MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year

[Kecksy]

Seems like we'll have to wait until MWSF to be wowed.

1.5GHz G4s would be impressive, but I doubt Apple can meet such expectations.

I just don't see the G4 scaling 50% in 5 months when it took 18 months to go from 500 to 733 and 1 year to go from 733 to 1GHz.

I don't think the performance gap will close until the next generation of CPUs arrives.

But who knows? Maybe the successor to the G4 will show up at Macworld. I could also win the lottery, but I don't see that happening either.

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

[Blackcat]

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>Seems like we'll have to wait until MWSF to be wowed.

1.5GHz G4s would be impressive, but I doubt Apple can meet such expectations.

I just don't see the G4 scaling 50% in 5 months when it took 18 months to go from 500 to 733 and 1 year to go from 733 to 1GHz.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I always find it odd when people say this...

At any minute Moto could subtly change the process and voila, volume production of 1.5Ghz parts is not only possible, it's easy.

A good friend of mine worked for Bookham Technology as senior process engineer up until Oct 2000. They had been struggling to get decents yeilds on a process, because 1 stage involved dunking each wafer in acid, drying them for a few hours then applying a different process. It took 18 hours per wafer.

To increase efficiency they hired a consultant. He took one look at the process and grabbed a box of wafers, dunked them in a bucket of acid, and left them to dry.

So in a few minutes they increased yeilds by 30 fold simply because a new guy had different experience and knew there was no danger in doing huge batches rather than single wafers. Previous thinking had believed it wouldn't work.

The point is, things change fast in the semi-conductor world, a jump from 1Ghz to 2Ghz might require the tiniest process tweak. It just needs somebody to try it.

[Junkyard Dawg]

[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>

I always find it odd when people say this...

At any minute Moto could subtly change the process and voila, volume production of 1.5Ghz parts is not only possible, it's easy.

A good friend of mine worked for Bookham Technology as senior process engineer up until Oct 2000. They had been struggling to get decents yeilds on a process, because 1 stage involved dunking each wafer in acid, drying them for a few hours then applying a different process. It took 18 hours per wafer.

To increase efficiency they hired a consultant. He took one look at the process and grabbed a box of wafers, dunked them in a bucket of acid, and left them to dry.

So in a few minutes they increased yeilds by 30 fold simply because a new guy had different experience and knew there was no danger in doing huge batches rather than single wafers. Previous thinking had believed it wouldn't work.

The point is, things change fast in the semi-conductor world, a jump from 1Ghz to 2Ghz might require the tiniest process tweak. It just needs somebody to try it.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Yeah, but Moto doesn't have anyone with enough expertise or intelligence to figure out stuff like that. They would need to hire a whole army of consultants.

Also, I've heard that Motorola is notorious for keeping their fabs extremely dirty and messy. They are simply not cut out for such a high-tech manufacturing sector.

[bryan fury]

..face it , Moto suck.

They suck worse than a friggin' leaf blower.

AMD + Apple OR Bust. :mad:

[Lemon Bon Bon]

1.5 G4 with DDR. It's catch up.

1.5 would be more aggressive and show Apple is beginning to turn things around...starting to play hardball.

I somehow don't expect 1.5 but a miserly 1.2 dual top config. £2, 500 for that. With Rapid Io or better half a year around the corner...(or just several months away by the time Apple ships?) Just not worth it to me.

1.5 G4? Might get my palms sweaty...but would I buy?

Apple likes to think its hardware is value added...a premium product. But it's bargain basement tech with a ridiculous price.

The ibook laptop is nice. My wife likes it. So do I...apart from the 8 meg Ati Rage which sucks.

Bus, memory and processor? Apple are way behind...but the prices are way in front.

A g4/g5/ibm processor on Hypertransport may make me get the wallet out. I'm still Mac towerless...because of Apple's poor specs over the last couple of years.

What do I expect from New York? It seems like the next gen 'Big Iron' won't be there. (But I'd love the absolute top system to be a G5 and surprise us all.) What I do expect is the SAME radical thinking prevalent in Jaguar, iTools, iApps...and the 'Switch' campaign.

It could be a custom Nvidia video acceleration card to tap directly into the 'Quartz Extreme' engine. Vector acceleration...for progs like Illustrator. License another altivec unit or Apple multimedia specific units to go into an Nvidia custom card to accelerate final cut pro or the Mac version of Maya...or the interface yet further.

So, mhz may not be 'important'...but lets see Apple do 'something' about it. Work closely with Nvidia to integrate a souped up Quadro card with the rest of the Mac system...increase bandwidth...

Nvidia have had enough time now to integrate some of 3Dfx's 'sli'(?) dual card technology into their pending line up. It would be nice to be able to put two Geforce 5s working in tandom on Apple's top or other machine. A dual Geforce 5?

1.33 mhz would be so-so on its own. But if Moto has added a few more fpu bits then...it may make me pay attention. Thru put...would be a nice alternative to mere brute force. But Moto isn't competing in mhz or throughput in my eyes. I'm not technical...but clearly a 1.33 G4 feeble 1 fpu isn't going to compete with an Athlon 1.8 gig with 3 fpus.

Nvidia have their Nforce chipsets...maybe Apple could do one for the Mac with Moto input? IBM input? An Nforce to increase multimedia throuput?

It's often been said that Apple have a 20-30% markup on thier hardware. Well...and they use old industry standard components! This and common motherboard designs was supposed to make Macs much cheaper!

Add extra hardware elements. Make Macs special multimedia computers...in the way the old Amiga was. Premium component? Maybe an Nvidia 'extra' part that can work in tandem with their own 'card' or a modular bit that enhances it further?

I find it alarming on these boards if you criticise Apple's specs you get labelled a troll. So be it. But the truth is Apple must try harder with their specs. How can any company offer out of date industry standard specs (eg bus, memory...) as their best, 'premium' spec machine...with a Geforce 4 Titanium merely as an order option than as standard on their top machine?

All just ideas. I do criticise current hardware...but like cowabunga...it's only because I want Steve Jobs to walk out on stage and preach the x86 smachdown. G5 with gravy...Quad Quadro sli with 8 Altivec 512 bit units smacking Pentium 4 botty...

Only a week or so to go. :D I'll feel better than...twitch...

Lemon Bon Bon
:eek:

[Addison]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
[QB]1.5 G4 with DDR. It's catch up.<hr></blockquote>

Lemon Bon Bon ( Sucker?) You are so wrong. The combines effects of Jaguar, DDR and a 1.5G4 would knock the socks of any x86 processor. Unless of course you don't understand the megahertz myth.

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

[Blackcat]

Lemon...

I think you're right about specs. If £450 PCs have ATA133 then it's dirt cheap and Macs should have it too, regardless of its usefulness in current systems. This stuff sells stuff to people who like big numbers.

DDR obviously needs to wait for a G4 that supports it, but from the speed of a dual 1Ghz on a choked bus, I feel confident that dual 1.2 on a modern FSB will bring very impressive performance gains.

As for G5, I can't say I want one until it exists. Until then I don't know what G5 means...

[apple.otaku]

It can't be any worse than last year's MWNY. That was brutal.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"It can't be any worse than last year's MWNY. That was brutal."

Ouch.

