MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year

[warpd]

[quote]Please keep politics out of Future Hardware <hr></blockquote>

You should be telling motorola that!! LOL <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[b8rtm8nn]

What about HT to the video card, was that there Dorsal??

[wdegroot]

Uh oh, this thread's going way downhill.

BTW Egypt is one messed up country, that's a definite waste of our tax dollars there.

[ouroboros]

Regarding 2002 - "Apple's Year." What if indeed there are stop-gap motherboards, etc. and in fact Apple waits till 2003. My question is: by 2003 will this be too late for Apple. Is there a too late for Apple now that they are perceived as being slower, in terms of mhz rating and performance. If Apple just adds a DDR X-serve motherboard with dual 1.2ghz processors at the top-end, what honestly to you think would happen to Apple?

The thing is, I've really been enjoying over the past few weeks reading what everyone has to say. But when one promising document or news bit comes in, another comes in to counter it almost. So in fact my 'expectations' waffle back and forth, and now I have this cancelled out feeling of a neutral Macworld happening now.

I think we all on this board are concerned at this point about Apple. At least a little, some very concerned and unhappy. I am not unhappy, but I'm concerned. I DO feel that this MacWorld is indeed one of the most important, because IF, and I mean IF, they just do the same updates, they may finally get to a point where they might start sliding to obscurity. But who knows, this view is probably over-zealously reactionary. Just wondering, because so far the majority of posts are hopes about what might be released. But if the hopes are held back again, will the "again" bring this amount of attention in January, or will some be looking elsewhere by that time?

[xype]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>I DO feel that this MacWorld is indeed one of the most important, because IF, and I mean IF, they just do the same updates, they may finally get to a point where they might start sliding to obscurity.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If the reports of Steve's we-flopped-out-there-big-time sayer are true I think that Steve wants to make a B-A-N-G this time and surely wont make a keynote of "er, but a 133 mhz bump is a lot, really!"

I have my hopes high. But I am young. :p

[ZoSo]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>But if the hopes are held back again, will the "again" bring this amount of attention in January, or will some be looking elsewhere by that time?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The truth? Were it not for the OS I'd have switched looong ago... But I simply cannot force Windows down my throat. I keep waiting for a great new OS like, for example, the BeOS was (and still is, though no longer available)--but I know I will never see anything like that again... I basically switched to portables in these past three years because they are the only Apple products that actually justify the cost...

But then again--who knows, maybe we're really about to be blown away by the next insanely great thing! :D

ZoSo

[GabrielX]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>Regarding 2002 - "Apple's Year." What if indeed there are stop-gap motherboards, etc. and in fact Apple waits till 2003. My question is: by 2003 will this be too late for Apple. Is there a too late for Apple now that they are perceived as being slower, in terms of mhz rating and performance. If Apple just adds a DDR X-serve motherboard with dual 1.2ghz processors at the top-end, what honestly to you think would happen to Apple?
</strong><hr></blockquote>


In answer to your question. Nothing much. It wouldn't be hurt, it wouldn't help.

Now, my question...

What is a "stopgap motherboard"??

I've seen that phrase used before, and given the evolutionary chain of motherboards and processors, either ALL of them are stopgap or none are, in my opinion.

So...what is a "stopgap motherboard"?

Gabriel

[zaz]

And while were at it, maybe would could stop with ding-dong phrases like 'double pumped FSB' & 'Xserve DDR hack'

Who exactly has a Xserve and the first-hand knowledge to call it a 'hack'?

:rolleyes:

[sCreeD]

<strong> [quote]So...what is a "stopgap motherboard"?<hr></blockquote></strong>

They probably did not intend to use XServe motherboards for Powermacs, but are now forced to do so.

And you know, to the unwashed masses (those that don't read these boards :D ) this would still look impressive. "It's like having a server on your desk!!" :rolleyes: But we know better.

I personally was hoping for another "Pro. Go. Whoa." (G5, a new, portable iDevice, and then something that was iStunning). And we may still get something.

Life is about settling with disappointment.

Screed ...has dog named Prozac.

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>

[ouroboros]

For me, I've invested a LOT of money into software, thousands and thousands on upgrades, etc. So simply leaving the Mac isn't an option for me. I went from a desktop to a portable, and doing production work on a G4 laptop with an external Cinema display is a much better situation than what I was using: a Blue and White G3 with 2 17" monitors.

And sorry about the use of "stop-gap motherboards" and DDR hacks and all that talk. What all that meant was that if Apple is being held up by some processor change of fix, or whatever, using a revised motherboard of what we are currently using as opposed to a brand new motherboard isn't what was probably in Apple's cards or intentions. And this means that the rate of incremental technology increases that Apple is trying to offer us as opposed to what they are giving us isn't so hot.

I think all these comparisons to PC equivalents for $ amounts and all that is just a frustration of knowing that of course faster this and that is possible, So why aren't we getting it!? Why such a slow slide into faster and better technology? I've wondered this, and a lot of people here help me get the answers. And so the rumors of something over the hills, just around the corner is so tempting, and why I come hear and read also. It would be so nice to see a movement forward, and not a step forward.

For me I see Apple as something I work with every day, I'm always staring at a damn screen. Its nice to actually like what you have to work with, to like the reasons why it is here. And yes, I think it is inspiring to see what someone like Steve Jobs did, from a garage to now. I also like the fact that I'm rooting for an underdog of sorts. Microsoft is the big bad brother that twists and steals, etc. Its funny but the Microsoft/Apple thing is like a soap opera - the fact that they made a TV movie about the whole thing supports why there are boards like AppleInsider...

So I don't see myself switching, but one can't help but think that this year is the most important year for Apple. It is where they either fall forever "behind" (whatever that means) and endlessly play catch-up. Or it is the year 2002, and like 1998 (and 1984) they will do something amazing and pull the rabbit out of the hat and amaze us like they've actually done before. And as of June 19th, I can see both happening....

[spooky]

I'm in agreement with a lot of the eloquent later posts in this thread. Its not about power we might need or don't need etc (640k anyone?) but about a continued large scale presence for apple to give us the opportunity to enjoy using our computers and be amazed at new innovative technologies. Where I live there is only 1 place in a 30 mile radius that sells macs - PC World and they're hideously expensive. Most of the old applecentres I knew have closed down - [b] with no -one coming in to replace them [/b} :(

C'mon Steve - give us a G5 so fast we can't use it and have to buy add ons to slow it down :cool:

[ouroboros]

Realistically, I'm not looking for a G5, as whatever new processor that is coming out for Apple seems to be a bit off (or is it?!) - What I want is for Apple to just BE IN THERE, so that we don't have to think of ways of justifying Apple, they can do it themselves. The holy grail I think would be for people to somehow just get it right away when reading about what the Mac has to offer, or the ten seconds they think about it in the store before they go and instead buy a Dell originally, they get a Mac. I just want Apple to continue with what they SHOULD be doing, making cool stuff, that runs cool, does cool things, and makes others jealous, because it is really happening on the Mac. I think Apple has done a lot of good this year, their software is excellent, and will continue to get better. Now lets see some hardware innovation that makes the race more fair.

I don't see this 'race' by the way as something like, "Damn they're at 2.6ghz, we gotta do 3," it is more complicated than that. Apple is one who can change perceptions, and we know that ghz isn't all there is. But whatever it is, Apple needs more of it, and at a faster pace. See this opinion as one who has invested a lot of time and money into Apple, an encouragement, not a pure complaint.

[Ptrash]

[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>

Oopsie! Now guys, do what the Administrator is telling you to!

See, that's why it's great from a land so small noone gives a **** about! Slovenia is unlikely to be blamed for any mess, whereas the US is a great target to blame for everything...</strong><hr></blockquote>

ooh, I wanted to go to Slovenia last year so badly. There was a conference in Ljubljana and if work had paid for it I would've used it for a jumping off point to go to Italy and Croatia, too. Alas, didn't happen. But i hear it's really beuatiful!

[Telomar]

[quote]Originally posted by GabrielX:
<strong>What is a "stopgap motherboard"??</strong><hr></blockquote>

A stop-gap motherboard is just one where there hasn't been a full implementation of features that would have otherwise been included.

Basically it means Apple has left things off because the time to market of getting a working board out the door was too long. Apple has been very focused on time to market in their recent developments too.

What they do in this case where the time to market is too large if they are really desperate, and Apple would be with respect to DDR right now, is release a "stop-gap" measure. It's just something that is only there for a very short time (usually only until next revision) until they perfect what they were working on.

I can guarantee this revision we will see DDR RAM being used. It looks terrible for Apple to still be using 133MHz SDRAM in their pro systems no matter how good their bus efficiency is and they know that. People do notice when the PC world is starting to talk DDR 400 boards and Apple is still selling 100MHz & 133 MHz SDRAM boards.

It really is now a question of do they have the "complete" board they want to use ready or not? They have had problems with their boards so we just have to wait and see.

Edit: Slovenia is a lovely country =) I have two friends that live over there. Then again I enjoy visiting just about every country with the exception of the US and Australia.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>

[Mikey Offender]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:
<strong>Hey idiots.

Shut up about the USA.

this is Future hardware, remember... you can shoot your mouths off in AppleOutsider.


<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not conduct very becoming of a board admin, I must say.

[PC^KILLA]

[quote]Originally posted by Shanny:
<strong>

Not conduct very becoming of a board admin, I must say.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It wont matter much when Apple is a 5$ stock. It’s make or break for Apple. Revenues are dropping, which means market share is dropping further, which means … death. I hope SJ can pull a rabbit or two this MW. If not, the market would REALLY understand why top execs sold so many shares. Apple is in trouble. I really hope they can pull through. They need to drop MOT. Maybe go with Nvidia. Maybe IBM. But lose MOT.

mika.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by PC^KILLA:
<strong>It wont matter much when Apple is a 5$ stock. It’s make or break for Apple. Revenues are dropping, which means market share is dropping further, which means … death. I hope SJ can pull a rabbit or two this MW. If not, the market would REALLY understand why top execs sold so many shares. Apple is in trouble. I really hope they can pull through. They need to drop MOT. Maybe go with Nvidia. Maybe IBM. But lose MOT.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I disagree... first of all about your deductoin that market share is dropping based on the drop in revenue -- PC companies are declaring losses or shortfalls of the same (or worse) magnitude.

I also disagree that they need to drop Motorola. What they need to do is ensure a future supply of powerful processors for the PowerMac line, and a solid supply of consumer and portable processors. If this means dropping Motorola, then so be it. I suspect the situation is much more complex, however. Ideally both Motorola and IBM would deliver chips that Apple can choose from so that Apple doesn't get stuck back in another single-source situation. From all that has been tossed around lately I could easily see that next year at this time Apple might be swimming in processor options: IBM SIMD equipped low-power G3s for the iBook, Motorola G4s for the consumer line (possibly using RapidIO & on-chip memory controller), and IBM POWER-derived chips for the PowerMac line.

[PC^KILLA]

Programmer:

quote
PC companies are declaring losses or shortfalls of the same (or worse) magnitude.

hmm,… and going out of business. Who is Apple going to “consolidate” with?

I think if Apple execs had any astuteness, they would use Nvidia’s ambitions and need to conquer fresh markets, as a vehicle to depose the Mico$oft/Intel hegemony. It’s an opportune time for Apple to try this.


mika.

[Spart]

Whatever happened to that silicon germanium process IBM was making such a buzz about a while back? Using a chip with few differences in the process than say a G4...what's to say we wont see the fruits of this coming anytime soon? Jobs has been awfully optimistic lately and IBM stated that the chips were something they could do "now," as in months ago...

[EDIT: UBB decided to take a chunk out of my post...]

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>

[xype]

[quote]Originally posted by Ptrash:
<strong>ooh, I wanted to go to Slovenia last year so badly. There was a conference in Ljubljana and if work had paid for it I would've used it for a jumping off point to go to Italy and Croatia, too. Alas, didn't happen. But i hear it's really beuatiful!</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>Edit: Slovenia is a lovely country =) I have two friends that live over there. Then again I enjoy visiting just about every country with the exception of the US and Australia.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Wow! Now you guys impress me - I didn't think anyone actually even knows where it is! Hehe, yeah it's a nice country and you can reach Venezia or the nice Croatian coast in only a few hours.

Oh, and since I am originally from Ljubljana - what kind of a conference would that be?

[neutrino23]

I think that for the general public Apple doesn't need to promote processor speed or worry about speed comparisons with Intel. Most people don't buy 2.0GHz pentiums. Lots of sub 1GHz p3s are still sold.

Apple should focus on selling functionality (some of this comes across in the current ads). I don't want to buy a mult-gigaHertz processor. I want to edit movies painlessly, use email, etc. The processor speed needs to be respetable but doesn't need to be leading edge.

As more time goes by processor speed will become less relevant. When iDVD encodes a movie at 10x speeds, when iTunes compresses at 20x or 30x speeds then it won't make much difference whether you have one 10GHz processor or quad 2.5GHz processors.

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

IBM SIMD equipped low-power G3s for the iBook, Motorola G4s for the consumer line (possibly using RapidIO & on-chip memory controller), and IBM POWER-derived chips for the PowerMac line.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you think that a simplified power 4 with a Simd unit will be a possible choice.
I expect in that case that it will be still a dual core chip, i think the benchmarks in a case of a single core will not be better than the 7455.

[olli]

[quote]Dorsal<strong>
Memory access will be stellar. And you'll see why. not only will DDR SDRAM make a debut but it will not connect to the processor iin a conventional manner. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm Programmer:
you talked about this already earlier.
What is an unconventional way to access the memory?
I guess Dorsal is talking about the 1GB/sec limit (now in Xserve). that it will disappear?

I expect we'll see something different then the Xserve mobo.

[wdegroot]

I find it very hard to believe that SJ and all the rest have just been sitting on their hands all this time. They must have had contingency plans when the G4 stagnated. They must realize that they can't let themselves get too far behind. They've got $4bn sitting in the bank, I doubt they'll just leave it their earning interest while the company gradually loses marketshare.

Of course, this kind of thing has happpened before to Apple, whos to say it's not happening again. I just hope that SJ has learned something from the past.

[warpd]

[quote] Lots of sub 1GHz p3s are still sold <hr></blockquote>


Sure, on Ebay!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[warpd]

[quote]It wont matter much when Apple is a 5$ stock. It’s make or break for Apple. <hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't worry too much. The stock can't go any lower, it would mean their market cap was lower that the value of their cash and investments! Not really possible. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ZoSo]

[quote]Originally posted by wdegroot:
<strong>I find it very hard to believe that SJ and all the rest have just been sitting on their hands all this time. They must have had contingency plans when the G4 stagnated. They must realize that they can't let themselves get too far behind. They've got $4bn sitting in the bank, I doubt they'll just leave it their earning interest while the company gradually loses marketshare.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree. It's been said that NY01 and SF02 were supposed to show much better hardware, but due to technical hurdles Jobs opted for more conservative machines. I don't know if those new PowerMacs Gx will see the light of day at NY02, but I'm pretty sure that if something gets screwed up at the last minute we're going to see some heads rolling at Apple: it's a trend that can't possibly go on forever...

ZoSo

[Mandricard]

[quote]Originally Trolled by PC^KILLA:

It wont matter much when Apple is a 5$ stock. It’s make or break for Apple. Revenues are dropping, which means market share is dropping further, which means … death. <hr></blockquote>

http://cchart.yimg.com/z?s=gtw&c=AAPL&a=v&p=s&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l

http://cchart.yimg.com/z?s=aapl&c=DELL&a=v&p=s&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l

The stocks seem to be basically parallelling one another. It would follow that what problems there are are not Apple's alone. They are industry wide.

BACK ON TOPIC

As for MWNY, I think we will only see g4's but on new boards. However, I do not think we will see a repeat of the "Yikes" episode. It is not as if Apple started working on the new G4 Boards only AFTER they completed the XServe. Obviously these things are happening concurrently, and with a couple of months to iron out kinks, I think we will see a more polished situation than that with XServe.

Hope Springs Eternal,

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Mandricard ]</p>

[Bigc]

The problem for Apple is "is it worth puttimg a new line of equipment out at this time given the economic conditons that exist". There isn't a lot of purchasing power available at this time and it would probably be smarter (in an economic sense) to wait until Jan-03.

It's a management call by Apple at this time, i'd vote to wait for the good stuff to be released in Jan-03.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>Do you think that a simplified power 4 with a Simd unit will be a possible choice.
I expect in that case that it will be still a dual core chip, i think the benchmarks in a case of a single core will not be better than the 7455.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, I think a modified POWER4 + SIMD is a real possibility (but not for this year!). It could have 1-4 core versions (more than 2 would probably come later in its life an on smaller processes). The benchmarks for a single core will likely clobber the 7455, and it will be able to clock higher than the current 7455.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by olli:
<strong>

Hmm Programmer:
you talked about this already earlier.
What is an unconventional way to access the memory?
I guess Dorsal is talking about the 1GB/sec limit (now in Xserve). that it will disappear?

