; 450 MHz dual, $179; 867 dual, $300; 1 GHz dual, $395; 1.42 dual, $575.
Best iBook G3 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.29.
Used 300 MHz clamshell, $150; 500 CD, $150; 800, $200; 600 CD-RW, $240; 900 Combo, $300; 14" 600, $360; 900, $400.
Best iPod nano Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.29.
Used 2 GB iPod nano, $89; refurb 3G 4 GB, $99; new, $140; refurb 8 GB, $149; new, $179.
10 Mac Browsers Compared, Simon Royal, Mac Spectrum, 08.28.
A look at Internet Explorer, Radon, Opera, Safari, Shiira, iCab, Firefox, Netscape Navigator, Flock, and Camino running in Leopard.
Clone and Boot: Another Advantage of the Mac OS, Kev Kitchens, Kitchens Sync, 08.28.
Unlike Windows, Apple makes it possible to clone a bootable drive (Classic Mac OS or OS X) and use it with another supported Mac.
Best MacBook Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.28.
Used 1.83 GHz, $799; 2.0 black, $875; refurb 2.1 GHz, $899; 2.4, $1,099; black, $1,299; new 2.1, $1,019 after rebate; 22, $1,094; 2.4, $1,219 a/r; black, $1,394 a/r.
Best iMac G5 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.28.
Used 17" 1.6 GHz Combo, $499; 1.8 SuperDrive, $530; 2.0, $600; 1.9 iSight, $625; 20" 1.8 GHz, $580; 2.0, $650; 2.1 iSight, $700.
Best classic Mac OS Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.28.
System 6, $10; 7.1, $12; 7.5.1, $4; Mac OS 7.6, $13; 8.0, $13; 8.1, $48; 8.5, $25; 8.6, $20; 9.0, $20; 9.2.2, $20; more.
CrossOver Strikes Out, Frank Fox, Stop the Noiz, 08.27.
Running Windows apps on a Mac without paying for Windows is great in theory, but actually getting Windows software working is another story.
MacDrought: 4 Months with No New Macs, Dan Knight, Mac Musings, 08.27.
The most recent Mac update was over four months ago, and the Mac mini has been unchanged for over a year.
Best Intel iMac Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.27.
Used 17" 1.83 GHz, $625; 20", $599; 2.16, $749; 24", $950; refurb 20" 2.4, $999; 2.66, $1,299; 24" 2.4, $1,299; 2.8, $1,549; new 3.06, $2,094 after rebate; more.
Best 15" PowerBook G4 Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.27.
Used 1.25 GHz Combo, $600; SuperDrive, $650; 1.33 Combo, $640; 1.5, $680; SD, $725; 1.67, $730; hi-res, $800.
Best Time Capsule and AirPort Deals, Low End Mac Deals, 08.27.
500 GB Time Capsule, $294; 1 TB, $468; AirPort Extreme Card, $39; 802.11n Base Station, $166; 802.11g AirPort Express, $60; 802.11n, $98.
Our advertising is handled by BackBeat Media. For detailed
price quotes and advertising information, please
contactat BackBeat Media (646-546-5194). This number
is for advertising only.