Lemon Bon Bon

[Blackcat]

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>It can't be any worse than last year's MWNY. That was brutal.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"From today, we're switching to x86. You will be able to order MacXP immediately for $299, and under everybody's seat is a Xbox!"

[zaz]

I am go go with Lemon on this one.., and tyhis is far from trolling.

I really don't mind the premium. Really.

But in a 2.5k-3k machine I don't want to see:

GF4 MX boards in a 2.5k-3k machine. A Ti or Radeon 8500 should be standard.

Lack of a decent audio chipset. 5.1 should be standard.

I could go on....

It pains me to think that even the current DP 1GHZ G4 could accomplish so much more if it used DDR ( all around, not a'la xServe ) and had the Bus that the CPU's could not saturate.

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by Addison:
<strong>

Lemon Bon Bon ( Sucker?) You are so wrong. The combines effects of Jaguar, DDR and a 1.5G4 would knock the socks of any x86 processor. Unless of course you don't understand the megahertz myth.

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

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

No one has any idea about the performance of the G5. For all we know it could be like the P3 and P4. Weaker at introduction but more powerful as it scales.

And the megaheurtz myth does not apply when you're comparing a 1.5 to 3.0ghz processor. The MM was a marketing ploy for when cpu clocks were close. the MM is a myth.

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

[KidRed]

Curious, of all the people bitching I pose 2 questions-

Do you currently have the top dual gig?

Are you prepared to spend $3k+ and monitor if needed etc in 2 weeks?

I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit, or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so.

[Dave K.]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>

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.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a very true statement. Unfortunately, most people on these boards don't believe this fact.

[moki]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave K.:
<strong>

This is a very true statement. Unfortunately, most people on these boards don't believe this fact.</strong><hr></blockquote>

...except that Apple's (admittedly small) marketshare grew last quarter.

[sp720]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>
OMG THE NEW G4 IS 32% FASTER WHEN USING THE LENSFLARE FILTER IN PHOTOSHOP OMG OMG OMG.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Do you have stairs in your house?

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit, or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so."

(Shakes head.)

Got an iBook. Well, it's my wife's. Despite 384 megs of ram...it don't handle 300 dpi Photoshop files at all well without being 'out of memory'...

If Apple release a G7 at 5Ghz. Yup. I'll be in the market to buy. Hell, I'd sell my Grandmother for down payment if she weren't already gone.

Am I in the market for an out of date machine? Nope.

If Apple could do a 1.5 G4 at say £1,200 inc Vat. I'd think about that. But £2,400? Even for a dual processor...that's alot of money. Especially with a generational leap around the corner ie some kind of G5 on Rio.

I really don't mind the premium. I didn't when I bought my last tower. Back then? Apple were competitive. Now? They're...well...it aint even funny. (Says through choked disbelief...y'know...at facing the 'reality' of where Apple's specs currently are...)


Zaz...it's nice to know somebody understands what some of us 'whiners' (hello Big 'C...'!) are getting at.

For this to be 'Apple's Year' I'm expecting Apple get aggressive with CPU and specs. Doesn't have to be high mhz. But I'd like to see some innovation. Extra FPU, souped up Nvidia/Apple custom job. Y'know...something that will make a Mac special over a PC. Something that justifies the price (as opposed to last years specs...) They have done well with almost everything else.

They charge premium prices. Can we have premium hardware specs to go?

Lemon Bon Bon

[pathogen]

 over this thread, a few people have posted again and again, and most of it is the most bitter posting I've ever seen. bitter, bitter, bitter. i figure instead of posting in a rumor area for "future hardware", there should be a "bitter nagging" area, too.

great "bitter nagging threads":

-the processors are way too slow
-quartz extreme will be the death of all macs &lt;Spring 2002
-mega"hurt"z myth is a myth
-we need DDR now, not tomorrow
-bus speeds are years out of date
-premium price without premium hardware
-not snappy
-one button sucks
-cases are loud and aren't boxy enough
-cases are ugly
-O' extra 5.25" bays, where art thou?
-need my usb and firewire plugs on the front
-DVD read speeds are slooooow
-my mom never hugged me enough as a child

ps. Dorsal come back!

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

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by bryan fury:
<strong>..face it , Moto suck.

They suck worse than a friggin' leaf blower.

AMD + Apple OR Bust. :mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

You are aware that AMD has currently hit a wall and it's not looking too good for them.

[quote]Originally posted by sp720:
<strong>

Do you have stairs in your house?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am protected.

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

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"great "bitter nagging threads":

Y'mean...'General Discussion'?

"-the processors are way too slow"

Bingo! :D

"-quartz extreme will be the death of all macs &lt;Spring 2002"

Nope.

"-mega"hurt"z myth is a myth"

No a fews ago. Yes now.

"-we need DDR now, not tomorrow"

We needed it last year.

"-bus speeds are years out of date"

Honey, you don't know how long ahv wait-ed.

"-premium price without premium hardware"

Agreed.

"-not snappy"

I gotta have that 'snap' when I work...how about you?

"-one button sucks"

I'd like to see Apple make a multi button in future for those that can't cope with one.

"-cases are loud and aren't boxy enough"

You can't pin that on me... :)

"-cases are ugly"

Nice...but they're due for an update...

"-O' extra 5.25" bays, where art thou?"

Blank.

"-need my usb and firewire plugs on the front"

:?

"-DVD read speeds are slooooow"

Hmmm. Er...

"-my mom never hugged me enough as a child"

Got plenty.

"ps. Dorsal come back!"

Ah...he's draining the spuds...no jegs!

Lemon Bon Bon
:D

[Dave K.]

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

...except that Apple's (admittedly small) marketshare grew last quarter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is no way to accurately measure marketshare. I am sick and tired of hearing about marketshare numbers (from both sides).

Sure you can look at the number of Macs sold last quarter, and if Apple sold more computers than it did the quarter before that, great, but what does that mean?

How can you obtain the accurate number of PCs sold? You have so many companies from Dell to House Branded PCs (which may account for nearly 60% of new PCs sold). There is no way to track this. The little local PC shop does not report the number of PC's they sold to anyone (except maybe for their accountant). The Mac marketshare could have grown or could have shrunken. Nobody can really say for sure.

One thing for sure is that Apple desperately needs to LOWER the price of their computers to attract new customers (and to keep their old customers in many cases).

For example, if an educator is faced with a fixed budget (always the case), and that budget will buy them 5 Macs or 12 PCs for the school, which will they buy? Same holds true for system administrators. It is really common sense.

Generally, people believe that BMW sedans are better than Ford sedans. Why don't more people buy BMW sedans even though they know that they are better? The cost prevents people from buying them. Doesn't?

Speaking of BMW... I also tired of hearing the comparisons between Macs to BMWs or Bose audio equipment. They are flawed ways of thinking.

Do BMW sedans use a special type of gas?

Do Bose audio equipment use a special type of electricity?

If they did, would they still be in business? I am not so sure if the quality of their products would justify the use of a special gas or electricity. Do you?

Unfortunately, our Mac's use a special type of gas/electricity called the Mac OS. That is why the comparison is not vaild.

I firmly believe that unless Apple can convince new customers that their products are not only better (something they will never do unless they point out why Windows is crap and how the Mac OS is better) but are also competively priced, their marketshare will shrink over time.