I expect we'll see something different then the Xserve mobo.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Conventional" probably refers to the traditional shared front-side bus (i.e. MPX). Anything else would be unconventional (HyperTransport, RapidIO, a dedicated FSB like the PC, an on-chip memory controller, etc).

I would expect something different than Xserve based on Dorsal's comment. If you believe him, that is. I'll have a lot more faith if he is correct in some real way about the machines at or near MWNY.

[tsukurite]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>*snip*

But if the hopes are held back again, will the "again" bring this amount of attention in January, or will some be looking elsewhere by that time?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'll be upgrading my PM450 with a Powerlogix 1ghz chip and then going my merry way. Never to look at another mac.

(wait for it...)

Ahh, I just can't help myself. It's a guilty pleasure. It's like slowing down to see a car wreck. You're not proud of it, but you do it any way. ;)

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: tsukurite ]</p>

[THT]

<strong>Originally posted by Programmer:
"Conventional" probably refers to the traditional shared front-side bus (i.e. MPX). Anything else would be unconventional (HyperTransport, RapidIO, a dedicated FSB like the PC, an on-chip memory controller, etc).

I would expect something different than Xserve based on Dorsal's comment. If you believe him, that is. I'll have a lot more faith if he is correct in some real way about the machines at or near MWNY.</strong>

I believe Dorsal was hinting at an on-die memory controller like as planned for the Moto's 8540. I'm not as much of a fan of this design anymore, considering Apple's market that is.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>

[TJM]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I also disagree that they need to drop Motorola. What they need to do is ensure a future supply of powerful processors for the PowerMac line, and a solid supply of consumer and portable processors. If this means dropping Motorola, then so be it. I suspect the situation is much more complex, however. Ideally both Motorola and IBM would deliver chips that Apple can choose from so that Apple doesn't get stuck back in another single-source situation. From all that has been tossed around lately I could easily see that next year at this time Apple might be swimming in processor options: IBM SIMD equipped low-power G3s for the iBook, Motorola G4s for the consumer line (possibly using RapidIO & on-chip memory controller), and IBM POWER-derived chips for the PowerMac line.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with your disagreement. :D

The AIM alliance seems to have been damaged mightily by Apple choosing MOT's Altivec and G4 processor - IBM suddenly felt like a third wheel and unappreciated, so they took their toys and went home. It was not so much an alliance as a three-way competition, each trying to get for itself at the expense of the others. Thus, I think Apple's problems with having MOT as its sole supplier of G4s is really its own short-sighted fault. It sounds like the breach with IBM is being healed, but at enormous cost to Apple as it struggles with MOT.

IMHO, the AIM alliance could be revitalised by simply focusing on R&D (the Somerset center), funded by all three and agnostic of company - all ideas are pooled and the on-site management goes with what will work best, without pressure from the parent companies to adopt a "pet" technology. All three companies would then have free license to all technology generated by it. (Yes, I wear rose-colored glasses and live in an ivory tower, but a guy can dream, can't he?) Fabbing would be done on a contractual basis with whatever company (MOT, IBM, AMD, or even Intel) had the capacity to do it. The chips would thus not be a "Motorola" or "IBM" or any other brand - just "from the AIM alliance". This may have been the original intent of it, but it's certainly not the way it's turned out.

I would love to see the AIM research center turn into a "skunkworks" like the Bell labs - cranking out outrageously cool inventions with no immediate practical use, but which revolutionise the world once they're made into real products. It may happen yet.


My $0.02, YMMV.


TJM

[jeromba]

maybe I'm stupid but is it really difficult to have a dedicated bus for each processor (with the current G4) ? That means in this way each processor can use a full 1 GB/S of bandwidth and still with a FSB of 133 Mhz...
It will be an improvement, no?

[taboo]

Let's play "what if".

Let's say that Apple has a new mobo and it's been ready for a while now. It's something radically different, and has much higher thruput/bandwidth, maybe task-specific DSPs, FW2, etc. Only problem is...it's been designed for the new CPUs (G5/POWER/whatever). Then along comes IBM/Moto/?, who says....oops, the new CPU won't be ready in quantity 'til December.
Apple knows that's a problem, so they modify the mobo somewhat to use the current G4, and release this "stopgap" at MWNY. Say, a G4 at 1.2/1.4, but with a much better/faster mobo...how much difference would this make?
Then MWSF hits, with a "proven" mobo to drop into the xServe, and a new CPU (maybe competition for upcoming AMD/Intel offerings...the timing sounds right) for another big speed jump for the server/pro lines.
Does this seem reasonable?
Could this bring them in line (or better) with the Wintel world?

Just idle speculation....

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Taboo, despite my 'beef' with the current and hugely neglected 'power'Mac specs...I do believe something similar to your scenario could occur. Much as it did as Apple went from G3 to G4. 'Yikes' an' all.

ie I have faith that Apple will address the growing performance gap.

The purchases of 'Shake' and other high end apps like 'Chalice' and co indicate that Apple intend to compete in the hardware space soon. This is a clue to better things to come. But...when?

If Apple want their 'workstation' to compete with dual x86 computers running Maya then the chances of seeing some type of 'G5'processor is becoming more realistic as x86 processors march on. Apple can't afford to be on dual 1.2 gig G4s as x86 go 64 bit and 3 gig.

Apple needs their pro' sales...and their healthy mark ups. Sure, Apple isn't immune from the current industry slow down...and are more exposed than most. But if they want their already hurting pro sales not to get squeezed further then they are simply going to have to offer something far more compelling for Apple users and WINTEL 'Switchers' to go Mac. A mere 'bump' aint going to cut it this time.

It won't be the end of the world if we don't get what we want. But I'll be highly surprised if Apple don't finally begin to address the performance issue at Mac New York.

If they want consumers money for £3,000 'power'Macs...they're going to have to innovate their way into pockets.

They got Jagwire (nearly), they got the looks, the sexy drop down case, they got the superdrive...now give us the mobo and G5.

Aint just me either. In Macworld.co.uk poll, majority of mac fans also want the G5...we'll see, eh?

Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[Addison]

Fact is chaps even if we got a G5 4ghz next month it isn't going to make any difference to Apples market share. People just look at windows do a cost/benifit analysis and buy the fastest they can afford at the time.

[sizzle chest]

Hmmm, slight oversimplification? It's already been proven many times than when Apple releases a product with better "bang for the buck," it's more popular. Sure, a 4ghz G5 wouldn't give them 95% market share, but they'd sure sell a lot of them and their market share would creep upward.

[Blizaine]

[quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
<strong>Hmmm, slight oversimplification? It's already been proven many times than when Apple releases a product with better "bang for the buck," it's more popular. Sure, a 4ghz G5 wouldn't give them 95% market share, but they'd sure sell a lot of them and their market share would creep upward.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would buy one :D


ps.. where's dorsal? It's sad but I feel like a crack addict who needs a fix (although I'm sure that's worse than what I'm going though) :eek:

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Blizaine ]</p>

[KidRed]

What confuses me is the talk about the towers at MWNY being the 'stop gap' release. Excuse me, um but I was under the impression that the stop gap was the 1ghz towers. That's why a ho hum release as Apple knew they sucked and had something better just not ready. To me, that means MWNY will have something new and awesome otherwise we're looking at 2 stop gap releases this year for towers? And this after the pro sales suck already? Sorry, but I don't see Apple doing that. Not sure what I see them doing however, lol

[Leonis]

We have had enough "stop gap" already :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ouroboros]

Well you know if there is a stop-gap, hack, whatever.... how the hell NOW is Apple going to do their famous Photoshop bake-offs.... Makes me think that we'll have something fast enough to win a PhotoShop bake-off. Otherwise, he'll just go, "Oh and we have dual 1.xghz towers now!" But its interesting to think about. They ALWAYS have bake offs with the PowerMacs at Expos, so they almost have to release something fast enough to win a bake off with a Pentium IV.

What I think all of us would love to see is a new top of the line PMac beating the crap out of a dual top of the line Athlon at a quick 3D render. Now that would be a bake off to remember!

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: ouroboros ]</p>

[BobtheTomato]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>What I think all of us would love to see is a new top of the line PMac beating the crap out of a dual top of the line Athlon at a quick 3D render. Now that would be a bake off to remember!

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Introducing the new PowerMac G5 with Bionic arm! Watch it sneak up on the unsuspecting Athlon whilst it is distracted rendering a 3D scene gratiutous violence ensues, ending with the Athlon box scattered in iPod sized pieces on the floor and just wait till you see the new iMac with bionic leg! It kicks the Duron's a$$! :eek:

[moki]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>Well you know if there is a stop-gap, hack, whatever.... how the hell NOW is Apple going to do their famous Photoshop bake-offs.... Makes me think that we'll have something fast enough to win a PhotoShop bake-off. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Just an interesting tidbit -- I was mucking around with Photoshop 7 on my LCD iMac, when I noticed that any time I ran a filter, scaled an image, or did anything else terribly CPU intensive, the audio and/or video would stutter rather badly in iTunes or the DVD player.

This says to me that Adobe is using a little hack to boost the priority of their CPU intensive threads so that they will get more cycles. I just found it a little interesting; it appears Adobe is doing something a bit special that few other OS X apps do.

I haven't confirmed this empirically, but I'm fairly sure it is accurate given the symptoms I'm seeing. Normal threads should not have a higher priority the audio threads that are used to play mp3s, CDs, etc.

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>

[*l++]

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>
This says to me that Adobe is using a little hack to boost the priority of their CPU intensive threads so that they will get more cycles. [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You can raise/lower the priority of a process using:
int setpriority(int which, int who, int prio);

It may also be that on your specific setup, Photoshop generates substantial memory swaping and as the priority of a page fault is higher than reading from a disk file, the audio skips. The only way to test that would be to play the audio from memory.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>Just an interesting tidbit -- I was mucking around with Photoshop 7 on my LCD iMac, when I noticed that any time I ran a filter, scaled an image, or did anything else terribly CPU intensive, the audio and/or video would stutter rather badly in iTunes or the DVD player.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wonder if they do that in Windows too? That's just lame... I hope they at least make it a user preference.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>The AIM alliance seems to have been damaged mightily by Apple choosing MOT's Altivec and G4 processor - IBM suddenly felt like a third wheel and unappreciated, so they took their toys and went home. It was not so much an alliance as a three-way competition, each trying to get for itself at the expense of the others. Thus, I think Apple's problems with having MOT as its sole supplier of G4s is really its own short-sighted fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I remember hearing at the time that IBM's engineering group felt that a SIMD vector unit was counter to the philosophy of RISC and therefore shouldn't be added to the PowerPC. Once the G4 was delivered and they had a chance to play with it the were "impressed" and started to change their tune. Since then more and more news of IBM SIMD units has been cropping up. So I lay the blame for this rift largely at IBM's feet for not having the vision to see that alternative computing models can deliver serious performance improvements. Now, of course, IBM has come around 180 degrees and is working on things like the "Cell" project, their own SIMD, and they have done the Gekko for Nintendo.

[moki]

[quote]Originally posted by *l++:
<strong>

You can raise/lower the priority of a process using:
int setpriority(int which, int who, int prio);</strong><hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, there are about a half dozen different APIs for doing this with Mach, and they don't all work as expected. I've done something similar to what Adobe seems to be doing... I'm fairly certain that if they are doing what I suspect, it isn't just setpriority().

[quote]Originally posted by *l++:
<strong>It may also be that on your specific setup, Photoshop generates substantial memory swaping and as the priority of a page fault is higher than reading from a disk file, the audio skips. The only way to test that would be to play the audio from memory.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That certainly could be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't. I'll do some real investigation tomorrow.

[Programmer]

Hey Moki, make up some more juicy rumours for us to chew on -- there's no sign of Dorsal and this thread is starting to run dry.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>

[xype]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>I wonder if they do that in Windows too? That's just lame... I hope they at least make it a user preference.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They most likely coult do it in Windows as well, at least NT/2000/XP, but I am not sure whether Win95 has something like that. As far as I know the Windows APIs support priority settings, but usually the user can set the priority from the task manager, anywhere from "low" to "critical". Which I always do for rendering or handling big photoshop files anyway..

[johnsonwax]

[quote]Originally posted by xype:
<strong>
They most likely coult do it in Windows as well, at least NT/2000/XP, but I am not sure whether Win95 has something like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think they would need to do it in Windows. My guess is that Adobe's frameworks provide adequate threading under NT/2k/XP but not under X due to Carbon.

To counter the threading issue in X, bumping up priority would help. Regardless, I've found Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign under X to not thread in a manner that I find acceptable. They're fine apps, but they routinely bind up unnecessarily.

Adobe's apps aren't unique in this respect, by any means. I find that Office and Filemaker are the same way. Carbon apps seems to be at a distinct disadvantage when competing for system resources. Overall, the system is more responsive, but the individual app performance tends to suffer.

For PS and Ill, I'm sure that swap isn't the problem as my files rarely exceed 50MB - 10MB is more common for me. My InDesign files can run considerably larger than my PS files, but ID seems to handle things considerably better. Of course, ID is better able to partition off the rendering than PS or Ill, so that makes a certain amount of sense to me.

[TJM]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I remember hearing at the time that IBM's engineering group felt that a SIMD vector unit was counter to the philosophy of RISC and therefore shouldn't be added to the PowerPC. Once the G4 was delivered and they had a chance to play with it the were "impressed" and started to change their tune. Since then more and more news of IBM SIMD units has been cropping up. So I lay the blame for this rift largely at IBM's feet for not having the vision to see that alternative computing models can deliver serious performance improvements. Now, of course, IBM has come around 180 degrees and is working on things like the "Cell" project, their own SIMD, and they have done the Gekko for Nintendo.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yeah, I remember that now. Thanks for the refresh. There was far less cooperation than the term "alliance" suggested. Each partner had an agenda to advance its own ideas and products at the expense of the others. It may be that Apple had no choice but to go with MOT after IBM dug in its heels, or it could be that IBM got ornery only after Apple started cozying up with MOT. I hope Steven Levy writes a book about it someday, otherwise we may never know. At this point, I guess, it really doesn't matter. IBM is needed as a full partner again, and MOT still has a lot of expertise to add, as well. Everyone needs to kiss and make up and get on with the job of getting some first-class chips out the door. It looks like that is exactly what has been going on over the last year or so, so I remain an optimist.

[ouroboros]

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

That certainly could be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't. I'll do some real investigation tomorrow.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hmm.... so this might be a reason why Apple chooses Photoshop then for the bake-off stuff eh? Well who knows. Interesting that it looks like we are getting Firewire 2 with the new tower revisions -- this bodes well for the "true motherboard" that you've heard about moki if I remember correctly.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: ouroboros ]</p>

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"For the past month or so, Apple Demo Days have been going on in France, promoting the XServe. Apparently, the Apple managers there have been a bit talkative, and have leaked eerily similar info... Here's what has been told:
The G5 is being evaluated right now, and the G4 will further be modified. The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. It does exist though, and works fine right now, however the manufacturing process is far from ready, much too costly and low yield percentage. (confirmed by many different sources) The G5 will be manufactured in France (Grenoble), the factory is not finished yet.

The G4's evolution will not be dramatic, however the motherboards will significantly change with HyperTransport (some say the XServe already implements HT) and better cache structures.

The next mobos will not support 9, so it's pretty much the end of the line for it...

The kernel following that of Jag will be clusterable at a system level...

all this is here

<a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827" target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827</a>

The site has been quite reliable for a while now, since they rarely indulge in rumormongering... So take it FWIW.

The good news being that since the G5 is still far away (further than MWSF), Apple has no reason whatsoever to introduce stop-gap solutions at NY, except if the mobos aren't ready.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]"

Posted by Syn. This thread is dry. Dorsal's disappeared (again...c'mon guy...put up or shut up...)

I don't expect Moki to say anymore than he has. It's clear the big 'iron' isn't going to appear this year and a 'jumped' up G4 in massive bandwidth early to mid-next year.

If the 'Syn' info' is true...I'm bloody depressed.

End of 2003?

Yeesh. (Shakes head.)

Lemon Bon Bon
:(

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>

[Aquatic]

That sucks.

[nullptr]

[quote]The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. <hr></blockquote>

Argh. This is one rumor I hope is wrong. If Apple can't deliver a G5, I certainly hope that they can squeeze a lot more speed out of the G4. Anything less than 1.3 GHZ machines at MWNY and I will be very disappointed.

[Telomar]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"For the past month or so, Apple Demo Days have been going on in France, promoting the XServe. Apparently, the Apple managers there have been a bit talkative, and have leaked eerily similar info... Here's what has been told:
The G5 is being evaluated right now, and the G4 will further be modified. The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. It does exist though, and works fine right now, however the manufacturing process is far from ready, much too costly and low yield percentage. (confirmed by many different sources) The G5 will be manufactured in France (Grenoble), the factory is not finished yet.

The G4's evolution will not be dramatic, however the motherboards will significantly change with HyperTransport (some say the XServe already implements HT) and better cache structures.

The next mobos will not support 9, so it's pretty much the end of the line for it...

The kernel following that of Jag will be clusterable at a system level...

all this is here

<a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827" target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827</a>

The site has been quite reliable for a while now, since they rarely indulge in rumormongering... So take it FWIW.

The good news being that since the G5 is still far away (further than MWSF), Apple has no reason whatsoever to introduce stop-gap solutions at NY, except if the mobos aren't ready."

I don't expect Moki to say anymore than he has. It's clear the big 'iron' isn't going to appear this year and a 'jumped' up G4 in massive bandwidth early to mid-next year.

If the 'Syn' info' is true...I'm bloody depressed.

End of 2003?

Yeesh. (Shakes head.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can't really comment on a lot of that, or at least I am not going to, but before people start whining that the G5 isn't ready yet maybe you should wait for the next evolutions of the G4. The G4 isn't actually that bad a chip it just hasn't been scaled as quickly as one would like.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>

[Powerdoc]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"For the past month or so, Apple Demo Days have been going on in France, promoting the XServe. Apparently, the Apple managers there have been a bit talkative, and have leaked eerily similar info... Here's what has been told:
The G5 is being evaluated right now, and the G4 will further be modified. The G5 isn't stated for this year, perhaps the end of 2003. It does exist though, and works fine right now, however the manufacturing process is far from ready, much too costly and low yield percentage. (confirmed by many different sources) The G5 will be manufactured in France (Grenoble), the factory is not finished yet.

The G4's evolution will not be dramatic, however the motherboards will significantly change with HyperTransport (some say the XServe already implements HT) and better cache structures.

The next mobos will not support 9, so it's pretty much the end of the line for it...

The kernel following that of Jag will be clusterable at a system level...

all this is here

<a href="http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827" target="_blank">http://www.macbidouille.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2002-06-21#2827</a>

The site has been quite reliable for a while now, since they rarely indulge in rumormongering... So take it FWIW.

The good news being that since the G5 is still far away (further than MWSF), Apple has no reason whatsoever to introduce stop-gap solutions at NY, except if the mobos aren't ready.

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: SYN ]"

Posted by Syn. This thread is dry. Dorsal's disappeared (again...c'mon guy...put up or shut up...)

I don't expect Moki to say anymore than he has. It's clear the big 'iron' isn't going to appear this year and a 'jumped' up G4 in massive bandwidth early to mid-next year.

If the 'Syn' info' is true...I'm bloody depressed.

End of 2003?

Yeesh. (Shakes head.)

Lemon Bon Bon
:(

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I doubt that this info is true, because in Grenoble ( more exactly in Crolles) , it's not a factory which is scheduled but an joint venture research center in order to improve the fab process (from 0,9 to under).
If the G5 is ready i doubt that it will need 18 months in order to have good yields, 6 months even for mot is sufficiant.

[G-News]

Nor do I think it's likely that a new mobo for MWNY wouldn't support OS 9... Apple itself said "OS 9 is dead for us, bt not for our customers".

Very unlikely.

G_News

[Barto]

It's going to happen someday.

Power Macs are used by companies, schools and individuals with money to buy up-to-date software, or licences where they get the latest software.

If Apple continues Mac OS 9, that means software for Mac OS 9 will exist.

Apple is going strong, and killing Mac OS 9 now means Quark will have more incentive for getting off their ass.

Barto

[BrunoBruin]

Maybe that just means the end of a bootable OS 9. Wasn't there a rumor that a future release of 9 would not work as a standalone OS, but rather a stripped-down emulation environment that would be much more efficient (less CPU use) but still allow you to run legacy software?

[Tulkas]

[quote]Originally posted by BrunoBruin:
<strong>Maybe that just means the end of a bootable OS 9. Wasn't there a rumor that a future release of 9 would not work as a standalone OS, but rather a stripped-down emulation environment that would be much more efficient (less CPU use) but still allow you to run legacy software?</strong><hr></blockquote>

...and they called it Classic. Actually, I heard the same thing a while ago, that new mobo wouldn't support OS9 boot, but would still support Classic.

[Nebagakid]

That would be a a smart idea.

Keep the boot off, yet Classic still working.


BY THE WAY, any one ever thought of quad processors? Imagine Four 1.2 Ghz Processors on a single computer.(I know there are no 1.2 Ghz, yet, it is just common knowledge)

What would have to be changed to make way for this? It seems like a good idea to hold people off until a G5 came? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ;) :p

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:
<strong>That would be a a smart idea.

Keep the boot off, yet Classic still working.


BY THE WAY, any one ever thought of quad processors? Imagine Four 1.2 Ghz Processors on a single computer.(I know there are no 1.2 Ghz, yet, it is just common knowledge)

What would have to be changed to make way for this? It seems like a good idea to hold people off until a G5 came? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ;) :p </strong><hr></blockquote>


People keep asking this -- better memory bandwidth would be required. The current MPX bus isn't fast enough to support 4 fast G4s efficiently.

[Bigc]

the g4 has 1 GB/s bandwidth with a 133 Mhz bus does that mean a 166 Mhz bus will scale to 1.3 GB/s or is there some overhead.

The 1.7 Ghz Xeon has a 3.2 GB/s theoretical Bus limit but only can obtain about 1.7 GB/s for Integer and FP streams. Is there similar info available for the G4 MPX bus??

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Said Telomar:

"I can't really comment on a lot of that, or at least I am not going to,"

Oh really? ;) ? :D Do tell. Apparently the site concerned even had the name of the 'Apple Man' that said it. Which adds some substance to this rumour. Though his name is mysteriously no longer there..? (The Apple Mafia discreetly wading in?)

"...but before people start whining that the G5 isn't ready yet maybe you should wait for the next evolutions of the G4. The G4 isn't actually that bad a chip it just hasn't been scaled as quickly as one would like."

John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.

It was a 733 at the time, I think. Since then the disparity has got much worse. It'll take more than a DDR dual 1.2 G4 to convince me Apple's taking it's overpriced 'power'Mac range seriously. If it's on hypertransport perhaps? If there's a dramatic mhz swing? IF there's an add fpu to keep the lonely fpu happy?

Hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.

"A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you saying: 'that was f@#%ing awesome!' "

I like that. I think that's funny.

lemon bon bon :D

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.</strong><hr></blockquote>


This had more to do with memory bandwidth issues, especially where interaction with AGP devices was concerned. The Intel & AMD chips have something called write combining which helps with communicating with graphics chips on the AGP bus. The 7450 had that added, but I believe some issues still existed in the chipset. It may have been addressed in January's machines, but I'm not sure.

MPX's performance on a 133 MHz bus is about 850 MB/sec maximum sustained with Apple's latest chipset. It should scale linearly to 166 MHz, I think.

[Bigc]

Well at least the G4 is comparable to AMD chips at 1.2Ghz but not even close to the Xeon (not surprising).

<a href="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=12" target="_blank">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=12</a>

[iCode]

It seems everyone has a pet hardware gizmo that is a must have, but what can really be expected?

If Apple is buying up all the video production software companies and they are "Going After Hollywood" what sort of hardware would be needed to beat the pants off of Intel based hardware? Are XServes usable as render farm components? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I propose a cheap AMD/Intel is better for that (render farms), so what sort of desktop would be needed from Apple?

It makes no sense to get agressive in video production without having agressive showing in video production speed. So, what is the minimum hardware that can beat anything else on the scene in that market? (Hardware guys please speculate!)

I'm not expecting such a machine in July, but it would make sense to have something ready after Jaguar's release.

Please comment!

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</p>

[Nebagakid]

yeah, Apple buys up all this software that people who use a lot of NON-macs use. Then, they convert it to Mac ONLY, so people are forced to move to make for a new version and better support and new features.

Also, the mac is like an expensive car. It, like the other cars, can get you to point B from A. Yet, the expensive car does it better with more style and the route it takes it always faster and nicer

[Mike]

[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>the g4 has 1 GB/s bandwidth with a 133 Mhz bus does that mean a 166 Mhz bus will scale to 1.3 GB/s or is there some overhead.

The 1.7 Ghz Xeon has a 3.2 GB/s theoretical Bus limit but only can obtain about 1.7 GB/s for Integer and FP streams. Is there similar info available for the G4 MPX bus??</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is much more to the new Xenon's than just the 3.2 GB/s memory throughput. I just ordered a new Dell server that has the 400Mhz fontside bus with interleaved DDR memory. Gotta keep those Xenon's fed data ;-)

[Nebagakid]

I want a computer that makes my desktop picture look better, and blurs it behind icons so i can see it.

Like, it outlines the area behind the icon and blurs what is inside
this is future hardware, right&gt;? :D ;) :p <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Telomar]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Oh really? ;) ? :D Do tell. Apparently the site concerned even had the name of the 'Apple Man' that said it. Which adds some substance to this rumour. Though his name is mysteriously no longer there..? (The Apple Mafia discreetly wading in?)</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I assure you I'm as confused and in the dark as virtually everybody else right now. I just really had nothing to say :p

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>John McCarmack himself said that Apple's top chip had trouble hanging with a Pentium 3 at 1 gig.

It was a 733 at the time, I think. Since then the disparity has got much worse. It'll take more than a DDR dual 1.2 G4 to convince me Apple's taking it's overpriced 'power'Mac range seriously. If it's on hypertransport perhaps? If there's a dramatic mhz swing? IF there's an add fpu to keep the lonely fpu happy?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The G4s have some problems from a desktop PC point of view and in fact one of the bits of software that I saw written recently ran about half the speed on a G4 than it did on the PIVs.

A lot of the poor performance in that case lied within the memory bandwidth though and some issues with OS X. A great deal of the fault with the G4 lies with the fact that it has really never been seriously targeted at the desktop market since it stalled.

The chip itself has potential though and Motorola has been making inroads in developing it for a desktop PC market.

[byxiao]

The following is excerpts from Motorola's SEC filing regarding PC market business "...The personal computer market is maturing, and is dominated by a single well-entrenched competitor, providing little opportunity for us..." Motorola lost interest in PC markets, they have more advantage in embeded market than in PC market. Apple is a major end-customer in SPS business,but account for less than 10% of SPS sector revenue.MOT won't give up Apple.MOT will make a balance. Higher BUS speed is good for PC but not
for embeded product. :p

[gumby5647]

[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>It's going to happen someday.

Power Macs are used by companies, schools and individuals with money to buy up-to-date software, or licences where they get the latest software.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

you haven't been in a high school lately have you? Thereare buget crunches going on all over the US. The Maine iBook deal almost didn't go through.....

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]</p>

[Toast]

[quote]Originally posted by iCode:
<strong>It seems everyone has a pet hardware gizmo that is a must have, but what can really be expected?

If Apple is buying up all the video production software companies and they are "Going After Hollywood" what sort of hardware would be needed to beat the pants off of Intel based hardware? Are XServes usable as render farm components? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I propose a cheap AMD/Intel is better for that (render farms), so what sort of desktop would be needed from Apple?

It makes no sense to get agressive in video production without having agressive showing in video production speed. So, what is the minimum hardware that can beat anything else on the scene in that market? (Hardware guys please speculate!)

I'm not expecting such a machine in July, but it would make sense to have something ready after Jaguar's release.

Please comment!

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: iCode ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


I believe Xserves are usable as renderfarm components. They can be used for alot more than just Webservers and apache machines.

What makes the Xserve and macs in general great is that the dual configs work very well.
after using several dual Athlon and Pentium systems i can safely say they are a mother ****ing bitch to try and get to work well, not only are they unstable but the dual athlon config produces a **** load of heat.

[Nitride]

Xserve claims 1 GB/s CPU to System Controller (new implementation according to Apple to support DDR RAM) so there is definately some different mobo mojo going on in there.

Add some FireWire 2 and maybe true DDR RAM support and the new desktop should really unleash some G4 power on yo' ass.

FWIW I don't believe the French rumor of the G5 timetable and production location (France? Uh, okay...). Prolly just some smokescreen, someone trying to get their name in the rumor sites or a really really misinformed Apple guy who is prolly gonna be looking for a new job Monday.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"or a really really misinformed Apple guy who is prolly gonna be looking for a new job Monday."

If he can navigate past his concrete 'shoes'...

Lemon Bon Bon ;)

[Nebagakid]

he will be puw-nished
-Boss Nass

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Nitride:
<strong>FWIW I don't believe the French rumor of the G5 timetable and production location (France? Uh, okay...).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why the skepticism about France? AMD's monster fab is in Germany...

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Why the skepticism about France? AMD's monster fab is in Germany...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cost issue?

[MacRonin]

BIG BUMP!!!

Let's hear something more Dorsal (M) !

It's gonna be a long three weeks...

[MacJedai]

[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong> BIG BUMP!!!

Let's hear something more Dorsal (M) !

It's gonna be a long three weeks...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I second the motion!

[Nebagakid]

Could someone give me a summary of what Dorsal, or whatever has been discussed in this thread?

Pleeeease?
thanks :D <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Bigc]

Dorsal has tested a lot of neat stuff in the last couple of years and DNA has been revealed but Apple don't feel like releasing any new stuff because the economy is stuffed.

[MacJedai]

[quote]Originally posted by Nebagakid:
<strong>Could someone give me a summary of what Dorsal, or whatever has been discussed in this thread?

Pleeeease?
thanks :D <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, Here ya go, Dorsal M's posts on this thread.

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>posted 06-14-2002 05:06 PM
Sorry for the long haitus, but it has been quite busy here. We are in final testing phases of our Apple hardware and there has been an excitement in the air. I believe many of you will be pleasantly surprised with the hardware to be released, and after seeing some other sites, I'd like to remind you all that behind most rumors is a kernel of truth, despite the fact that some sites like to embelish on the tidbit they get. Without further ado...

The PowerMac G4 as we know it will be retired. Well the architecture will at least. We will see changes to the system bus, processor and general layout. Motorola has been hard at work with the 130nm G4. It will scale nicely (at least 1.5GHz by the summer) and have improved bus features. Memory access will be stellar. And you'll see why. not only will DDR SDRAM make a debut but it will not connect to the processor iin a conventional manner. More to come. Cache will also be increased on the processor level. Twice what is seen now. You will see a collaboration with another hardware company, but this will not surprise some of you in the know.


posted 06-17-2002 10:58 AM
There will be an e500 core based desktop processor based on Apple's requirements. The e500 core is a 7 stage pipeline design very similar to the 7455 core (they both get about 2300MIPS). The execution units are very similar, in quantity and performance. There is an Altivec add on built for the e500. Apple's implimentation has dual RIO ports and a memory controller. The interconnect is the e500 native OCEAN and this is a wide/fast bus, only for on die interconnects. Multiprocessing in handled via RapidIO's 16 bit variant. It connects to a RapidIO hub (RIOH) that serves as the central hub for various RIO devices, such as peripheral controllers, PCI controllers, other PowerPC processors, network processors, etc. The hub controls the bit width and frequency, and this is determined by the distance from the hub (trace length). If both processors are proximate to the RIOH then you can have them connect at a low overhead 16bit wide RIO tunnel at a 2GHz freqency. To connect to a PCI controller you can keep the 16 bit wide port or if pin out is an issue you may need to drop it to 8 bit and run it at a lower frequency such as 500MHz. RIO is capable of over 7GBps bandwidth running at 16bit.

The beauty of Book E is the modularity. The way Motorola designed it was so a customer can pick and choose the components. this was as long as the customer had the money to spend as I imagine this is not an inexpensive proposistion. But it is an ideal solution for Apple. They can choose the size of the L2 cache, number of e500 cores, kind of memory controllers available, if they wanted a PCI controller also embedded... And rumor is that e500 core will soon be joined by another high performance core. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure wish Dorsal would give us more info.

[Barto]

[quote]Originally posted by gumby5647:
<strong>

you haven't been in a high school lately have you? Thereare buget crunches going on all over the US. The Maine iBook deal almost didn't go through.....

[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Whatever. People who can afford new Power Macs can afford updated software to go with them, thats all I said.

Barto

[tsukurite]

[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

Whatever. People who can afford new Power Macs can afford updated software to go with them, thats all I said.