Thanks

Dave

[ 07-07-2002: Message edited by: Dave K. ]</p>

[Lemon Bon Bon]

"For example, if an educator is faced with a fixed budget (always the case), and that budget will buy them 5 Macs or 12 PCs for the school, which will they buy? Same holds true for system administrators. It is really common sense. "

I work at a school where they make the same baseline assessment of Macs vs PCs.

They're upgrading to Pentium 4s...

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. I'd like to see 'Apple's Year' cut prices on the pro line. By about...15-20%!

[detah]

apple's future is very dim, the lack of tech roadmaps and last gen hardware is quickly catching up with them. that gimpy market share is only going to get worse, as wintel continues to nullify the "user experience" gap.

right after mwny: serial-ata, dual-channel ddr, and sub 3Ghz chips are going to make it even harder for apple to keep selling at such grossly high markup too.

apple deserves the dark cloud it has growing above it, and i will enjoy seeing their stock value go to shite.

[firelark]

Yes Im using a dual gig. With one gig of RAM.

And yes Im prepared to buy 5k+ machine (mac or pc we'll se july17, if apple screw this up the dual g4 will be the last mac I own, and I whont be bothering you no more).

If your not into 3D and Video then you'll find what you need in the current hardware. If you find our bitch'n offencive then your probably not into 3D and Video, wich means you dont need any of the new hardware, wich is why your bitch'n. If theres no 3D and Video for the macs then why would the schools need them? Macs are too expensive to only run office and internet?

MacOSX is a great system, it deserves some decent machines to run it. Also poor performance = less software developers are willing to port their applications to mac.

[ZO]

ok, this is lame... 3 posts from Dorsal have generated over 500 posts on mostly totally off track material.

The Mac/PC discussion boils down to habit. 90% of my friends could care less what computer or os they use as long as it works.

I totally agree that PCs are cheaper (duh) but I am willing to pay the extra buck (or two) to use something that I LIKE to use.

Can we please get back to sensless rumormongoring? thank you

[moki]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave K.:
<strong>

There is no way to accurately measure marketshare. I am sick and tired of hearing about marketshare numbers (from both sides).

Sure you can look at the number of Macs sold last quarter, and if Apple sold more computers than it did the quarter before that, great, but what does that mean?

How can you obtain the accurate number of PCs sold? You have so many companies from Dell to House Branded PCs (which may account for nearly 60% of new PCs sold). There is no way to track this. The little local PC shop does not report the number of PC's they sold to anyone (except maybe for their accountant). The Mac marketshare could have grown or could have shrunken. Nobody can really say for sure. </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is patently false. All publically traded companies must file quarterly shareholder reports, and pertinent information (in this case, units sold) are quite clearly noted there. This information is easily tracked, and indeed there are companies whose entire business model is based on tracking such data.

[Gamblor]

Awright you rumor monkeys...

Here's the latest from MacRumors:

[quote] According to a source, there are currently up to six (6) enclosures undergoing internal testing. Features vary and it's unknown which features may make it to the final hardware... but some features include: white speaker, front mounted headphone jack, 4x512MB RAM, new motherboard, bays for two optical drives.

Certainly nothing earth-shattering, but of interest for those following closely... :)

MacWorld Expo NY is only 10 days away, and expectations are upgrades to the current PowerMac line.
<hr></blockquote>

Oh boy. New enclosures. Just what you guys wanted. :rolleyes:

Hmmm.... 4x512MB RAM... Doesn't Apple have another machine with that kind of memory config? Oh yeah-- it starts with an "X", ends with an "e" and in between is "serv".

[Bigc]

Wasn't there a whiner thread somewhere/??/.
The admins ought to make a filter

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave K.:
<strong>

&lt;snip&gt;

</strong><hr></blockquote>

WE HAVE A WINNER!

[Jonathan Brisby]

OMG! This thread is so *ucked up I haven't a CLUE what ANYONE is talking about anymore. STOP THE INSANITY! LOCK IT FOR GOD'S SAKE! (add more ranting like a mad man)

What does it all MEAN????????

[cowofwar]

Why lock it?

It's a discussion about Apple's future hardware.

[Jonathan Brisby]

[quote]Originally posted by cowofwar:
<strong>It's a discussion about Apple's future hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. It's an endless rant about EVERYTHING which just happens to bump into Future Hardware every couple dozen posts. At this rate it'll never fall off the board until they lock it. I say LOCK IT and start a new one with the same name if ya like. Posts like mine and yours are exactly WHY it needs to be locked. Too much chatting. (yes I know I'm not helping buy posting either) Am I alone in this opinion?

[Amorph]

Discussion of Apple's Future Hardware releases does not include any of:

* Bitching about their current hardware;

* Discussing their solvency, or their market share;

* Trolling (detah, that means you);

* Dragging out car metaphors and other silly things

Future Hardware is for rumors and speculation about what Apple will release. Note the future tense.

The rest of the above, to the extent that they belong on the board at all, belong in General Discussion.

This thread is perilously close to getting locked.

[Scott F.]

If this helps lock it, then:

My cat's breath smells like cat food!

Pizza is good.

Shoes go on your feet.

Now, let's just lock it and move on, shall we...? The Directory topic is Future Hardware... The Thread topic is MWNY-2002... pretty vague... it might as well ALSO be called Future hardware.

Time to close. "Good bye!"

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Curious, of all the people bitching I pose 2 questions-

Do you currently have the top dual gig?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope. But I do have a new TiBook 800. I've played with a dual gig tower... it's a little faster than the TiBook, but I didn't deem it fast enough to trade off portability.

<strong>Are you prepared to spend $3k+ and monitor if needed etc in 2 weeks?</strong>

Well, I don't need to buy a new monitor. I upgraded to the TiBook 800 a mere four months after buying a TiBook 667, just to get the DVI port. I bought a 22" Cinema Display at the same time. It's very nice. :D

If Apple wows me enough with new Power Macs at MWNY, me and my wallet are ready to go. What will it take to wow me? A 1.4 GHz dual with a faster bus that takes full advantage of DDR would be a good start.

<strong>I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit...</strong>

For 90% of the "shit" I do, my TiBook at 800 MHz is more than fast enough. But then there's that 10% where I do notice a need for more speed. That 10% means a lot to me... because it's my own software that I've written. That same software (it's Java -- the same code runs cross-platform) is noticibly, significantly faster even on my two-year old 1.1 GHz AMD PC.

<strong>...or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so.</strong>

Apple's been getting a fair amount of my money lately... I've purchased 3 TiBooks in a span of less than 18 months, an Airport, and a very expensive display. I've been far from miserly.

The PowerBooks still are a good value in my opinion. I can tell you for sure that resale value on eBay has been great. I think the TiBooks are going to need a fair sized speed boost in the not-to-distant future, but it's not so critical as it is for the Power Macs.

The current Power Macs are simply not a good value. Even if you're willing to pay a premium for Apple hardware, the price/performance gap has simply grown too wide.

If Apple provides the goods, I'm definitely in the market.

Is it whining to call it like I see it about the current performance and value of the Power Macs? Is it whining to hope and pray that Apple comes out with a great new machine that will not only please me personally, but that will help Apple and all Mac users in general, doing what Apple needs to do to both hang on to and to increase market share?