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope, nope, nope. Schools that can afford new hardware usually do it in stages. First the hardware, then next budget year, more software, or vice versa. Hardly ever does it happen all at once. I have never seen a technology plan for a school or district that was less than 3 years. There just isn't the money.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by tsukurite:
<strong>Nope, nope, nope. Schools that can afford new hardware usually do it in stages. First the hardware, then next budget year, more software, or vice versa. Hardly ever does it happen all at once. I have never seen a technology plan for a school or district that was less than 3 years. There just isn't the money.</strong><hr></blockquote>


This debate is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and everybody keeps talking about "schools" as if they were completely the same the world over... since when do all schools behave the same? Especially in different parts of the world, in different economic situations, and at different levels (i.e. grade school, etc). Give it a rest, guys -- I have no doubt that each of you has a bunch of particular schools for which your argument is true.

[tsukurite]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>


This debate is getting a little long-in-the-tooth, and everybody keeps talking about "schools" as if they were completely the same the world over... since when do all schools behave the same? Especially in different parts of the world, in different economic situations, and at different levels (i.e. grade school, etc). Give it a rest, guys -- I have no doubt that each of you has a bunch of particular schools for which your argument is true.</strong><hr></blockquote>

*sigh*. Sorry. You're right. :o

[Blizaine]

Hmmm....


Maybe if I bump this thread, Dorsal will be able to find it easier and post some more info...


oooorrrr, maybe not :(

[Dorsal M]

All in good time.

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>All in good time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[sizzle chest]

If that's not proof that he's toying with AI in a Kormac-like fashion, I don't know what is.

[MacRonin]

Now that was just plain wrong Dorsal M...!

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[MacJedai]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>All in good time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dorsal, ya disappoint me. No word at all would have been better. Not to get nasty, but are you becoming a "troll artist" now? String'n us along, and laugh'n all the way. Or is there some "legit" reason for say'n "All in good time". "Times a runn'n out ... ya burn'n daylight, Boy!"

[IQ78]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Why the skepticism about France? AMD's monster fab is in Germany...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, man.... ouch. Did somebody just imply that French engineering/manufactoring is comparable to German engineering/manufactoring?

Pegeot.... Mercedes.... Renault..... Porsche....
Cameca..... Siemen's,,,,,

I've used quite a bit of French and German engineered scientific equipment. I'll take German engineering/manufactoring. (though, when the French stuff happens to work, it's not too bad)

[sCreeD]

[quote]<strong>Dorsal, ya disappoint me. No word at all would have been better.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Chill out lads!

Dorsal has yet to go on the pie-in-the-sky benders that Kormac has gone.

19 days to go.

Is it too soon for a countdown thread?

Screed

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by IQ78:
<strong>Oh, man.... ouch. Did somebody just imply that French engineering/manufactoring is comparable to German engineering/manufactoring?

Pegeot.... Mercedes.... Renault..... Porsche....
Cameca..... Siemen's,,,,,

I've used quite a bit of French and German engineered scientific equipment. I'll take German engineering/manufactoring. (though, when the French stuff happens to work, it's not too bad)</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think its a serious mistake to write off any particular country's new technology efforts. Things change fast in this industry, and there is plenty of money being thrown at it. China, for example, hasn't been known for being "high tech" but now that Intel and Motorola both have huge investments there, generalizations putting down the Chinese high tech industry would be a mistake. France has had some successes, they just haven't had the huge investments necessary to be a world leader in this industry -- that may be changing. The USA's strength isn't assured, either -- international snobbery is a mistake.

[The All Knowing 1]

[quote]Originally posted by sCreeD:
<strong>

Chill out lads!

Dorsal has yet to go on the pie-in-the-sky benders that Kormac has gone.

19 days to go.

Is it too soon for a countdown thread?

Screed

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Didn't you just start one?
:D

[IQ78]

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

I think its a serious mistake to write off any particular country's new technology efforts

.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree. I really didn't mean for the message to be taken too seriously. I was just taking a cheap shot.

But you're right, I should be careful with my harmless cheap shots, they could be mistaken as an offensive by a frenchman, resulting in an immediate surrender of all of France.

That wouldn't be good.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by IQ78:
<strong>I agree. I really didn't mean for the message to be taken too seriously. I was just taking a cheap shot.

But you're right, I should be careful with my harmless cheap shots, they could be mistaken as an offensive by a frenchman, resulting in an immediate surrender of all of France.

That wouldn't be good.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Careful, they may still have a guillotine or two sitting around.

[Junkyard Dawg]

Dorsal M doesn't know anything, he's just pulling our chains.

[ouroboros]

I'm beginning to wonder if ANYONE knows anything AT ALL. Doesn't it feel like we are all groping in the dark for a lamp, and someone like Dorsal goes, "Over here!" and we all stumble and trip in that direction for a while, until another 'helpful' person yells that they have something somewhere else.

[Bigc]

It's all just wishful thinking. Ain't no harm unless you take it seriously.
Seeing is believing (sometimes).

[Addison]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>All in good time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This isn't the 'real' Dorsal M. Look at the post count!

[lundy]

[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>

This isn't the 'real' Dorsal M. Look at the post count!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, it's him. The real Dorsal has 12 posts.

[pey/coy-ote]

Moki has a relevant post in disaster at MWNY, ( top of page 3) lending some credence to the spymac rumor, and answering some questions posted here, namely new 166 MHz bus & DDR ram. While no disaster this is less heartening than the pleasant suprise rumor. :(

[murk]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>All in good time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hurry, Dorsal…The RDF is growing weak… Don't know how…gasp…much longer…gasp…I can hold on… ;) :p

[Moogs]

Maybe Dorsal M knows what he's talking about and maybe he doesn't, but one thing's for sure. JYD is bi-polar.

One day he touts a given rumor as proof that an amazing Power Mac upgrade is coming, the next day he claims Apple is doomed. Get something through your head dude: NO ONE here has verifiable knowledge of ANYthing in terms of future Apple hardware. Therefore, the wise course of action is to not buy into any of it too much (whether its optimistic or pessimistic), and stop trying to predict Apple's future based on a friggin trade show, OK?

Find something better to do with your time.

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>Maybe Dorsal M knows what he's talking about and maybe he doesn't, but one thing's for sure. JYD is bi-polar.

One day he touts a given rumor as proof that an amazing Power Mac upgrade is coming, the next day he claims Apple is doomed. Get something through your head dude: NO ONE here has verifiable knowledge of ANYthing in terms of future Apple hardware. Therefore, the wise course of action is to not buy into any of it too much (whether its optimistic or pessimistic), and stop trying to predict Apple's future based on a friggin trade show, OK?

Find something better to do with your time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly!

I agree with JYD in concept, at least... I have no doubt that we most likely won't see much more than the SpyMac rumour at MWNY. I also have no doubt that at some point in the not-too-distant future (i.e. 12 months, and no that isn't too long) we will see a radical architecture change and a new processor that will significantly improve performance. The new technology machine will likely be along the lines of what Dorsal, TheRegister, etc have described. It will arrive when it is ready and can be produce en mass, but we have yet to see any believable information on when that will be.

[Mack Damon]

Yeah!

[Alexis]

[quote]Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<strong>

I've been reading moki's MacNN posts for many months, and never had a doubt it's the same fellow.

Besides, what would be the point of spoofing moki only to be just as reticent as he is on MacNN?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I can guarantee that's the President of Ambrosia Software. Believe it or not.

--Alexis

[hot cha]

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>Maybe Dorsal M knows what he's talking about and maybe he doesn't, but one thing's for sure. JYD is bi-polar.

One day he touts a given rumor as proof that an amazing Power Mac upgrade is coming, the next day he claims Apple is doomed. Get something through your head dude: NO ONE here has verifiable knowledge of ANYthing in terms of future Apple hardware. Therefore, the wise course of action is to not buy into any of it too much (whether its optimistic or pessimistic), and stop trying to predict Apple's future based on a friggin trade show, OK?

Find something better to do with your time.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Amen.

[MacRonin]

Here we go again...

BUMP!

Come on Dorsal M, let us know what is going on...!

Although, I probably won't get a new PowerMac until after MWSF2003, a new laptop will have to do until then...

Sure would be nice to see a 1GHz TiBook w/SuperDrive...! And maybe (call me crazy) Apple could manage to get the nVidia Quadro2 Go GPU (64MB DDR) in there.

But I would expect that won't happen until MWSF2003 either...!

Cheers!

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Programmer]

[quote]Originally posted by Alexis:
<strong>

I can guarantee that's the President of Ambrosia Software. Believe it or not.

--Alexis</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but why should be believe you? You could all be cream popsicles for all I know.

And stop bumping this thread just for the sake of bumping it. I'm sure another Dorsal post will get noticed no matter what. He's either a real mole, or he's a very patient spoof of a real mole... either way, he can probably find his last post.

[MacRonin]

don't you hate when folks edit out their entire post...?!?

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: MacRonin ]</p>

[Falcon]

OT
Ok since Dorsal is taking a break I shal take it upon myself to entertain you mac people with Teh Funnery for aprox 2.85 seconds.

Teh Funnary starts now!

http://www.cossentino.com/corey/winnerisyou.jpg

http://www.falloutboy.net/~mark/2shortof3.jpg

[elided]

Teh Funnary ends now!

If my PC hadn't complety melted down (and I meen total destruction here), and as such wasnt forced to use crappy broadband, on a crappy IBM thinkpad (eraser heads are the spawn of satan) I would be able to find more.

Back on topic!

[ 07-01-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[Addison]

[quote]Originally posted by lundy:
<strong>

Yeah, it's him. The real Dorsal has 12 posts.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No I don't believe so as there are two posts showing the count as 12. They can't both be right.

[Mandricard]

Addison, as soon as you post, all of your post counts go up. Check your own post counts on other threads.

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

[Addison]

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>Addison, as soon as you post, all of your post counts go up. Check your own post counts on other threads.

Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I never realised that. I thought they increased sequentially. Sorry.

[BobtheTomato]

Oh dear, the rumor mill has started to swallow its own tail....<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/29060201.htm" target="_blank">Inquirer speculation about G4s at MWNY</a>

[Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist]

[quote]Originally posted by BobtheTomato:
<strong>Oh dear, the rumor mill has started to swallow its own tail....<a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/29060201.htm" target="_blank">Inquirer speculation about G4s at MWNY</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

Apart from my <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001827" target="_blank">thread</a>, whose raison d'etre was destroyed by Programmer's link to an article today in the Register (and which was not even a rumour, more an analysis of the possibility), where are these other rumours of an AAPL takeover of SGI?

To be honest, these guys approach to this article appears to be the recycling of much of the content contained here on AI, presenting it as serious editorial content and then charging advertisers. How they then have the gall to make an All Rights Reserved statement on the webpage is beyond me!!

Just my $0.02!

[sc_markt]

Not sure where to post this link or even if its relevent but here it is:

<a href="http://www.marvell.com/Internet/News/Show_News_File/1,2410,387,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.marvell.com/Internet/News/Show_News_File/1,2410,387,00.html</a>

Its a press release about controllers that incorporate an advanced, high-performance 100 Gbps crossbar switch architecture for G3's, G4's, and MIPs processors.

[anand]

Is this the next Powermac:

"The Discovery II MV64360, MV64361 and MV64362 devices are designed for PowerPC processors such as Motorola's MPC74xx and MPC75x families and IBM's 750Cxe/FX series CPUs, and support both the 60x and the advanced Motorola MPX bus protocols. They are the only system controllers to support Symmetrical Multi-Processing (SMP) in both 60x and MPX modes, resulting in highest processor performance.

Both the Discovery II MV64340 and MV64360 devices are full featured system controllers, offering a 72-bit DDR memory controller with a 183 MHz clock rate (366 Mbps data rate), on-board 2Mb SRAM, dual 64-bit PCI/PCI-X interfaces, PCI bridge and arbiter, three 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet controllers, two multi-protocol serial channels, and I2C and interrupt controllers.

The Discovery II MV64341 and MV64361 controllers offer a 72-bit DDR memory controller with a 183 MHz clock rate (366 MHz data rate), on-board 2 Mb SRAM, dual 32-bit PCI/PCI-X interfaces, PCI bridge and arbiter, two 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet controllers, two multi-protocol serial channels, and I2C and interrupt controllers.

The Discovery II MV64342 and MV64362 each provide a 72-bit DDR memory controller with a 183 MHz clock rate (366 MHz data rate), single 64-bit PCI/PCI-X interface, PCI bridge and arbiter, a single 10/100/1000 Mbps Ethernet controller, I2C and interrupt controllers. They are targeted for system solutions employing a single processor and requiring minimal communications functionality."


This would not be bad at all!

[iconmaster]

From the same page:

[quote] * High level of integration incorporating up to three Gigabit Ethernet MACs, up to two PCI-X interfaces, and DDR memory support, allowing for the quick development of next-generation systems. <hr></blockquote>

Well, it doesn't get any more plain than that, folks. Along with this new Discovery II architecture, Apple will be beefing up its Gigabit Ethernet Macs with DDR memory and PCI-X. Excellent!


...


Yes, I know. It was a joke.

[mugwump]

(dare I state the obvious to this dude and point out the acutal quote of his quote which is "MACS" and not "Macs".)

This has nothing to do with computers from Apple, Inc. It does have to do with communications, though.

[ihxo]

Yup the Ethernet MAC has nothing to do with Mac. Seriously don't get too excited.

[Bigc]

What would you do wth three-1Gb/s Ethernet Controllers?

[MacRonin]

Hey mugwump, ihxo and Bigc, I almost went for the 'Post Reply' button myself...

iconmaster said:

[quote]Yes, I know. It was a joke.<hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya Unlimited for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[Barto]

<a href="http://www.marvell.com/Internet/Products/products/1,2414,1-44-218-46,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.marvell.com/Internet/Products/products/1,2414,1-44-218-46,00.html</a>

Where's my Quad CPU, ECC DDR366 Power Mac already! :)

The current Uni-N (Apple Northbridge) has 1 Gigabit MAC, with a PHY doing timing.

Three Gigabit MACs mean that an Xserve with 2-4 onboard ethernet controllers would be cheaper for Apple to produce.

I'd be happy if someone ported Darwin to one of their reference platforms :)

Barto

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>

[mugwump]

[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
[QB]Hey mugwump, ihxo and Bigc, I almost went for the 'Post Reply' button myself... <hr></blockquote>


Ah yeah, he is clearly on top of things

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[wormboy]

My God... this is great news!.
[quote] "Enabling even more applications to take advantage of Motorola's high-performance PowerPC ISA-based host processors, the new Marvell Discovery II devices provide support for our advanced MPX bus protocol," mentioned Bill Dunnigan, Vice President and General Manager of Motorola's Computing Platform Division. "The combination of Motorola's award-winning MPC74XX processors and these new controllers delivers a high performance, high bandwidth solution with compelling price and power dissipation advantages." <hr></blockquote>

This seems to solve the MPX bus incompatibility with DDR. By offering solutions for both the MPX and a DDR 183 MHz memory controller... wow! I am stocked about this one. Great find!

[Barto]

Does this have multiple MPX busses (which explains the 2MB of SRAM for syncing)?

Barto

[Barto]

There is no MPX/DDR compatibility problem, as the MPX bus has nothing to do with what memory controller (be it SDR/DDR SDRAM or RDRAM) is used.

The fact that this is networking (lots of non CPU-Memory communication) orientated (4 DMA controllers, 1 onboard gig-e, 3 onboard gig-e MACs, 64-bit PCI), would explain the pairing of MPX/60x with such high speed (366MHz effective ECC) DDR RAM, but here's hoping: does this have multiple MPX/60x buses?

Barto

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>

[wormboy]

As far as I can tell, controllers from Marvell are not used in any current desktop machines. Can anyone confirm this? The Discovery series and <a href="http://www.marvell.com/Internet/Products/Product_Family/1,2413,1-3,00.html" target="_blank">other PPC system controllers</a> seem to be exclusively marketed for embedded and high throughput networking applications. Do any of you hardware jocks know what the Discovery II series lacks that would be needed in a desktop machine?

[wormboy]

Hmmm, I also just noticed that Marvell is <a href="http://ir.shareholder.com/MRVL/stock2.cfm?period=03" target="_blank">getting hammered</a> pretty badly on the Nasdaq over the last few months. Is this a sinking ship? (or should I say... stinking chip? <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> )

Edit: changed URL

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>

[Rooster]

[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>There is no MPX/DDR compatibility problem, as the MPX bus has nothing to do with what memory controller (be it SDR/DDR SDRAM or RDRAM) is used.

The fact that this is networking (lots of non CPU-Memory communication) orientated (4 DMA controllers, 1 onboard gig-e, 3 onboard gig-e MACs, 64-bit PCI), would explain the pairing of MPX/60x with such high speed (366MHz effective ECC) DDR RAM, but here's hoping: does this have multiple MPX/60x buses?

Barto

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Multiple MPX/60x buses connected to one bridge controller are probably nonsense, because MPX bus is not point to point topology (as the athlon bus) but a shared bus (as PIII, or Xeon)
Perhaps a hardware guru can put some light on this.

Moto answer to this problem is RAPIDIO, simmilar to Hypertransport by AMD hammer cpu.

rooster

[superd]

Though I'm no hardware expert by anymeans, but, I can read (Press releases)... to paraphrase Moki

These aren't the boards you are looking for...

Marvell as far as I know is in the business of building hardware for routers and high end telecom equipement. The communications industry also uses Motorola chips hence they are mentioned in the press release. I'm quite confident that these boards have absolutely nothing to do with Apple or "computers". Though I really wish that these boards and specs did have something to do with Apple, I'm afraid that isn't the case.

Please someone prove me wrong...

Superd

(Edited for clarity)

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: superd ]</p>

[Rooster]

[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>As far as I can tell, controllers from Marvell are not used in any current desktop machines. Can anyone confirm this? The Discovery series and <a href="http://www.marvell.com/Internet/Products/Product_Family/1,2413,1-3,00.html" target="_blank">other PPC system controllers</a> seem to be exclusively marketed for embedded and high throughput networking applications. Do any of you hardware jocks know what the Discovery II series lacks that would be needed in a desktop machine?</strong><hr></blockquote>

By Chris Rijk
Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:24 AM EDT Purchase the PDF


2-way Apple PowerPC systems


Chipset architecture: The basic architecture is similar to Intel's dual processor systems - two CPUs sharing a bus with an ASIC ("GT-64260") that has a memory controller. However, it seems the chipset Apple uses has the southbridge integrated as well, which should save costs, power, size and increase (I/O related) performance a little bit. Up to 1.5GByte/s of SDRAM is supported, though a newer chipset supports up to 2GByte/s of DDR SDRAM.

the link:http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000226

rooster

[Programmer]

Well Apple is supposed to be "working with another chip company", right? Perhaps the Xserve uses one of these Discovery chipsets?
Or maybe it has nothing to do with Apple.

[Addison]

Cnet are running a story that Jaguar will be ready at the begining of August. This would tie in nicely with a new processor/motherboard configuration, assuming that they are shipping in april.

[iconmaster]

[quote] "The combination of Motorola's award-winning MPC74XX processors and these new controllers delivers a high performance, high bandwidth solution with compelling price and power dissipation advantages." <hr></blockquote>

If this controller can turn the G4 (MPC74XX) into a "high-bandwidth solution" without cutting out its MPX bus, why in the world wouldn't Apple jump at the chance to use it in a PowerMac?

[wormboy]

So, Rooster pointed us to a link that said that:
[quote] 2-way Apple PowerPC systems


Chipset architecture: The basic architecture is similar to Intel's dual processor systems - two CPUs sharing a bus with an ASIC ("GT-64260") that has a memory controller. <hr></blockquote>

So, in fact, current dual processor machines do in fact use this Marvell controller (GT-64260 is a Discovery I part number).

The Discovery II series does in fact offer a controller designed for a single processor PPC based system, as well as dual processor systems. I think we will be getting these controllers on new machines announced at Macworld NY.

Given this, what implications does this have for overall system specification??

Edit: Discovery... Dimension... whatever.

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>

[ouroboros]

Personally, I don't know much about the systems, companies, etc. But when that guy above posted this link, I had heard of Marvell before. Didn't Dorsal or someone else here on these boards post that the *NEW* chips will use Marvell.

My point is that I have heard of this company before in relation to a rumor regarding MWNY, and then this comes a couple weeks before. So my gut feeling is that this will be the technology in the new G4's.

[BobtheTomato]

[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>Cnet are running a story that Jaguar will be ready at the begining of August. This would tie in nicely with a new processor/motherboard configuration, assuming that they are shipping in april.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Time travel?

Reckless use of Quantum Processors?

[Analogue bubblebath]

[quote]If this controller can turn the G4 (MPC74XX) into a "high-bandwidth solution" without cutting out its MPX bus, why in the world wouldn't Apple jump at the chance to use it in a PowerMac?<hr></blockquote>

Because they already have the Xserve controller.

[Bodhi]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>All in good time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah you see Dorsal has to lay low a little while longer to see what the rumor sites start reporting so he can put his educated "guess" together as to what Apple is doing. We all agree that these guesses are written very very well but like Kormac there seems to be that "...I don't know what Apple did? Maybe there was a last minute change cause the systems were ready..." type thing after the Macworlds. Dorsal has been ready once and that was the 466, 533, 667 & 733 machines. Since then he has been off.

Sorry if I go against the 'praise Dorsal' grain here, I just don't buy it anymore.

[ouroboros]

Well my mention of Dorsal wasn't in praise. I simply had only heard of that company in relation to a rumor. *MAYBE* it means something, maybe not. But I just found it interesting. I think that the listing of actual processor part numbers that Apple uses in the press releases is pretty simple to understand. Either the tech. is there for Apple to use if it wants too, or the tech HAS been used. Personally I think Apple would be stupid not to take them up. And so what if they typically only make these systems for routers, etc. everything that is needed to boost Apple's line is here. Granted, having 3 Gigabit ethernet switches might be a bit overboard, but I'm sure some program or the future will find use for this.

[sc_markt]

[quote]Originally posted by ouroboros:
<strong>Well my mention of Dorsal wasn't in praise. I simply had only heard of that company in relation to a rumor. *MAYBE* it means something, maybe not. But I just found it interesting. I think that the listing of actual processor part numbers that Apple uses in the press releases is pretty simple to understand. Either the tech. is there for Apple to use if it wants too, or the tech HAS been used. Personally I think Apple would be stupid not to take them up. And so what if they typically only make these systems for routers, etc. everything that is needed to boost Apple's line is here. Granted, having 3 Gigabit ethernet switches might be a bit overboard, but I'm sure some program or the future will find use for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If your referring to Apple having used Marvell's parts before, they have, according to this link.

<a href="http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000231" target="_blank">http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000231</a>
GT-64260 is a Marvell part #.

You can read about it on this page:
<a href="http://www.marvell.com/Internet/Products/products/1,2414,1-4-18-12,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.marvell.com/Internet/Products/products/1,2414,1-4-18-12,00.html</a>

I don't know if this new controller really means much but it might be a good sign because Marvell is making these chips for both the PowerPC and MIPs processors. It might mean something better (faster) is coming that will be used by this controller.

I'm not a computer hardware expert so take my thoughts on this lightly.

[wormboy]

I think that this is potentially the biggest hint of what will be in future Macs that we have had in a long time. And it is far mre reliable than any potential mole.

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>

[TommyBrando]

Sorry if this isnt the appropriate thread to post this in, i wanted to start a new thread but figured the ass-face admins would lock it quicker than you could say "i have no life and i spend all day as an 'admin' on a macinotsh rumors board pretending i have some sort of power".
I just wanted to lay to rest all these thoughts if the iMac def. getting an update at MWNY. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not really. Apple is sitting on 15 weeks of inventory (yes, thats right. inventory of iMacs) and theyre supposed to come out with NEW models in 13 days? :rolleyes:
If they update the iMac (hardware specs, no pricing changes or anything like that just to boost sales of current iMac) then i promise i will start a thread in General Discussion of how big of a jackass i am. I'm pretty sure though :)

[Blizaine]

[quote]Originally posted by TommyBrando:
<strong>Sorry if this isnt the appropriate thread to post this in, i wanted to start a new thread but figured the ass-face admins would lock it quicker than you could say "i have no life and i spend all day as an 'admin' on a macinotsh rumors board pretending i have some sort of power".
I just wanted to lay to rest all these thoughts if the iMac def. getting an update at MWNY. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Not really. Apple is sitting on 15 weeks of inventory (yes, thats right. inventory of iMacs) and theyre supposed to come out with NEW models in 13 days? :rolleyes:
If they update the iMac (hardware specs, no pricing changes or anything like that just to boost sales of current iMac) then i promise i will start a thread in General Discussion of how big of a jackass i am. I'm pretty sure though :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Umm, I think the Admin's do a decent job and are justified in closing useless and repetitive threads, and they would have been justified in locking this if it was in it's own thread, because this statement has been made in about 8 other threads...

Oh and BTW, Apple isn't the one with the inventory, the dealers are. This is because Apple gave them all a $100 incentive on all iMac's till the end of June. If they do not update the iMac's at MWNY, it will be because they want to focus on Pro machines, not because of inventory that their dealers have.

Blizaine

[Bodhi]

Yes it WILL be because of inventory. My friend works for a specialist. He checked inventories today with me on the phone at TechData and Ingram. They are swimming in iMacs. No way there will be an iMac update. The fact that dealers got a $100 incentive means nothing if the distribution centers are stocked high with them. Remember when Apple went from 400 - 450 - 500 to 400 - dual 450 and dual 500? They had 11 weeks of Power Mac inventory in the channel and it killed them. It was a disaster. It balooned up to 14 weeks at one point and Apple spent two entire quarters widdling down that inventory with rebates and incentives while also giving price protection to dealers on the older machines. If there were new iMacs coming the channel would be drying up. On another note Ingram doesn't have a single Powerbook at ANY distribution warehouse, they are both backordered...but that is for another thread! ;)

[BobtheTomato]

[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>Yes it WILL be because of inventory. My friend works for a specialist. He checked inventories today with me on the phone at TechData and Ingram. They are swimming in iMacs. No way there will be an iMac update. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I thinl you are right, but if there are 17 and or 19 inch IMacs coming they could slot over the current models (with price reductions).

Myself I think with the Sputtering economy Apple will probably focus on pro equipment. Pros don't buy on novelty, they buy on Specs and need. Apple has some chance to goose sales on pro machines. Consumers aren't buying in mass right now and by the time they are any novelty will have worn off a machine introduced at MWNY.

[Eugene]

Uh...wouldn't lagging iMac sales be incentive for Apple to update the machines?

[SarasotaBob13]

Who's to say that the stockpiled iMacs are not the upgraded models and ready for immediate sale as announced at MWNY :D

[johnsonwax]

[quote]Originally posted by BobtheTomato:
<strong>

I thinl you are right, but if there are 17 and or 19 inch IMacs coming they could slot over the current models (with price reductions).</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not a chance. Just as faster iMacs would prevent moving that inventory, so would bigger screen iMacs.

[quote]<strong>Myself I think with the Sputtering economy Apple will probably focus on pro equipment.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, the problem with Pros is that they tend to react even more severely to ups and downs of the economy. Quite honestly, I don't see anything at MWNY having a substantial impact on Apple's bottom line due to the economy. *Maybe* a low-cost, high-volume device, ala iPod. Certainly Pro hardware would help, but it'll not be received by large sales.

In whole, there's a certain short-term desperation in Apple's actions. Stuffing the channel, inadvertent as it might be is uncharacteristic of them. There is a HUGE and unique effort to get Jaguar out the door. People I know at Apple are working sundays and evenings like never before.

As moki has hinted, I think that Apple had intended to get more substantial hardware on the street by now. There really hasn't been anything released in a while to get the Pro market itching to buy. The recent acquisitions suggest that Apple is finally looking for new revenue streams, and perhaps that a substantial pro offering is soon to arrive.

The Marvell press release is *very* encouraging. 8GB DDR @ 366MHz, but don't expect anything beyond a 74xx chip. Push up the clock to maybe 1.4GHz, and a dual box will go a very long ways to catching up with AMD/Intel. Toss in Jaguar and Quartz Extreme and pro users could conceivably see a performance jump of 100% over what they have today in 10.1.5 and the dual 1GHz. Let's hope.

[Krassy]

i don't get it - why the shortfall of iMac sales? i thought a few month ago they had preorders for at least two month production time? did the 100$ increase have this effect? is the iMac less attractive because new PowerMacs are on their way? hmmm.... strange....

[ZoranS]

WTF is it with this post hi-jacking, huh?

Keep to topic please :p

[Bodhi]

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Uh...wouldn't lagging iMac sales be incentive for Apple to update the machines?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not if they have to give price protection to hundreds or thousands of iMacs.

Specs are not keeping iMacs from selling.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"Specs are not keeping iMacs from selling."

Consumers aren't buying PCs with the previous fever pitch, certainly.

However, news on Macworld site shows that PC makers, having achieved the landmark 1 billion(th) in PC sales can expect to sell as many again in quicker time (probably due to emerging markets like China...)

While home markets are relatively saturated...Apple has the advantage that it has 95% of the market to go at. (Hell, Dell ((that rhymes...)) is selling plenty...so someone is buying even in a saturated market...)

Specs, I feel, while not the be all and end all, don't help Apple here. Forgeting the super drive on the top end iMac and... Geforce 2 Mx? They can do better than a card that is two years old. It was dirt cheap when first launched. So it must be helping Apple's margins here. At least offer the Geforce 4mx. Gawd.

Even budget PCs have big bus and DDR. Let's hope the imac can get at least 133 bus and ATA 100.

And that price jack. Come on Apple, drop the price. Half a year later, the price on the iMac has gone from reasonable to over priced.

So, the economy may be stopping some people from buying but...Apple doesn't always help itself with the gawdamn out a date specs.

It stops me from buying. There may be 'one or two' like me.

My point is, bar the superb styling and the superdrive, the top end iMac would look over priced in a beige box.

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"Johnny7896
macrumors newbie

Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 11
P4 verse Mac
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4’s don’t operate at 2.4 Ghz.
My electronics teacher informed me that a true and verifiable test was performed on the P4 to measure it’s operating speed. The University that did the study hooked up oscilloscopes to the P4 to find it’s Hertz reading. What they discovered was the main cpu runs at 1.4 Ghz and the co-processor (Internal Math) runs at 1.0 Ghz. Intel added the 2 speeds together to advertise a total additive speed of 2.4 Ghz. The P4 isn’t a true 2.4 Ghz and up processor. The P4 actual speed runs far less than the advertised speed. Intel can do this cause there isn’t any government regulation on processor speeds. This is very similar to the case of the monitors being sold by viewable and monitor size. The government started to require a “buyer beware” regulation stating the true viewable size verse the monitor’s physical size. Not many people know this fact cause the results have just been published. This also explains the huge difference in the Athlon 1.7Ghz kiling the P4 2.4Ghz. Come on guys do the math 1.7 greater than 2.4????? I’ll try to find a link soon and post it. This could really change the future of the computer industry. All you people thinking wintel is winning......surprise!! Bottom line stick with the MAC. Intel is pulling the wool over people’s eyes. Just like Microsoft. Like those apples....

Wake up people!!!!
Spread the real News!!!!
Knowledge is contagious!!!"

As you regular posters know, I'm in no way CPU technical.

Okay.

Discuss.

Lemon Bon Bon

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[Mac+]

Very interesting... I'm waiting to see these reports verified/confirmed.

If this is the case, then is there a case for governmental regulations regarding the advertised processor speeds?

[Matsu]

Whoever wrote that passage has no idea about processors. A 1.7Ghz athlon doesn't come anywhere close to destroying a 2.4Ghz P4. The P4 is ahead in most tasks and it destroys the Athlon in any streaming media task. Plentiful benchmarks and timed tests in the PC publication world confirm this. This guy's head is in his ass.

However, I to did hear something about the way Intel counts cycles in the P4 and that a particular part of the proc performs twice as fast (but half as much work) as the rest of it. hence 2.4/1.2. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, P4 has the MOST OUTRIGHT PERFORMANCE of ANY CONSUMER DESKTOP CHIP.

[BobtheTomato]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"Johnny7896
macrumors newbie

Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 11
P4 verse Mac
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4’s don’t operate at 2.4 Ghz....... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, so All the overclockers who set the multiplier and bus clock themselves just haven't noticed? FOr this kind of deception to Work, Intel would need the cooperation of the motherboard and BIOS makers to keep it a secret. Via and Intel are such good friends, too. If I was intel I'd be putting "assymetrical clock" to use in portable products and advertising it on those processors as Well.

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: BobtheTomato ]</p>

[yurin8or]

[quote]Originally posted by olli:
<strong>What worries me is the other thread about an Apple Camera maybe being released also.
Jobs won't put 2 very big things in one event
(aka G5(or very big powerMac upgrade) and a new device).
So I hope the camera is for later</strong><hr></blockquote>

What's so great about an apple-branded camera??? The market is already flooded and I seriously doubt Apple will enter this space. I also doubt that we'll see a very big powermac upgrade.