[Eskimo]

[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>

I always find it odd when people say this...

At any minute Moto could subtly change the process and voila, volume production of 1.5Ghz parts is not only possible, it's easy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks for giving me a good chuckle. Nothing is easy in producing high end CPUs and certainly there is nothing easy about increasing clock speeds or for that matter maintaining current speeds. Engineers fight a hundred different fires each day just trying to keep their process tools running in spec. There are process tweaks that can be performed to speed up a part, and each of those tweaks takes time to carefully experiment with and implement in an orgainized fashion. But by 50% instant boost that is quite a stretch and unrealistic by somethign as 'easy' as a process tweak.

[quote]
A good friend of mine worked for Bookham Technology as senior process engineer up until Oct 2000. They had been struggling to get decents yeilds on a process, because 1 stage involved dunking each wafer in acid, drying them for a few hours then applying a different process. It took 18 hours per wafer.

To increase efficiency they hired a consultant. He took one look at the process and grabbed a box of wafers, dunked them in a bucket of acid, and left them to dry.
<hr></blockquote>

What year was this in? They really needed an outside consultant to bring up the idea of batch processing?

[quote]
So in a few minutes they increased yeilds by 30 fold simply because a new guy had different experience and knew there was no danger in doing huge batches rather than single wafers. Previous thinking had believed it wouldn't work.
<hr></blockquote>

No they increased throughput by 30 fold. Throughput increases have little to no correlation to yields which measure the % of die on the wafer that function properly, nor does it correlate to bin splits which tell you what % of your parts run at what speed.
[quote]
The point is, things change fast in the semi-conductor world, a jump from 1Ghz to 2Ghz might require the tiniest process tweak. It just needs somebody to try it.<hr></blockquote>

And my point is that while Motorola could indeed introduce a 1.5 or 2.0GHz processor at some point in the future it was not a result of some simple tweak, but rather months or years of hard work by design and process engineers. Some of which didn't even work for Motorola ;) .

[Dave K.]

[quote]Originally posted by moki:
<strong>

This is patently false. All publically traded companies must file quarterly shareholder reports, and pertinent information (in this case, units sold) are quite clearly noted there. This information is easily tracked, and indeed there are companies whose entire business model is based on tracking such data.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right. I agree with you 100%, but as you stated "publically traded companies". What about the mom and pop local PC shops that sell house-branded boxes and are not publically traded. Are they tracked as well? What about the number of PCs that they sell?
Is that number tracked? And by whom?

Anyways, isn't marketshare base on percentage of new computers sold, and not the number of systems (Mac and PC) that are currently in use?

Apple supposely has 5% of the Personal Computer Market. Question is my 233 MHz beige G3 considered part of that market? If so, who do I contact when it dies?

Face it, a true representation of marketshare is unobtainable.

Thanks

Dave

[Dorsal M]

Final machines have been seeded a while ago with updated hardware. That means they were in their final case designs and processor speeds. There is a much more professional look to them and the design is cleaner that the older case design. There is more chrome and metallic accents.

Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.

A more detailed case description will be coming soon.

[TigerWoods99]

Damn...I was hoping for 166 Mhz MPX and DDR33. :)

Keep it comin Dorsal.

Any info on audio in/out on these? 2 full drive bays? ATA133? R300?

This could be good.

[detah]

looks like apple can't quite get a "pro" machine out there yet, that really sucks.

[nagha]

greetings,

i love weeks preceding MacWorld. i'd love for these latest specs from Dorsal to be true but it's two weeks before the show. i doubt that these machines would still be in testing.

na

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>Final machines have been seeded a while ago with updated hardware. That means they were in their final case designs and processor speeds. There is a much more professional look to them and the design is cleaner that the older case design. There is more chrome and metallic accents.

Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.

A more detailed case description will be coming soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yay. Possibly cases that don't suck! I want to see front access usb/firewire and as Dorsal said, less plastic, more metal!

[quote]Originally posted by nagha:
<strong>greetings,

i love weeks preceding MacWorld. i'd love for these latest specs from Dorsal to be true but it's two weeks before the show. i doubt that these machines would still be in testing.

na</strong><hr></blockquote>

And why not? It's usually half a month to a full month before the towers are shipping after the expo. At least in volume. So I'd expect adjustments to the very last day.

[idoaudio]

Is this the casy you are describing Dorsal?

<a href="http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cmput.html" target="_blank">http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cmput.html</a>

[long time reader first time poster] :)

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Xserve-style DDR or real DDR? 266 MHz? 333 MHz?

[quote]Originally posted by detah:
<strong>looks like apple can't quite get a "pro" machine out there yet, that really sucks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Geez, what counts as "pro" in your book? If what Dorsal says is true, and the processor can access this DDR at full speed... A dual 1.5 GHz G4 should really rock. It would be a "pro" machine by any reasonable standard.

Unless some aspect this hypothetical new Power Mac is really off kilter (like a fly-in-the-ointment mis-feature or a $5000 price tag), my credit card will be leaping out of my hand into the nearest Apple store in record time. :D

[Edited for spelling]

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

[Horned_Frog]

Never mind.

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

[ConradG4]

[quote]Originally posted by bryan fury:
<strong>..face it , Moto suck.

They suck worse than a friggin' leaf blower.

AMD + Apple OR Bust. :mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is interesting, yesterday I went to see Star Wars: II. In the credits toward the end on the top right of a block it said:

Hardware for post production: Apple & AMD

[moki]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave K.:
<strong>Face it, a true representation of marketshare is unobtainable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That is not true. "Marketshare" has a very specific definition, and it is infinitely quantifiable. I'll point you to just one of the firms that can get you this specific information:

<a href="http://www4.gartner.com/UnrecognizedUserHomePage.jsp" target="_blank">http://www4.gartner.com/UnrecognizedUserHomePage.jsp</a>

[mugwump]

Horned_Frog, you may think that Dorsal is a fake because the information may not seem impressive or elaborate. (and you may prove right!) But previous posts have shown that at least he had/has some inside information, usually many months ahead of actual release and in greater detail than the above. So his credibility is greater than most other "insider" posts at this site, which are just chat-type posts anyhow. Isn't that why anyone reads this message board?

So possibly none too impressive, yet more credible for this rumor forum.

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

[woozle]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave K.:
<strong>

Right. I agree with you 100%, but as you stated "publically traded companies". What about the mom and pop local PC shops that sell house-branded boxes and are not publically traded. Are they tracked as well? What about the number of PCs that they sell?
Is that number tracked? And by whom?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

Its easy, there are two companies you need to look at.
Intel and AMD. However many cpu's they sold is a good indication of how many PC's have been sold.
They might even be good enough to break it down by region for you.

[quote]
<strong>
Anyways, isn't marketshare base on percentage of new computers sold, and not the number of systems (Mac and PC) that are currently in use?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>

Market share is always a measure of how many machines were sold in a given year. It is much harder to estimate the rate of attrition on installed machine. Particularly for macs, which trudge on in faithful service for much longer than PC's, or at least thats what everyone says.

[anand]

Hey Moki, as the most logical person on these boards, what do you think of Dorsal M? DO YOU BELIEVE IT?