[timortis]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>"Johnny7896
macrumors newbie

Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 11
P4 verse Mac
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4’s don’t operate at 2.4 Ghz.
My electronics teacher informed me that a true and verifiable test was performed on the P4 to measure it’s operating speed. The University that did the study hooked up oscilloscopes to the P4 to find it’s Hertz reading. What they discovered was the main cpu runs at 1.4 Ghz and the co-processor (Internal Math) runs at 1.0 Ghz. Intel added the 2 speeds together to advertise a total additive speed of 2.4 Ghz. The P4 isn’t a true 2.4 Ghz and up processor. The P4 actual speed runs far less than the advertised speed. Intel can do this cause there isn’t any government regulation on processor speeds. This is very similar to the case of the monitors being sold by viewable and monitor size. The government started to require a “buyer beware” regulation stating the true viewable size verse the monitor’s physical size. Not many people know this fact cause the results have just been published. This also explains the huge difference in the Athlon 1.7Ghz kiling the P4 2.4Ghz. Come on guys do the math 1.7 greater than 2.4????? I’ll try to find a link soon and post it. This could really change the future of the computer industry. All you people thinking wintel is winning......surprise!! Bottom line stick with the MAC. Intel is pulling the wool over people’s eyes. Just like Microsoft. Like those apples....

Wake up people!!!!
Spread the real News!!!!
Knowledge is contagious!!!"

As you regular posters know, I'm in no way CPU technical.

Okay.

Discuss.

Lemon Bon Bon

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>


This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Not only does the P4 run at 2.53 Ghz currently, its integer units also run at twice that frequency internally, which is 5 Ghz for the current top of the line.

[Matsu]

That's the bit. The interger units run at twice the speed of the rest of the CPU. I just didn't know if it was 1.2/2.4 or 2.4/4.8. I guess it's the latter (but I'm not sure) though it matters not since the P4 remains the fastest commercial desktop chip money can buy, period.

[*l++]

nally posted by Matsu:
<strong>That's the bit. The interger units run at twice the speed of the rest of the CPU. I just didn't know if it was 1.2/2.4 or 2.4/4.8. I guess it's the latter (but I'm not sure) though it matters not since the P4 remains the fastest commercial desktop chip money can buy, period.</strong>[/QUOTE]

It is not the fastest, it is the highest clocked chip (depending on your definition of desktop).
The line between desktop and workstation is very fine these days, and there are other lower clocked chips that have higher SPEC marks (but they are in workstations, many of which can happily live on a desktop)

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: *l++ ]</p>

[Lemon Bon Bon]

<a href="http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm" target="_blank">http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm</a>

While we're waiting for Dorsal to make up his next report...here's a link to chew on.

Pantium 4 vs Pantium 3.

Like the G4 500 vs G4 733?

Pipelines. Trade offs. Seems you have to really rachet the mhz 'speed' to get the 'benefit' of going to deeper pipelines.

Hmmm. An interesting read. Even more so if Apple can get DDR 1.5 G4s out the door.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>

[Matsu]

What other processors are widely available to run standard Windows +apps for the desktop that are faster than the P4? I'm hardly confusing Mhz for speed. Yes P4 is the fastest, and though it doesn't have the highest IPC, it has so many C's that not even the fastest Athlon can beat the 2.4 and 2.53. None. P4 IS THE MOST POWERFUL. Athlon comes close on some tasks, but the latest P4 core is fastest, and when it comes to streaming media, it is the fastest by quite a margin. Timed test or Benchmark, you can't find one set in any PC publication where the latest P4's fail to come out on top. So what's left in the x86 World? Via? Transmeta? Nope. AMD and Intel are the ONLY PLAYERS that matter for desktop (Windows environment) and of those two Intel is currently the fastest (most powerful, gets work done in the shortest amount of time, OK, I think that covers it :p ), though AMD does hold a price/performance edge.

[Jet Powers]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Whoever wrote that passage has no idea about processors. A 1.7Ghz athlon doesn't come anywhere close to destroying a 2.4Ghz P4. The P4 is ahead in most tasks and it destroys the Athlon in any streaming media task. Plentiful benchmarks and timed tests in the PC publication world confirm this. This guy's head is in his ass.

However, I to did hear something about the way Intel counts cycles in the P4 and that a particular part of the proc performs twice as fast (but half as much work) as the rest of it. hence 2.4/1.2. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, P4 has the MOST OUTRIGHT PERFORMANCE of ANY CONSUMER DESKTOP CHIP.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I can show you equally as many benchmarks tht shows that the P4 is all hat and no cattle, and that the Athlon can keep up and in many cases exceed the P4 at a FRACTION of the price.

So, well, who cares, in the end?

ting5

[JasonPP]

why are there so many Dorsal wanna be's?

[Bigc]

OK Dorsal, Fourth of July US Holiday and 2-weeks to go; where's the beef (pun intended).

[Mike]

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>What other processors are widely available to run standard Windows +apps for the desktop that are faster than the P4? I'm hardly confusing Mhz for speed. Yes P4 is the fastest, and though it doesn't have the highest IPC, it has so many C's that not even the fastest Athlon can beat the 2.4 and 2.53. None. P4 IS THE MOST POWERFUL. Athlon comes close on some tasks, but the latest P4 core is fastest, and when it comes to streaming media, it is the fastest by quite a margin. Timed test or Benchmark, you can't find one set in any PC publication where the latest P4's fail to come out on top. So what's left in the x86 World? Via? Transmeta? Nope. AMD and Intel are the ONLY PLAYERS that matter for desktop (Windows environment) and of those two Intel is currently the fastest (most powerful, gets work done in the shortest amount of time, OK, I think that covers it :p ), though AMD does hold a price/performance edge.</strong><hr></blockquote>

While the PIV is a very nice chip the PIII Xenon is still faster on a desktop workstation. I should also note that the PIV Xenon 2.4 is a VERY fast processor. However, the Athlon is almost just as fast as the PIV Xenon 2.4 with Hyperthreading. (You would be amazed at how close it is to the PIV Xenon 2.4...nearly no one would notice that it is slower.)

I just chose to go with dual PIV Xenon 2.4's in a server. The ONLY reason I didn't go with the Athlon is there isn't a complete package (like Dell has) with redundant everything! (see Dell PowerEdge 2650)

You may be correct for a home user. I really haven't purchased a desktop x86 machine in a couple years...just servers. AMD has also seemed to hit a brick wall right now where Intel continues to go faster and faster with the PIV and new PIII server chips.

[naepstn]

[quote]Originally posted by Mike:
<strong>

While the PIV is a very nice chip the PIII Xenon is still faster on a desktop workstation. I should also note that the PIV Xenon 2.4 is a VERY fast processor. However, the Athlon is almost just as fast as the PIV Xenon 2.4 with Hyperthreading. (You would be amazed at how close it is to the PIV Xenon 2.4...nearly no one would notice that it is slower.)

I just chose to go with dual PIV Xenon 2.4's in a server. The ONLY reason I didn't go with the Athlon is there isn't a complete package (like Dell has) with redundant everything! (see Dell PowerEdge 2650)

You may be correct for a home user. I really haven't purchased a desktop x86 machine in a couple years...just servers. AMD has also seemed to hit a brick wall right now where Intel continues to go faster and faster with the PIV and new PIII server chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>

For Pete's Sake...

It's XEON!!! Xenon is a noble gas, not a processor.

Hissy fit over. Sorry for the interruption. Just seen this typo about two dozen times on AI in the last week or so.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Benchmarks are one thing.

But at a local PC World today, the 2 gig plus AMD/Intel machines had noticeable more snap and zip in terms of OS response...but also more 'snap' when it came to launching and executing apps.

Sure, it's 'perception'...

I await 'power'Mac and 'X' performance improvements with interest.

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. I like mirroring the ibooks display on a 21 inch monitor. 'X' truly is more beautiful than XP...

[mook]

Computers always seem faster in the shop - when they have no software installed to drag them down.

[sCreeD]

[quote]Originally posted by mook:
<strong>Computers always seem faster in the shop - when they have no software installed to drag them down.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Too true, especially Windows 9x, 2000, and yes, Mac OS 9. They all fall victim to "cruft accretion." For Windows, Temp files and the registry just bloat. Also after a few months users will have a thousand little apps running in the system tray. (Who needs four chat programs?!?!)

For Classic, the System folder is the culprit.

Screed ...OT I know, but hey...

Oh BTW, 13 days...

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>i don't get it - why the shortfall of iMac sales? i thought a few month ago they had preorders for at least two month production time? did the 100$ increase have this effect? is the iMac less attractive because new PowerMacs are on their way? hmmm.... strange....</strong><hr></blockquote>

What? Other than the fact that they're ugly, overpriced, underpowered, pieces of disposable, unexpandable garbage?

[keyboardf12]

edit: he's not worth it.

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: keyboardf12 ]</p>

[Kecksy]

[quote]Originally posted by keyboardf12:
<strong>edit: he's not worth it.

[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: keyboardf12 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[Matsu]

Well, he's right on three counts: overpriced, underpowered, unexpandable. Yes, yes, there's always firewire, USB, Memory, and airport to cover most of the expansion one would ever need, but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Agreed Matsu.

Beat me to it.

Lemon Bon Bon :D

[KidRed]

Most who get an iMac have no idea what the hell a graphics card is, hahahahaha. Some on you take this way too seriously. There are plenty of people who just want a cool computer that works. My parents have a crt iMac and I have to tell them when to upgrade. I have to tell them to do everything to keep their system and software updated. My wife has the new iMac and as much as a mac head I am, I have to do the same for her. She has no idea what a graphics card is or does and that she may need to upgrade it.

Sure, there's some users that this may be important to, but a majority of iMac users aren't that into computers enough to worry about expandability. If you want expandibility get a tower.

Underpowered? HAhahaaha, yea, 800mhz (while the top chip is 1ghz) is underpowered <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I've used my wife's iMac and it's by no means slow or underpowered.

But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...

[jccbin]

Sorry, guys, but the iMac is not Overpriced, Underpowered and Unexpandable.

It is just Overpriced.

If the price were $899 for the bottom end, if would be flying off the shelves.

If the DVD-R iMac was $1199, it too would be flying into homes.

With all due respect, the problem is only the price.

If it had a 133Mhz bus, you could bump up the price by $100.

Oh, and the eMac is way overpriced at $1099.


:D

[Bigc]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...</strong><hr></blockquote>

...and if I don't get it my way I won't play.

[Xaqtly]

[quote]but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important.<hr></blockquote>

Why? You know the GeForce 2MX in the iMacs will work perfectly well with QE. They match QE's requirements... where's the problem? People who are going to buy iMacs won't need to upgrade their graphic cards for any reason I can think of. People who need big GPU power won't be getting iMacs to begin with... that's what the towers are for. So again I ask: where's the problem?

[Lemon Bon Bon]

The problem?

The iMac is now half a year out of date. The Geforce 2MX? It's really(!) out of date. It's about two years old and past its sell by date on a £1,600 computer. Heck, it was a budget card when it first arrived! The bus is crap and the ram speed is also crap for that price.

I'll show restraint here (as I know Amorph loves my 'current hardware' rants...)

All I'll say is: Future Hardware?

For £1,600:

17 inch LCD. A Geforce 4mx. DDR. A decent bus. A 1 gig G4...and Superdrive (and Superdrives on the PC side are getting cheaper!)

I don't think that's over the top. I'd probably say: maybe I'd buy at that.

Instead of driving down the price of the LCD iMac like they did with the original CRT iMac they introduce the eMac into the mainstream which I think is a cheap trick ala LCD iMac becomes the originally over priced Cube. Yeesh. Don't Apple ever learn from their mistakes?! Price them to fly off the shelves and they will. Apple just don't get it: critical mass. Take a hit on profits for market penetration/share.

Apple whinged about ram and LCD price spikes for the price increase...but the 15inch LCD, 2 gig XP Athlon with 512k of DDR/BUS huge hard drive with better Geforce 4mx graphics card etc is nearly £500 cheaper! Duh. Guess Apple like their margins.

Sorry it's off 'power'Mac Dorsal topic. But Dorsal is off topic...so it's no wonder nobody is really saying anything.

And sorry, the Geforce 2 Mx couldn't handle it's 32 bit colour mode two years ago...and was 'fair' at pro-3D. It was 'okay' then(!)

Lemon Bon Bon (Bump-ity-bump.)

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>

[rickag]

[quote]Originally posted by jccbin:
<strong>Sorry, guys, but the iMac is not Overpriced, Underpowered and Unexpandable.

It is just Overpriced.
:D </strong><hr></blockquote>


Out of curiosity, I just now went to Dell's webb site and outfited a Dell Dimension 4500S with a Celery chip(lowest end available), 15" LCD monitor and low end software options, and a superdrive. Low and behold the price was

$1826

This also did not include an upgraded graphics card, but still used on board graphics. What this is and compares to what is in the iMac w/ superdrive, I don't know, don't care either.

Overpriced, probably, but NOT BY MUCH.

What the Dell offers more than the iMac is PCI slots, and standard size video card, which some people(re: the iMac's target market) DON"T CARE ABOUT.

Also, just a guess, but, if the iMac owner is into home DVD video burning, the iMac will blow past the Dell like it was standing still. Altivec and all that, you know.

Edit:
Oh, and what else the Dell Dimension offers is Window XP <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>

[Mac The Fork]

The iMac isn't really overpriced for what it delivers, but it probably delivers the wrong things and has thus priced itself out of the market. People won't buy something just because it's a good value.

[jccbin]

I do not intend to support Dell in any way, but the crucial system shortcomings of the LCD iMac are in Bus Speed and in RAM volume.

In the above Dell system, what speed was the bus and how much RAM came with the unit?

The fact that another computer company has a comparable (if that even applies) product that costs as much or more than the iMac is just a reflection of what Dell and Apple think they can sell their products for.

IF the market is ready, willing, and able to buy at that price point - wonderful. The LCD iMac is, in my humble opinion, priced beyond it's target market's reach. Add in a stumbling consumer economy and you get weak financial quarters like the one just finished.

Consumers find the sweet spot in the $800-$1200 range, TOTAL Package (all upgrades, taxes, etc included). Apple's "consumer" LCD iMac is out of that range by nearly $300 (25%!!!) by the time you upgrade the RAM and pay the sales tax.

Again, I think the problem is price.

[Mike]

[quote]Originally posted by naepstn:
<strong>

For Pete's Sake...

It's XEON!!! Xenon is a noble gas, not a processor.

Hissy fit over. Sorry for the interruption. Just seen this typo about two dozen times on AI in the last week or so.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks mom <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I didn't even notice I did that :)

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"Again, I think the problem is price."

It's part of it.

See the proverb of the 'power'Mac.

Lemon Bon Bon

[cowofwar]

Yes, the imac is great for its supposedly target market. Home users who don't want to deal with the intricates of computers. Just wanting something to work. Web and email.

But then after that level there's the user who wants more power. To be able to play games, use large multimedia apps, but not do this as his job. To do this in his spare time out of interest. This person looks at the imac and notes that it doesn't provide what he needs so he passes on to the towers.

Oh no. This middle-user. Being neither a pro nor a home user is now stuck. He does not have the money to spend on a tower. $2,200 (cheapest) is a tad much for a computer that wont pay itself off.

So now he looks again, but only to discover that there is no middle solution. There's only a home user solution and a pro ( BWHA HAH HA HAH) solution. So he goes off and buys a Dell.

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>
Underpowered? HAhahaaha, yea, 800mhz (while the top chip is 1ghz) is underpowered <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I've used my wife's iMac and it's by no means slow or underpowered.

But I'm sure you'll disagree, so I'll leave you to your ripping of Apple and complaining and whining and moaning and crying and...</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's all relative.

I own a G3 500 and a P4 system. I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac. How on earth could you possibly say that it is not underpowered? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth :rolleyes: --shut up).

Apple has to lower the prices on the imacs. They're sitting on huge inventory because the price/performance ratio is pathetic. If Apple can't deliver performance then they have to drop the price.

P4 1.6@2.4ghz &lt;---&gt; G4 700mhz
Geforce 4 ti4400 &lt;---&gt; Geforce 2mx
dvd 16x40 and cdrw 32x10x40 &lt;---&gt; cdrw
19" CRT (1600x1200@85hz) &lt;---&gt; 15" LCD (1024x768)

Now if you're talking about the imac's performance relative to that of the tower's, then by all means, you're correct. The imac has great performance at a great price. You just have to hope that the consumer puts on a pair of blinders and walks straight to the Apple store without talking to any of his friends/neighbors who insist that he's getting shafted.

[PC^KILLA]

Or he waits on Apple endlessly to include him in its target market..