[Astronaut Jones]

[quote]Originally posted by shetline:
<strong>

For 90% of the "shit" I do, my TiBook at 800 MHz is more than fast enough. But then there's that 10% where I do notice a need for more speed. That 10% means a lot to me... because it's my own software that I've written. That same software (it's Java -- the same code runs cross-platform) is noticibly, significantly faster even on my two-year old 1.1 GHz AMD PC.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

heh.. java.. therein lies your problem, dude.

[Flounder]

Well, Dorsal is starting to get pretty specific. Looks like MWNY will definetly make or break him

[Plaster]

Come on Dorsal M you can do better than that. I was waiting for months for another post and thats all you can give. Apple is really in deep s**t if it doesnt release a real pro machine worth that 3500$. The powermac's ass is being handed to him in almost all aspects now. If only those bastards at motorola could ship a new G4 with a ddr bus we would all be happier atleast for a couple of months. Is it that complicated? Amd and Intel did it why can't Moto do it? Apple is behind in everything aspect except firewire with their powermacs. You started this thread talking about the way memory is accessed on the test mobos you tried. What is the status now? Is it an on-chip ddr controller? or simply a ddr bus? If only Apple could have stayed with Ibm instead of f*****g motorola. I'm tired of waiting for the g5, they better arrive soon cuz if not, me and all my friends that love osx so much will have to switch to the evil microshit. After mwsf 03 they better be here, im tired of using old technology for almost twice the price of the new one on the other platform. And yes i'm pissed at Apple, but even more I hate motorola! I hope this hate turns to love after mwny. They can't fool the pro users forever, one day they will have to sell us real machines.

[apple.otaku]

Its the red motherboard all the way!

[cowofwar]

Dorsal probably doesn't know all the details. He would also probably would prefer to keep his job than give you information.

[MadMacs]

Unless AMD starts making G5's or something that is Mac compatiable, this will never ever happen.


[quote]Originally posted by bryan fury:
<strong>..face it , Moto suck.

They suck worse than a friggin' leaf blower.

AMD + Apple OR Bust. :mad: </strong><hr></blockquote>

[vic]

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>It's too late.

AMD has Hammer coming out on 400Mhz Point to Point Busses. 8way machines are planned with Quads being demo'd.

Intel has Prescott coming which supports a 666mhz Bus. In addition to the faster speeds that Northwood is going to bring.

Apple is not even close enough to choke on Intel/AMD's fumes.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[vic]

You are basing your numbers on what ever Intel and AMD want you to believe. I have used their 2ghz machines and the all suck. I bet if they were to gather all of their celeron processors and label them with a 5ghz YOU'D buy one cuz you can't tell the difference

[illume Gallery]

Audio Audio Audio!!! What else is there to consider? 1. - Audio outputs to home stereos with true surrond sound ability. As well as pro-consumer production monitoring.

2. - Audio inputs from microphones, mixers and other pro-consumer sources.

Also there will be free pizza for a year with every computer sold. Buy Buy Buy !!

[The All Knowing 1]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>
Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Excellent.

Well if this holds true, then I'll bet that the machines using the 1.5 Ghz chips will ship in August at the earliest, though maybe September.

Remember that a month ago I was ADAMANT about 1.5 Ghz machines after knowing of their (Dual 1.5 Ghz) distribution, but heard questions about the yields at the high-end so far. My guess is that final analysis was made that they could intro the machine in NYC, and ship them a month or two later.

I still have some reservations, but finally someone seems to have information that matches mine (1.5 Ghz, DDR2100)! And someone reliable too.

As for graphics, as I said, I've heard things about AGP 8x as at least a possibility...with all my heart I believe it can make it, and since the R300 gets its official debut the day after the keynote (IIRC) it would be a nice coincidence.

Firewire2 should come, though I still dunno about USB 2.0.

But thanks Dorsal....this is good news. I can most likely congratulate my sources now on good info gathering. Ok maybe not yet....but its looking good.

[Kecksy]

So, 1.5GHz and DDR266?

That may keep sales afloat until the G5 is released.

But I have some questions:

What bus does the new G4 use? Dorsal said dual channel RapidIO earlier. Is this still the case?

How fast is the bus? 16-bit at 2GHz or 8-bit at 500Mhz?

Does the new G4 have any additional floating point or integer units? Dorsal said no.

What sizes are the L2 and L3 caches? 512K and 2MB?

e500 and another high performance core? Was he talking about nVidia?

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>

[cowofwar]

[quote]Originally posted by vic:
<strong>You are basing your numbers on what ever Intel and AMD want you to believe. I have used their 2ghz machines and the all suck. I bet if they were to gather all of their celeron processors and label them with a 5ghz YOU'D buy one cuz you can't tell the difference</strong><hr></blockquote>

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

[The All Knowing 1]

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>So, 1.5GHz and DDR266?

That may keep sales afloat until the G5 is released.

But I have some questions:

What bus does the new G4 use?

How fast is it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

If it is 266 DDR then it *should* use a 133 bus, and everything I have heard says it will. But it should be double-pumped for the DDR.

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>

Does the new G4 have any additional floating point or integer units?

What sizes are the L2 and L3 caches?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dunno.

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>

Does this also mean 1GHz iMacs?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily, though it is very possible.

[Amorph]

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>So, 1.5GHz and DDR266?

That may keep sales afloat until the G5 is released.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That will depend on real-world performance, which can't be measured until the machine's out in the real world.

[quote]<strong>What bus does the new G4 use? Dorsal said dual channel RapidIO earlier. Is this still the case?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dorsal seems to be standing by his assertion that the RAM will be connected in an "unconventional" way, presumably with an on-chip memory controller and 16-bit RapidIO (although other configurations are possible).

moki has heard that this board slipped, and we'll see a stopgap, but Dorsal is now claiming it's final.

[quote]<strong>How fast is the bus? 16-bit at 2GHz or 8-bit at 500Mhz?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dorsal has said 16-bit; based on a quick reread of this thread, I don't think he's offered a bus speed yet.

[quote]<strong>Does the new G4 have any additional floating point or integer units? Dorsal said no.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dorsal mentioned Book E, an architecture shared between Motorola and IBM that would allow Apple to have chips custom made much more quickly and cheaply than was previously possible. So it's quite possible that there's not much firm data on that.

Dorsal has claimed that the new chip is based on the e500 core, but THT has questioned that.

[quote]<strong>What sizes are the L2 and L3 caches? 512K and 2MB?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dorsal claimed in his first post that cache sizes had doubled.

[quote]<strong>e500 and another high performance core? Was he talking about nVidia?</strong><hr></blockquote>

THT noted that the e500 is not, by the standards of the 7455, a high performance core. THT mentioned a much more powerful and scalable core, but that's probably the one that will appear in early 2003.

nVIDIA is probably involved to some extent; while I'm sure Quartz Extreme sails along nicely on a GeForce4, it also opens up the possibility that a really high-performance graphics subsystem could dramatically boost the available power of the machine, beyond what the raw processor performance would imply.

[Jet Powers]

If it's running at 1.5 GHz, it ain't a G4. Since there isn't a G5 (the chip theoretically capable of these speeds), I doubt seriously that Dorsal knows what he's talking about.

FWIW, I don't know shjt from shinola, but a full-scale improvement in G4's is pretty far-fetched.

TING5

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>

[cinder]

[quote]Come on Dorsal M you can do better than that. I was waiting for months for another post and thats all you can give. Apple is really in deep s**t if it doesnt release a real pro machine worth that 3500$. The powermac's ass is being handed to him in almost all aspects now. <hr></blockquote>


I don't know if Dorsal mentioned this or not, but HE DOESN'T RUN APPLE.

Complain to Apple, not hardware testers.

[JRG]

[quote]Originally posted by Yet Another Registration:
<strong>If it's running at 1.5 GHz, it ain't a G4. Since there isn't a G5 (the chip theoretically capable of these speeds), I doubt seriously that Dorsal knows what he's talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Bollocks! There is every reason to suspect a G4 fabbed in a .13 micron process can obtain 1.5GHz, especially if they also extend it to 10 stages. Motorola must have their .13 micron process sorted by now, IBM do, Intel do (for over a year), AMD do (for a couple of months).

[quote]<strong>
FWIW, I don't know shjt from shinola, but a full-scale improvement in G4's is pretty far-fetched.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Lets look at at the P4, the current state of the art Intel processor. Originally fabbed in a .18 micron Al process it could obtain at least 2GHz.

They then introduced a new version made in their new .13 micron process that started at 1.9GHz(I think, would welcom correction). This will obtain 3GHz before the year is out. That is a 50% increase in clock speeds with a slightly tweaked architecture (but no extra pipeline stages).

Motorola should be able to make the G4 go from 1GHz to 1.5Ghz by shrinking it to a .13 micron process. You even get lower power disipation as a nice side effect.

[Jet Powers]

I don't disagree that a .13 processed G4 could one day reach 1.5 GHz, I just don't think it will do that right off the line. Hence, my skepticism. It's not like the P4 went straight to 2.53 GHz after their die shrink; it took some time to evolve up to that speed.

So, I'm sticking to my 1.2 GHz prediction.

Let it be known that I have NEVER EVER gotten a prediction right since 1999, so betting against me is a good idea. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Hell, the damn expo is about a week away, anyway; I would expect people's level of stress to go down, as the waiting period is practically over.....

TING5

[othello]

at least dorsal's post has kicked this thread back on track... :D

[shetline]

Does anyone know where Power Mac inventories stand right now? I'm wondering if Apple would announce something like a 1.5 GHz dual G4 with DDR at MWNY... but announce that it wouldn't be available for 2-3 months.

My vague feeling from all the rumors running about is that if Dorsal is right, these new Power Macs will almost, but not quite, be ready to ship at MWNY. Once such an announcement were made, you'd have one hell of a time getting rid of the current "Power" Mac models.

Buy an iPod, get a dual 1 Gig for free? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>

[Jet Powers]

If history is any judge, some time around Tuesday or Wednesday, Powermacs will go to "shipping in 7 (or 10) days" at the Apple Store.....

The day after new Powermacs come out, all the rsellers drop their prices $100-500 on Powermacs. Those specials don't last for more than a week or two, pushing out all of the old products.

A month or so later, Apple has "Special Deals" on "refurbished" last generation stuff.

Baically, what I am saying is that exces inventory is something they deal with after that fact pretty well, and I can't think of a single scenario where excess inventory would DELAY a launch.

Also, Apple hasn't since the return of Steve announced a future shipping date of more than 30 days out. They often just lie and say it's available immediately.

TING5

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>

[JRG]

[quote]Originally posted by Yet Another Registration:
<strong>I don't disagree that a .13 processed G4 could one day reach 1.5 GHz, I just don't think it will do that right off the line. Hence, my skepticism. It's not like the P4 went straight to 2.53 GHz after their die shrink; it took some time to evolve up to that speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, but Intel could have released the P4 at 2.53 easily, that they didn't was for marketing and profitability. Note now that AMD are struggling to release new processors, the steady release of Intel gear has slowed...

[quote]<strong>

So, I'm sticking to my 1.2 GHz prediction.

Let it be known that I have NEVER EVER gotten a prediction right since 1999, so betting against me is a good idea. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Hell, the damn expo is about a week away, anyway; I would expect people's level of stress to go down, as the waiting period is practically over.....
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I apologise, after going away and rereading what I wrote it did come sounding fat too harsh.

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: JRG ]</p>

[The All Knowing 1]

[quote]Originally posted by Yet Another Registration:
<strong>If it's running at 1.5 GHz, it ain't a G4. Since there isn't a G5 (the chip theoretically capable of these speeds), I doubt seriously that Dorsal knows what he's talking about.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah?

And what about me? I was here pounding my fist on the table about a 1.5 Ghz Dual some time back, and while my info forced me to lower my insistence on it, I know that these G4s have existed for a while.

Sure you don't (yet) have good reason to believe me, since you don't know me from the hundreds of tweens that crawl these boards trying to plant information. But then again, you don't have a good reason not to believe me either :cool:

And no, if history is any judge, the expectation and tense status of all Mac fans will only rise exponentially as the keynote approaches. I know already I won't sleep the night before the keynote--I'll stay up and get in line with my colleagues way early, so we won't need binoculars to check out those new towers!

BTW, if any of you are watching the keynote (LOL! I mean...when you are watching the keynote) if the Powermac upgrades are so poor they prompt crowd riot....I'll be the one sneaking on stage to grab the demo machines! JK ;)

TING5, YAR, whatever you are now, have some faith. I know everyone here follows Dorsal like a deity, and to be perfectly honest, hearing him confirm everything I've heard is very relieving. (of course, Dorsal, if for any reason the Powermacs are not up to 1.5, we'll be eating crow :) )

[The All Knowing 1]

[quote]Originally posted by Yet Another Registration:
<strong>Also, Apple hasn't since the return of Steve announced a future shipping date of more than 30 days out. They often just lie and say it's available immediately.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

IIRC,

More than a couple products have seen shipping dates of &gt; 30 days. The original G4 (AGP Graphics) Towers (Sawtooth) were introed in September, but didn't ship until November or December.

More recently, the different models of new iMac shipped 1, 2, and 3 months after intro. And even more recently, the Xserve technically shipped over 30 days after its intro.

Say for a minute (NOTE this isn't based on anything besides the 1.5 Ghz ceiling) that the new towers come in configurations of 1.26 Ghz, Dual 1.13 Ghz, and Dual 1.5 Ghz. Apple may do what they did with the iMac--scale the intros. The Dual 1.13 model might ship in early August, with the 1.26 model coming in Sept and the Dual 1.5 in October. Why not? Its perfectly feasible...and if yields aren't QUITE there yet and that's what it takes to get 1.5 Ghz announced, then I say do it!

[Jet Powers]

Don't worry, dude. I'll be more than happy with 1.2 GHz. I'm not a 'sky is falling' type at all. I leave that to the Chicken Little camp and their leader, JYD.

If all Motorola did was put a DDR controller on the current 7455 and the speed didn't move an inch, I'd be happy.

I guess it's easy for me to wait because:

1) I don't get my big check until July 15th, so I wouldn't be buying 'til after the Expo no matter what

2) I'm gonna get a portable, and it seems like the Expo is a Powermac (and possibly iMac) affair.