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>

It's all relative.

I own a G3 500 and a P4 system. I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac. How on earth could you possibly say that it is not underpowered? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth :rolleyes: --shut up).

Apple has to lower the prices on the imacs. They're sitting on huge inventory because the price/performance ratio is pathetic. If Apple can't deliver performance then they have to drop the price.

P4 1.6@2.4ghz &lt;---&gt; G4 700mhz
Geforce 4 ti4400 &lt;---&gt; Geforce 2mx
dvd 16x40 and cdrw 32x10x40 &lt;---&gt; cdrw
19" CRT (1600x1200@85hz) &lt;---&gt; 15" LCD (1024x768)

Now if you're talking about the imac's performance relative to that of the tower's, then by all means, you're correct. The imac has great performance at a great price. You just have to hope that the consumer puts on a pair of blinders and walks straight to the Apple store without talking to any of his friends/neighbors who insist that he's getting shafted.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Underpowered meaning it's no slow. I'm not comparing to anything butr basing it on how the cmputer performs on a daily basis using a vareity of apps. I'm glad you like your P4 that was cheaper then the lowend iMac. That has nothing to do with the iMac being underpowered however.

As for the blinded consumer, well I assume you mean non current mac users. In which case, it's a crap shoot and always has been. Macs are a novelty and we have to hope that the novelty spreads. I don't see Bose coming out with $50 speakers. I don't see BMW coming out with a loaded sedan for $20k. So you won't see a loaded mac anywhere near a loaded PC as far as I can conceive, at least not unless Apple were to have a bigger % of the market, even then, I think Apple will stay a little more expensive then the rest.

So the consumer will only be 'shafted' if he compares his 800mhz superdrive iMac to a Dell with a P4 that's cheaper in the eyes of another Windows loving user. I wouldn't think he was shafted or I'd be using windows right now. You use what you like and you pay for what you want.

[keyboardf12]

[quote]red? My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up). <hr></blockquote>

so all you moaning and groaning is based on this? um. what can i say other than.sure sometimes the pc is faster than the mac.

THEN ON THE other hand :)

your measley g4 700 mhz beats a 2ghz sony on encoding DVD video.

how's that for a megahertz myth? Know i get you cow of war and your mindset. let's just say we agree to disagree. :)


i think define a computer's power (and underpoweredness) on what can a person DO. What can the average grandma or person off the street DO with their computer. And by my reckoning an LCD IMAC that lets you easily connect and imports photos of the grandkids without headaches or importing a video of a daughter's first play WITHOUT a filmaking background (let alone a firewire driver degree)or a hundred other things IS Powerful! I'll give my mom a LCD imac any day of the week over a 2 ghz PC. why? Because she can DO stuff on her mac.without an IT team by her side

Blah blah, mhz, blah blah upgrade your video (as someone made an excellent argument to above) blah blah price (as someone else pointed out to blow your arguments.) I guess there are people out there that spend all their time in specs and not in doing cool stuff with their macs.

Megahertz myth?!!?

What about a MEGA-DO myth!!!!!

The myth that average people can get more done on their PC because its 1.4 ghz "faster" than on their MACS!


Of course, its good to see opinions like yours to remind others that believe in the "MEGA DO" myth that there is more to life than 2.4ghz machine filled with wait states and a PC of shite OS that asks where do you want to go today so we can forces you to sign up for their services and extend their monopoly.


<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Its all cool in the end though cowofwar i think we both want the best from apple and in the end if that happens we all win :)

[Xaqtly]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>The problem?

The iMac is now half a year out of date.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That doesn't address my post though. I said the iMac is QE compliant... and it IS. The original post I was responding to said this:

[quote] but with QE set to play a MUCH bigger role, the ability to upgrade the graphics is very important. <hr></blockquote>

I was simply pointing out that it's not that important. The GeForce 2MX meets QE's requirements, and QE isn't even out yet! I don't even know what people are complaining about, Warcraft III runs perfectly acceptably on my iMac/800. I don't give a tinker's cuss if I can get a P4/2GHz for the same price - it's not a MACINTOSH. No iDVD, no iMovie, no iPhoto, no OS X. No thanks.

[Kecksy]

It really is amazing what Altivec can do when utilized properly.

A G4 can encode MP3s and process video much faster than any P4, but few people ever mentions this.

If only a 700MHz G4 was faster than a 2GHz P4 in other things besides digital media and RC5.

Macs need to beat PCs in 3D before we can say there is a real megahertz myth.

[Telomar]

People seem overly obsessive about initial outlay costs (happens a great deal in the corporate world to and is a large part of what I work against). As it happens Macs often have better total costs over their product lifecycle. You'll pay more initially but ultimately end up paying less.

The number of great projects that are turned down for short term bottom line gain is sickening. Sorry just a pet peeve especially considering some of the outright idiocy of a few of the decisions that I saw made.

[All]

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>It really is amazing what Altivec can do when utilized properly.

A G4 can encode MP3s and process video much faster than any P4, but few people ever mentions this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I have a G4/867. I get 2.23x in LAME 3.93 (not Altivec accelerated, but about the only real choice for quality MP3s--the iTunes encoder sucks) with --r3mix. Meanwhile, a Pentium 4 at 2 GHz gets 9.47x in LAME 3.93 (which admittedly uses LAME's MMX routines, but has no SSE2 optimization at all, which is where the P4 really shines), using the same source file, and the same settings. Gogo 3.10 (LAME with optimizations for the P4), with "-v 0 -m j" flags, gets 26.86x. That's right, folks. Almost thirty times. Can you now tell me how the G4 is faster at this? Let me also mention that the crippled "altivec enhanced" commercial distributions of LAME such as N2MP3 don't even give me the flexibility to use --r3mix, and perform just as poorly (about 2.4-2.5x) with lower settings.

With regard to video, I can't even begin to convey the countless headaches I've had getting my Mac to work with DivX video, let alone the problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's. I'd say "processing video," as you say, is one of the main areas where the Mac needs to shape up, and in a hurry.
The potential might be there for some aspiring developer to reinvent the wheel and make these algorithms truly altivec optimized (or, in the case of LAME, at least hand-assemble the damn thing to speed it up), and give the user clear means by which to use them. However, I tend to view the glass as half empty, and given the past progress of these so-called "optimized" MP3 encoders, and video codecs that "just plain work," I just end up seeing the same old lackluster performance and/or stuff that just plain doesn't work. I could elaborate on this, but I don't want to post a thesis either.
I especially resent comments like this one that give validity to the state of the Mac platform in these areas, as they most certainly need a lot of work. While I may sound like the proverbial "troll" in criticizing the Mac platform for something (because God knows, no one who goes along with the status quo of the Mac world can do any wrong), I've tried actually using this stuff. I have fairly exacting standards, and I'm going to scream bloody murder until I feel the solutions for Mac are up to snuff. If you don't like it, flame away.

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
[QB]As for the blinded consumer, well I assume you mean non current mac users. In which case, it's a crap shoot and always has been. Macs are a novelty and we have to hope that the novelty spreads. I don't see Bose coming out with $50 speakers. I don't see BMW coming out with a loaded sedan for $20k. So you won't see a loaded mac anywhere near a loaded PC as far as I can conceive, at least not unless Apple were to have a bigger % of the market, even then, I think Apple will stay a little more expensive then the rest.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>

The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.

Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.

Sure Apple makes video editing easy for the target group of their imacs, but most of these useres are still scared off from it by the complexity. You need a video camera, you have to figure out how to use that, then you have to attach it to the mac, run programs, and then figure out how to use the program, fix the video and burn it. For us average users that may not seem like much, but try getting your mother to do that on her own...good luck.

Anyone capable of the above would be looking at a tower.

Well you'll have to excuse me, I need to get back to work trying to fix my mac. It keeps on getting a recurring kernel panic in 10.1.5 at the configuring network stage. Lovely. The mac's ease of use when this occurs is outstanding, because all the hexidecimal screen dumping sure helps. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: cowofwar ]</p>

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by keyboardf12:
<strong>
your measley g4 700 mhz beats a 2ghz sony on encoding DVD video.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

When was the last time you did that? When was the last time anyone did that?

And even if it is faster, I'd rather lose a couple minutes waiting than have to buy a whole new monitor the next time I get a new computer.

[firelark]

[quote] ...problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's <hr></blockquote>

What problems are those?
I agree that apple needs to get their shit together. The current hardware is good for just about nothing in the areas that matters, 3D and video. Apple profile them selfs to be experts on video but the hardware doesnt reflect that profile. Hope for changes this month.

[smeegs]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>

Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I for one do video regularly, thats what i do, not all of us on this board are just home users as you seem to be, some of us make a living from them. Have you ever used FCP3 it does video in Real Time on a <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> G4 733 thats a whole <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> 1.7GHz slower than a top of the line P4 which can't do that without an expensive (expensive to buy, expensive to install, expensive to maintain expensive tech support, and expensive to buy headache pills everytime (usually once a week) it fails to perform (I know I've been there)) ,breakout box, what was it...

My P4 system has three times the clock speed (megaheurtz myth --shut up).

I run a company that specialises in Digital Video and 3D, and while the Mac has some shortcomings in the 3D market (bound to be addressed in light of the recent aquisitions by our favourite fruit company) it still performs well (I defy anyone to tell whether a Mac or a PC was used to produce a scene, in fact some of Episode II was done on a Mac). It performs well enough for my company to justify shelling out over £3.5k on a machine that surpasses anything else (in its price range) for video, keeps its head above water for 3D, and to top that allows us to Master DVD's and burn previews for our clients, The all in one solution!!!. To do this on a PC would require multiple systems, multiple IT systems ?specialists?, and multiple headaches. What was it...

I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac.

Cheaper my ass

tbc

Smeegs

[smeegs]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>

Sure Apple makes video editing easy for the target group of their imacs.....

but try getting your mother to do that....

Anyone capable of the above would be looking at a tower.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

You seem to be forgetting Apple's target market for the iMac/eMac/iBook and iMovie Education (Something your posts seem to lack :D ). iMovie is now being used in the US and the <a href="http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=4863" target="_blank">UK</a> as a teaching aid, kids now seem to be enjoying their classes. Well done Apple, when was the last time anyone said that the enjoyed using M$ word, or even Windows Video Maker (or whatever it's called), just doesn't happen!.

And finally in reply to All

[quote] ...let alone the problems I've had between the QT6 preview and perfectly ISO-compliant MPEG4's.<hr></blockquote>

IT'S A BETA you should expect problems with it. You do know what a Beta is don't you <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Bye

Smeegs

[Telomar]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually there is a great deal of difference beyond OS between Mac and PC. For a start all macs are initially far more integrated units than PCs.

As a result uptime on Mac based computer operations considerably outweighs the uptimes you will see with WIntel alternatives even with equal numbers of computers.

Mac based networks don't come even remotely close to having the downtime and issues of PC based networks and are considerably lower cost to maintain and operate.

They can breakdown and have faults like any piece of electronic equipment but they are significantly easier to fix and by and large they are a considerable distance ahead in terms of reliability.

I'm too tired right now to go onto proprietary versus standardised hardware. Both have certain cases for and against but from Apple's position I would certainly aim for open standard options.

That's a really low quality reply but I'm tired and will expand on it tomorrow or when I have time.

[Flounder]

So, anyone feel like actually getting back on topic? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
So yeah, how about those powermacs?
What are we going to get. It seems in vogue for the rumor sites to predict small updates now. I guess we've only got a little over a week left to find out!

[GardenOfEarthlyDelights]

[quote]<strong>Summary of all posts by cowofwar:</strong>

Apple sucks.

<hr></blockquote>

Just curious— do you use a <a href="http://www.gateway.com/" target="_blank">Gateway</a>?

[canyon24]

Well,

I have a "friend" who works for a 'certain" company with a "close" connection to ....


Awe, nevermind. i heard (not from a BBS, or web site) that there is a new apple handheld device coming. Not really a PDA though. "She" hinted at the name being like newton, like a friend of Sir Isaac Newton, or a collegue / contemporary.

Anyway, what does everyone think of an Apple iTools based online calendar system accesable anywhere, you allow family, friends, collegues to access it ?
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />


-----------
I just want a man who is cute, smart, funny, sensitive, tough, adventurous, creative, and has a Mac. Is that so much to ask?

[MacGP]

cowofwar,

You are ignorant. I can agree that a P4 system is not slow. But you do a lame job of proving it is faster. You have little or no knowledge of the inner workings of a computer. Just a superficial understanding of hardware specs.

And the fact that you say the iMac uses standard hardware from vendors and that they break down just as much seems somewhat uneducated. I have worked as a Computer Tech before, and the ratio to ratio of repairs of PCs and Macs. The Mac beats the PC by quite a bit, and the repairs on the mac are usually much more minor than what a PC requires.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothign against you advocating the P4 or 'dissing' Apple. Just make sure you know what the hell you are talking about.

[KidRed]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>

The car analogy doesn't work anymore. It did back when all the parts in a mac were proprietary and high quality, but not anymore. The only difference between a mac and a pc is the OS.
Macs use and have been using for a while industry standard parts. There's just as many modern macs that break down as retail pcs. It just seems like more pcs break because there's a lot more of them out there.


[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: cowofwar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

The car analogy works and will continue to work as long as there are car makers with the same relative market share as Apple. That's the reason for the analogy along with Bose. Niche markets that make quality products with a low market share. The parts may be similar but the final product is still a better quality.

[Mandricard]

[quote]Originally posted by canyon24:

i heard (not from a BBS, or web site) that there is a new apple handheld device coming. Not really a PDA though. "She" hinted at the name being like newton, like a friend of Sir Isaac Newton, or a collegue / contemporary.<hr></blockquote>

Newton lived from 1643-1727. That rules out Shakespeare and Darwin. Descartes? Boyle? Hooke? Johnson? Bach?

[quote]Anyway, what does everyone think of an Apple iTools based online calendar system accesable anywhere, you allow family, friends, collegues to access it ?<hr></blockquote>

Not much, unless it is accompanied by a lot of other things....

Hope springs eternal.

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>Why is everyone focusing on video? How many people here regularly use their macs as video workstations? Sure everyone might occassionally import some photos and manipulate them a bit, but how often would the mac user download their raw video data from a camera and then turn it into a great movie? Maybe once a year? Maybe only once in the whole mac's life.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How often does the average user do anything that requires super speed? It's likely one of the major reasons that both PC and Mac sales are slumping is that for many users there is no compelling need to buy a new computer. They can do what they need to do with the computing power they've already got.

I personally want a more powerful Mac for an astronomy applet/application that I've created ( <a href="http://www.skyviewcafe.com" target="_blank">http://www.skyviewcafe.com</A> . It's very processor intensive if you want quick, smooth animation when you adjust the application's clock. My old 1.1 GHz AMD system clearly outshines the performance I get on my 800 MHz TiBook, and even the performance I see on dual 1 GHz Power Macs. I'd really like to see Sky View Café program shine on a Mac, but its being held back both by the speed of current Macs and problems in Apple's implementation of Java.

I'd also like a Mac that's so fast that no matter how relatively slow Virtual PC is, raw processing power makes the end result acceptable. Hell, if Virtual PC runs fast enough to feel like a 250-300 MHz PC I'd be happy. I'd probably sell my old PC at that point.

But that's just me. Since you seem very disappointed in Mac performance, might I ask what you do where you find yourself cursing at the Mac's speed? If it's OS X, in a month or two Jaguar is poised to improve OS X performance greatly without the need for new hardware.

I guess I share your displeasure with the raw speed of current Macs, but I'm not so incensed about it. I'll just wait until either they do come out with something substantially more powerful before I buy another system (MWNY '02!?), or regretfully switch to PCs full time if and when the day comes that the real-world performance gap gets to be too much.

I'm also hoping that Mac performance gets big enough a boost to attract new buyers and get a few percent more to switch to Mac. All Mac users will be in a happier place if and when Macs get up to a 10-15% marketshare. That's Apple's most compelling reason to boost performance. Cute ads, friendly iApps and a great OS alone will only go so far. I'm sure Steve et al are well aware of this. The question remains if they are willing and able to do something about it soon enough.

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>

Just curious— do you use a <a href="http://www.gateway.com/" target="_blank">Gateway</a>?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No I do not. I own a powerbook 100, a powerpc 5200CD, a G3 Blue and white, a P4 system built myself and a Dell p3 system.

I once was an apple zealot, look for my posts on macaddict. But after getting shit dumped onto my plate year after year after year by Apple I could no longer support Apple.

We all know that Apple is not performing at its best. We can all see that their hardware is lacking (their software, BTW, is great). A company will not improve if people keep buying their crap. Why should they? R&D costs money. If they can just up the processor speed a bit a couple times a year without reinovating they will do it.