As for shipping dates, Apple always lies about them, so I expect the next shipping date to be a carefully crafted lie as well. In other words, if I do buy an updated-at-the-expo product, I KNOW I won't see it until August at the earliest.

TING5

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Yet Another Registration ]</p>

[hotboxd]

well since mot seems to have 1ghz chips out the wazoo, it might be likely that the base model will be a dual 1gz machine, giving us an all dual lineup.

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by Astronaut Jones:
<strong>heh.. java.. therein lies your problem, dude.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't want to wander too far off topic, but what else besides Java would you suggest for a highly interactive cross-platform web applet like this: <a href="http://www.skyviewcafe.com" target="_blank">www.skyviewcafe.com</a> ? The applet is too interactive for server-side solutions to work effectively. I need the applet to get most of its horsepower from client system, and Java is the best way to do that for my calculation-intensive astronomy code.

Besides, my applet's performance with Java on Wintel systems is pretty good, so Java is not the problem. It's a combination of current underpowered Mac hardware and the current Mac Java implementation.

To get back to "Future Hardware": I'm very eager to see how much Java performance improves if we really get a 1.5 GHz G4 with DDR at MWNY.

This brings to mind a speculative "Future Hardware" idea, best started on a new thread...

[sCreeD]

9 days left.


Screed ...My nipples explode with ambiguity.

[Flounder]

Well, the guy from railheaddesign.com has weighed in on the subject.
Here's what he's got to say:
QuickSilver is dead. Long live the White Apple (for a year or so, at least).
• It looks as though the current 800MHz base system will be replaced with a single processor 1GHz.
• Mid and top-level systems will sport dual processors, and they should clock-in around 1.2GHz and 1.4GHz respectively.
• It seems that the total RAM amount will still max-out at 1.5GB — but that seems odd to me…
• The case will sport more internal bays to better handle multiple IDE drive installations.
• Low-end systems will have the GeForce4 MX card, and mid and top-level Macs will have the GeForce4 Titanium (this is pretty well-known already).
• Drive capacity will start at 60GB, 80GB, and 2x80GB.
• Prices will not change from they are now (supposedly).

[smeegs]

[quote]Originally posted by Flounder:
<strong>Well, the guy from railheaddesign.com has weighed in on the subject.
Here's what he's got to say:
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where did you see that? I can't see any mention of that anywhere on his site.

[smeegs]

[quote]Originally posted by Flounder:
<strong>Well, the guy from railheaddesign.com has weighed in on the subject.
Here's what he's got to say:
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Where did you see that? I can't see any mention of that anywhere on his site.

[Flounder]

[quote]Originally posted by smeegers:
<strong>

Where did you see that? I can't see any mention of that anywhere on his site.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Scroll down my friend, it's at the bottom of the page ;)

[canyon24]

Let's see:

1. Firewire 2 - I think that if anything changes next week, this will be introduced.

2. USB 2 - why would I want to connect my keyboard at "speeds up to 480 Mbps" I can't type at 7,345,653.7 words per second, so I would see no advantage. USB is fine the way it is. If you want somehting faster, I have an idea - FIREWIRE! I think firewire is a billion times more stable, and has a better name.

3. The new case design is VERY cool, I have seen promo poster designs for MWNY that show the case, and they are very much like Dorsal M described. Kind of xserve-ish, but with some white plastic that really makes it look awesome. And by the way, i hope you all realize (I am sure you do) that COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!

4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)

[sc_markt]

[quote]Originally posted by Flounder:
<strong>Well, the guy from railheaddesign.com has weighed in on the subject.
Here's what he's got to say:
QuickSilver is dead. Long live the White Apple (for a year or so, at least).
</strong><hr></blockquote>

IMO, I don't think the current towers would look good in that white colored plastic. I'd prefer a new tower that had a case that resembled the xserves.

[sc_markt]

[quote]Originally posted by canyon24:
<strong>

3. The new case design is VERY cool, I have seen promo poster designs for MWNY that show the case, and they are very much like Dorsal M described. Kind of xserve-ish, but with some white plastic that really makes it look awesome. And by the way, i hope you all realize (I am sure you do) that COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good news. Any pics for us?

[Amorph]

[quote]Originally posted by canyon24:
<strong>Let's see:

1. Firewire 2 - I think that if anything changes next week, this will be introduced.

2. USB 2 - why would I want to connect my keyboard at "speeds up to 480 Mbps" I can't type at 7,345,653.7 words per second, so I would see no advantage. USB is fine the way it is. If you want somehting faster, I have an idea - FIREWIRE! I think firewire is a billion times more stable, and has a better name.</strong><hr></blockquote>

However, USB 2-only peripherals are starting to appear, unfortunately. Not keyboards, but external drives and similar things that really can use the higher bandwidth.

It's a tough call: If Apple adopts USB 2, they risk marginalizing FireWire, but if they don't, they risk marginalizing themselves. It depends on just how much momentum USB 2 has in the peripherals industry.

[quote]<strong>COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!</strong><hr></blockquote>

What?! No pea soup green TiBook!? That's it! Apple is GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[quote]<strong>While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>

If it happens, certainly. It would also be, AFAIK, the first 50% jump in clockspeed since clock speeds were single digit MHz. Paired with Quartz Extreme and better mobo bandwidth, this should result in a much better than 50% jump in capability.

As Mandricard is fond of saying, hope springs eternal. :)

[sc_markt]

[quote]Originally posted by canyon24:
<strong>
4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>

A 500 Mhz increase without any additional pipelines would be rather nice.

[cinder]

To these people describing the new case . . .

a little more description please?

handles?
does it look like the El Capitan?
Curvey?
Boxy?

and did they keep the door??

(please say yes)

[zaz]

[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>

A 500 Mhz increase without any additional pipelines would be rather nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As the current offerings are already nearly suffocated by the Logic Board a 1.5GZH all by itself would be a tragedy. There would never be the performance gains desired... and nowhere close to related percentile increases in speed.

[Rand]

[quote]Originally posted by Flounder:
<strong>
• It seems that the total RAM amount will still max-out at 1.5GB — but that seems odd to me…
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I actually talked to an apple guy who was working on the classic module for OSX in January (just before MWSF) and I asked about RAM and 64Bit processing. His response was that in order to have more than 2gb of RAM you must have 64bit processing. He also said that the applications that *potentially* use 2gb of RAM had major errors/problems when they maxed it out in some of the early G4 machines that WERE capable of having 2gb ram (4 slots). He said that once 1.5gb was exceded stability dropped rappidly until you got to 64bit.

-He also made note that there are very few applications (litteral meaning, not necessarily programs) that use more than a gig of solid RAM at a time....

[Jonathan Brisby]

To put in my 2 cents I have 1 gig of ram in a B&W G3 and never really tap it all. It DOES make a heck of a lot of differene with OS X though. I usually use that much ram to run a million programs at once. (contrary to popular belief this seems to improve stability rather then lose it). I guess having extra ram keeps the system 'fed' as well as the applications. There is no question that I will max out the ram on whatever new system I get. I sure hope it has 2 gigs +.