I think the best thing for Apple would be a complete drop off of sales in their pro lines. (Again, BTW, I think their portable lines are top notch. I would have no qualms picking up an ibook or PBG4 over a wintel notebook anyday). Apple must realize that we, the consumers want machines that can compete with what's out there.


There's a lot of outdated ideas out here. Sure Apple targets education but are you completely unaware of the massive education cutbacks happening across the United States as well as Canada? Many schools can no longer afford complete labs of macs. They'll purchase a lab of pcs and then a couple emacs for their TV&Film departments.
But you say, the schools could use money from other budgets to purchase these higher quality machines from Apple. And yes, they're doing that. Have you popped in to look at most schools' libraries? They're almost empty or filled with outdated litterature. The majority of high school budgets have been gutted for new computers leaving no money to purchase desperately needed books. I think the schools would be better off purchasing cheap wintels and using the extra money in other needed areas.

[quote]Originally posted by MacGP
cowofwar,
You are ignorant. I can agree that a P4 system is not slow. But you do a lame job of proving it is faster. You have little or no knowledge of the inner workings of a computer. Just a superficial understanding of hardware specs.

And the fact that you say the iMac uses standard hardware from vendors and that they break down just as much seems somewhat uneducated. I have worked as a Computer Tech before, and the ratio to ratio of repairs of PCs and Macs. The Mac beats the PC by quite a bit, and the repairs on the mac are usually much more minor than what a PC requires.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothign against you advocating the P4 or 'dissing' Apple. Just make sure you know what the hell you are talking about.
<hr></blockquote>

Do you need an engineering degree to tell if one computer is faster than another?

What breaks in a pc? Only the same things as in macs. At your comp tech store divide the number of pcs you repaired by 19. Now the ratio should be more fair.

I regularly use macs at my local macstation. These are dual 1ghz g4s. Everyday stuff, navigating the OS, surfing the net, checking email, photoshop, fireworks, games, it's all faster on my pc.

Now maybe I am ignorant of all the little areas that make a mac great. Like that one filter in photoshop that's faster on macs, or the ease of use of the operating system. But I'm sorry to say, that I just get more done on a pc than a mac.

Maybe I'm a pc zealot. Maybe you're mac zealots. Maybe we're blind to eachothers' arguments. But until Apple can upgrade their pro line to a level where the pc using system administrators (they're normally the ones making the choice between macs and pcs) are wowed by the performance and price then they will continue to be a niche market that is slowly shrinking.
I want to see Apple succeed. I want to see their market share grow, Apple wants to see itself grow, but in this capatalistic society where price/performance ratio is all that matters Apple wont grow with its current mindset.

Oh, and about that "Apple will provide a better return on your money in the longrun" idea it is true. And I can back that up since all of my macs still work to do this day, but how many people are thinking that when purchasing a computer? If I tried to sell the average person something that was twice the price, but I explained that it was also twice the quality and would last twice as long, most people would buy the cheaper one.
So maybe Apple can't become a lead marketshare holder because to get big it has to drop quality, and to drop quality it would become what everyone here hates so much. Just another Gateway or Dell.

Sorry if my posts are coming off as "dissing" Apple, but I'm just trying to explain my frustration with Apple's inability or lack of want to keep their hardware current. I don't mind paying a premium for Apple's products, just so long as they're competitive.

[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: cowofwar ]</p>

[firelark]

cowofwar, Im with you on this. Dont get me wrong I love MacOSX and Ive used macs since 1990 and I have never owned a PC. But July 17 will be the fork of the apple road for me. Thats when I will choose between PC and Mac. Im mainly using Lightwave 3D wich works on both PC and Mac on the same dongle. So I will have no problem switching to PC. Apple sure have to deliver to make me stay. This is your last call Apple!!!

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by smeegers:
<strong>
I just bought the p4 system last month. It cost less than the low end imac.

Cheaper my ass
</strong><hr></blockquote>

[code]Summary - iMac LCD 700
• 128MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
• Mac OS X - U.S. English
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive
• CD-RW drive
• NVIDIA GeForce2 MX w/32MB DDR graphics
• Mac OS X & Mac OS 9 installed
• Apple Keyboard
• Apple Pro Mouse
Subtotal $2,249.00
</pre><hr></blockquote>

[code]
Summary - My P4 System
INTEL PENTIUM 4 1.6GHZ A P4 512K 400FSB S478 NORTHWOOD RETAIL BOX
ABIT IT7 S478 845E ATX 3DDR AGP 4PCI ATA133 RAID USB2.0 SOUND LAN
SAMSUNG 256MB PC2700 DDR333 184PIN
MAXTOR D740X-6L 80GB EIDE 7200RPM ATA133 W/ FDB QUIET VERSION
1.44 MB High Density Floppy Drive
SAMSUNG NATURAL FLAT 900NF 19IN 0.25MM AG TCO99
ABIT SILURO NVIDIA GEFORCE4 TI4400 128MB AGP VGA/DVI W/ TV OUT
LIAN-LI ALUMINUM PC65U 18IN CASE USB 4X5.25 3X3.5 5X3.5INT TRANSPARENT SIDE
CREATIVE SOUND BLASTER AUDIGY SB0092W/1394 SC
LITEON 16X DVD-ROM INT E-IDE OEM W/ SW DVD PLAYER
SURECOM PCI 10/100M NIC
ENERMAX EG365P-VE 350W W/ 2 FAN
Subtotal $2,124.13
</pre><hr></blockquote>

:p

[KidRed]

[code]Summary - iMac LCD 700
• 128MB SDRAM - 1 DIMM
• Mac OS X - U.S. English
• 40GB Ultra ATA drive
• CD-RW drive
• NVIDIA GeForce2 MX w/32MB DDR graphics
• Mac OS X & Mac OS 9 installed
• Apple Keyboard
• Apple Pro Mouse
Subtotal $2,249.00
</pre><hr></blockquote>

[code]
Summary - My P4 System
INTEL PENTIUM 4 1.6GHZ A P4 512K 400FSB S478 NORTHWOOD RETAIL BOX
ABIT IT7 S478 845E ATX 3DDR AGP 4PCI ATA133 RAID USB2.0 SOUND LAN
SAMSUNG 256MB PC2700 DDR333 184PIN
MAXTOR D740X-6L 80GB EIDE 7200RPM ATA133 W/ FDB QUIET VERSION
1.44 MB High Density Floppy Drive
SAMSUNG NATURAL FLAT 900NF 19IN 0.25MM AG TCO99
ABIT SILURO NVIDIA GEFORCE4 TI4400 128MB AGP VGA/DVI W/ TV OUT
LIAN-LI ALUMINUM PC65U 18IN CASE USB 4X5.25 3X3.5 5X3.5INT TRANSPARENT SIDE
CREATIVE SOUND BLASTER AUDIGY SB0092W/1394 SC
LITEON 16X DVD-ROM INT E-IDE OEM W/ SW DVD PLAYER
SURECOM PCI 10/100M NIC
ENERMAX EG365P-VE 350W W/ 2 FAN
Subtotal $2,124.13
</pre><hr></blockquote>

:p [/qb]&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Not add to the mix, but isn't a CD-R drive slightly more expensive then a DVD drive? I know not $400 worth, but a little more none the less.

Not to mention- I assume the 19" flat is a CRT? Wouldn't a 15" LCD be slightly more expensive then a CRT?

[ 07-06-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>

[murk]

Please, Dorsal, post something so they can attack you instead of each other. :rolleyes:

[Amorph]

*AHEM*

Car analogies... rants about current hardware... the inevitable listing of (carefully written) spec sheets from Dell.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

Guys? This is Future Hardware. This thread is about what/whether there will be new hardware introduced at MW Expo NY that will make this year "Apple's Year." Capiche? Good.

PS: Rants belong in General Discussion.

[Jonathan Brisby]

Is it just me or has this thread run it's useful life out. Can an admin lock this sucker and we can start a new one? (ignore me, I'm with stupid)

[Bodhi]

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan Brisby:
<strong>Is it just me or has this thread run it's useful life out. Can an admin lock this sucker and we can start a new one? (ignore me, I'm with stupid)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, I agree. Dorsal has fed his ego enough with how many posts this thread has.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

I agree with Cowabunga.

Two weeks to go and Dorsal's a no show.

Close the thread.

Lemon Bon Bon

[cowofwar]

Well all answers will be answered in eleven short days. I just hope that whatever they announce they have ample supply of so it doesn't turn into another imac LCD.

Maybe earlier if Time Magazine gets a preview :p

[apple.otaku]

cowofwar, if you hate Apple so much why don't you leave us alone and go hang out at the Gateway or Dell message boards instead? Because you're a troll and you have nothing better to do? Don't try to deny it. We can all see you for what you really are. You have made it as clear as possible. Now sod off.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[apple.otaku]

Dorsal M, you said "all in good time" ... Well, I say that time is now!!! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[detah]

if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen

[Bigc]

Personally, I don't care if they give P4 sytems away for free!

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>cowofwar, if you hate Apple so much why don't you leave us alone and go hang out at the Gateway or Dell message boards instead? Because you're a troll and you have nothing better to do? Don't try to deny it. We can all see you for what you really are. You have made it as clear as possible. Now sod off.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Obviously you've missed the point.

1) I do not hate Apple.
2) I hate Gateways and Dells. One of my computers is a Dell. It sucks.

I want Apple to blow us away at the next expo with a huge announcement. I want Apple to be the first and push out pcs. I want the best for Apple. Passively accepting whatever Apple puts out especially when you know they can do better is not helping Apple. It will only hurt them in the long run.

Not once did I say I hate Apple. I just have serious problems with their business practices. Their priorities are completely out of whack.

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>Dorsal M, you said "all in good time" ... Well, I say that time is now!!! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I wouldn't expect him to give us anymore information. The final product that is going to be released is probably not yet known to the majority of people at apple and who work with Apple. I'm sure that he's concerned with protecting his identity so unless he considers whatever he posts general knowledge he wont post it.

Apple might even have two or three options and are waiting until the very last minute. Which is suggested what happened at the last expo. They might be sitting on three different systems and are waiting to know if they can deliver each one. So Dorsal might know about only one of them. What if he posted about an option that was never put in motion? He would destroy his credability.

[Aquatic]

OK I just decided to read this thread. Could someone sum it up in one word please? Just kidding, I was thinking of SNL's Presidential Debate ;)

Seriously, this thread seems to be way off topic. Does Dorsal M have inside info? If so, out with it!

[ARW]

To sum it all up in one word....

Strategery

[ARW]

Ever since Apple has had a massive crack down on rumoring, there hasn't been much to talk about. AppleInsider and MacMurmur are obviously dead. MOSR is enlightening but their track record speaks for themselves. There is no true source to get info from, anymore. But we strive on...

Anyway, thinking ahead to post G4 years, what does Apple really have to offer?

There is absolutlly no consistant news about what the G5 will be or if there ever will be a G5. There have been rumors of Apple kicking Motorola in the ass and out of the picture, and taking on IBM as their supllier. New digital lifestyle devices are a certainty, but we are uncertain as to what they are.

It's a shame that people find it necissary to flood the web with falty rumors and fake mock-ups. If there is any true information it is being masked by a layer of fresh bull sh!t.

The only way to find out what Apple has is store is to group and work on the puzzle. Let's gather out thoughts that are true and proven and unsaturated. What specs do we know are realistic and are ready to be included in the next two revisions or PowerMac's? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[apple.otaku]

During one of those financial conference calls Fred Anderson said something along the lines of... the first half of 2002 consisting mainly of transitionary products while the second half would consist of significant new products. Anyone remember this?

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>During one of those financial conference calls Fred Anderson said something along the lines of... the first half of 2002 consisting mainly of transitionary products while the second half would consist of significant new products. Anyone remember this?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can anyone treat 'significant new products' with any seriousness after last year's 'way beyond the rumor sites'?

They might also be referring to digital lifestyle devices. Upgrades to their current designs couldn't be considered a significant new product so it might be that apple branded video camera.

[MacGP]

:rolleyes:

Computer Engineers are a dime a dozen. I talked one and he didn't impress me in anyway. So, your degree has little or no impact on my opinion of you. But you can use it if you like.

[Flounder]

[quote]Originally posted by ARW:
<strong>To sum it all up in one word....

Strategery</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
One of the best SNL skits ever!

[naden]

[quote]Originally posted by MacGP:
<strong> :rolleyes:

Computer Engineers are a dime a dozen. I talked one and he didn't impress me in anyway. </strong><hr></blockquote>

We design the chair you sit on. The computer you use, the television you watch, the car you drive.

Don't criticize us just because you wan't to be one of us :)

[SkullMac]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>Can anyone treat 'significant new products' with any seriousness after last year's 'way beyond the rumor sites'?</strong><hr></blockquote>

A teaser on their homepage and financial guidance statements are two entirely different ball games. Although we know its happens quite regularly these days, even the slightest overstatement in a financial guidance report is illegal.

Think back to all other financial guidance statements. All product-related statements have come true, haven't they? Remember the superdrive comment over a year ago? It was something along the lines of, "We expect these drives to make it into consumer desktop lines by the beginning of 2002." Although I can't think of any other examples, I'm sure others can.

[Gamblor]

[quote] During one of those financial conference calls Fred Anderson said something along the lines of... the first half of 2002 consisting mainly of transitionary products while the second half would consist of significant new products. Anyone remember this? <hr></blockquote>

Yeah, the only problem is, some things may have changed since then. Remember Moki's tidbit about a new architecture that had been delayed, and Apple was proceeding with a "plan B" for this MWNY? Perhaps that was the "significant new products" Anderson refered to... Maybe we'll see some more stop-gap machines like we've seen for the last year, and new machines next year.

[Luca]

It's always going to be better next year... how many years in a row has this happened? :rolleyes:

Actually, Apple has innovated quite a bit, it's just that it's never enough to meet the expectations. Look at what we've gotten in the past two years: Dual processors, Titanium laptop, killer LCDs, super drives, OS X, iApps, new iBooks, new iMac, etc.

[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
<strong>It's always going to be better next year... how many years in a row has this happened? :rolleyes:

[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ever since the macworld after the G4's introduction. I really can't remember the last macworld that wowed me. Hopefully this will be the one.

[Leonis]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>

Ever since the macworld after the G4's introduction. I really can't remember the last macworld that wowed me. Hopefully this will be the one.</strong><hr></blockquote>

G4 was introduced in Seybold not MacWorld ;)

[Gamblor]

[quote] It's always going to be better next year... how many years in a row has this happened? :rolleyes: <hr></blockquote>

It's only happened each year if you give any credence to the fan-boy "it's gonna be great this MW, just you wait!" ramblings of the likes of MOSR & the Register... Everybody else has known the G5 was slated for 2002 for the past few of years now. It looks like that schedule has slipped. Is anybody really surprised? Have you ever known the schedule for a new processor not to slip?

[quote] Ever since the macworld after the G4's introduction. I really can't remember the last macworld that wowed me. Hopefully this will be the one. <hr></blockquote>

What exactly will "wow" you? If it's nothing short of the G5, then probably not. I don't really have much faith in the reports of the G5 coming at MWNY; I think we'll see more G4s with Xserve type DDR, along with a boost in clock speed, for a combined performance boost of about 30-40%. That's quite a respectable boost, all at once; but it won't be enough to catch up with top end PCs.

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>

What exactly will "wow" you? If it's nothing short of the G5, then probably not. I don't really have much faith in the reports of the G5 coming at MWNY; I think we'll see more G4s with Xserve type DDR, along with a boost in clock speed, for a combined performance boost of about 30-40%. That's quite a respectable boost, all at once; but it won't be enough to catch up with top end PCs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Something more than a lame speed increase. I mean, sure, it's great...but you can't revolve the whole show around that. You need something like new technology. Stuff that I haven't seen before. I know I can't expect Apple to make advances for the whole industry but I just need something that I was completely not expecting and could not have predicted.

I want to come away from the expo and be able to use what I've seen to brag. I can't exactly go around saying that OMG THE NEW G4 IS 32% FASTER WHEN USING THE LENSFLARE FILTER IN PHOTOSHOP OMG OMG OMG.

[Gamblor]

[quote] I want to come away from the expo and be able to use what I've seen to brag. I can't exactly go around saying that OMG THE NEW G4 IS 32% FASTER WHEN USING THE LENSFLARE FILTER IN PHOTOSHOP OMG OMG OMG. <hr></blockquote>

:rolleyes: Maybe you should be using a PC then. The rest of us just want to get work done, and that may include a lensflare filter in photoshop... A 32% increase (especially if it were across the board) would be welcome.