[canyon24]

[quote]Originally posted by cinder:
<strong>To these people describing the new case . . .

a little more description please?

handles?
does it look like the El Capitan?
Curvey?
Boxy?

and did they keep the door??


(please say yes)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok, I just saw a picture of it from a poster, but here is everything I could tell you with any reasonable accuracy:

1. overall it looked smaller than my G4. Could just be the way the photo was taken.
2. it did have handles
3. front looks like metal
4.there is still a door on the side. (it is open in the pic. i saw.
5. it is curvey but refined from current. It reminds me of the eMac. VS. iMac (old) in terms of evolution.

[illume Gallery]

The New York Macworld will be special and important. With a new store opening in the most artsy section of New York (SOHO). The is not a discount store shopping area, it's a art gallery $2000 and up section of town. Very classy. The World Trade Center will be on the minds of many, and I think Steve Jobs wants to make a lasting impression to lift up our collective spirits. Corporations can't afford to lie or mislead use anymore, they risk losing us forever. What ever comes will be what they can deliver, and deliver now not 2 to 3 months from now. I think this is why Apple is being so restrictive on information and press passes. But, this is just my hopeful opinion.

[barefoot]

Information to feed on.
A contact at ClubMac just called me and asked if I wanted anything off their specials list.
"No I'm going to wait and see what comes out in the next six months" I said,
"You should see something in the next week or so" he pronounced.
Grain of salt,
Apply here.

[SteveS]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>
Original quote from KidRed:
"I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit, or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so."

(Shakes head.)

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why shake your head? KidRed's point is quite valid. You're one of the most frequent bashers of Apple's performance lineup. Yet, I'm quite confident you have no first hand experience with a dual 1GHZ G4. Otherwise, you would complain so much about Apple's performance.

[quote]<strong>
Got an iBook. Well, it's my wife's. Despite 384 megs of ram...it don't handle 300 dpi Photoshop files at all well without being 'out of memory'...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Great! This completely validates KidRed's point. Your basis for Apple's poor performance is from using Photoshop on an iBook (the slowest machine Apple sells). Based on your memory errors, I'll bet that you're not even using OS X, but using OS 9 and probably don't know how to set the memory allocation for the application manually.

[quote]<strong>
Am I in the market for an out of date machine? Nope.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

What's your definition of out of date? You are the typical type that likes to complain about the lack of DDR, yet completely dismisses the use of L3 cache and cannot possibly quantify the performance difference that DDR will add to real applications (not theoretical bandwidth) without the L3 cache, etc. In short, I doubt your definition of "up to date" will ever be satisfied based on what you believe "up to date" means. For most people, "up to date" means the latest offering.

[quote]<strong>
If Apple could do a 1.5 G4 at say £1,200 inc Vat. I'd think about that. But £2,400? Even for a dual processor...that's alot of money. Especially with a generational leap around the corner ie some kind of G5 on Rio.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Great... Even if Apple produces a machine to your liking, you'll complain about the price and use that as an excuse to not upgrade. Then you'll use the "something better is around the corner" excuse. Guess what, something better will always be around the corner. Personally, I'd rather have the last version of the G4 than the first version of the G5. I intend to upgrade after MWNY, despite what may come out in January of next year.

[quote]<strong>
I really don't mind the premium. I didn't when I bought my last tower. Back then? Apple were competitive. Now? They're...well...it aint even funny. (Says through choked disbelief...y'know...at facing the 'reality' of where Apple's specs currently are...)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You don't think a dual 1.3 - 1.5 GHZ G4 is competitive with a P4 2.5 GHZ or Athlon 2100+, etc.? I'd be willing to bet you otherwise...

Steve

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by canyon24:
<strong>4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>

Looking towards Cupertino, then closing my eyes, face lifting heavenward, aging Apple rainbow-logo keychain clenched firmly in my right hand:

I do believe! I do believe! I do believe!


Quick! Where are all of the naysayers!? I'm getting too excited, and I can feel my credit card twitching in my back pocket. :D :D :D

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Well, if it aint Zealot Apologist Steve...complete with non-detachable RDF!

The guy who thinks 'power'Macs are competitive when most objective Mac people think otherwise and realise the shortcomings of the current 'power'Macs. Gee, wonder why people are debating the cpu so much? The lack of DDR? The single pumped bus? The lack of monitor or high end graphic card included? For twice the price of an Athlon system that can whup its ass?

My 'loyalty' to the Mac platform (stretched by poor hardware specs over the last year or so...)doesn't mean I'm going to shell out £2,500 for a beautiful but aged specced 'tower'.

But I know who you like to compare like with like...so how about you show me one benchmark where the latest dual Athlon crumples before the majestic power of the dual G4$?

Or perhaps we'll show how competitive Apple are on their 'cheapest' Tower and see how that compares with a competitive PC?

Like for like...Apple are competing worse now in the tower market than they did years ago... We don't get crappy rage cards anymore...but we pay a full premium to get access to Mac versions of Geforce Titaniums...

In a saturated market...Dell still thumps Apple! And Apple have 95% to go at!

The Stevie-guy who likes to think that the ponderous dual Gig G4 is a match for the latest Athlon single cpu machine half its price. And even if it was (in your fantasy land...) Mac users have to pay twice as much to get 'hanging in there performance?' We have to get two G4s to 'almost' beat 1 Athlon? What a pathetic loser argument.

Gee, well, if I don't know how to set my memory allocation then you can't read PC prices or use a dictionary because in no way are Apple's 'power'Macs in any way competitive at the moment with any comparable machine in their price brackets. Not on:

Price.
Memory.
Bus.
Graphic card.
Monitor included?

1.5 G4$? Catch up.

I'll buy when we have something like a next generation CPU/memory system on something like Hypertransport or Rio.

If you can waste your money on current machines...then do so. It's your choice afterall.
There is no way Apple is hosing my cheque book with antiquated tech'. And with our most optimistic or 'realistic' predictions...Apple will still be behind.

Lemon Bon Bon ;)

[Amorph]

Rants. Belong. In. General. Discussion.

This is getting really old.

[Lemon Bon Bon]

For this to be truly 'Apple's Year' Amorph...

Words. I guess it's 'which ones you use', eh?

'Apple's Year' implies something really special is going to happen. A 'bumped' G4 isn't special.
Well, not to me it isn't.

I'd like to see Apple move to the next generation of PPC cpu. The symbolic 'G5'...with high speed memory and bus...don't care who makes it.

Last year we thought it'd be January 2002 for the G5. Yeesh. How wrong we were...it looks like late next year if Moki's hints ring true.

At current tower prices, the G5 would make Apple competitive again. In terms of marketability re: its Mhz and in terms of raw power to go with those high end apps they've bought. With Jaguar, a G5 system makes sense. Jaguar shouldn't be a crutch for aged glorified G3/G4s.

The only special thing Apple have done re: hardware this year is the LCD iMac. But bar the superdrive and superb styling...aged spec. Bus, memory, graphics and cpu poor for the price. Boost these to Geforce 4mx, 1 gig - 1.2 gig with DDR and improved bus with 17 inch LCD for top and hey. Not bad. Great for an iMac. Not for your 'Pentium' killing machine.

Boost the iMacs. Give the Towers the next gen' they desperately need. I'll buy. I'm sure others will too. In droves. But a stop gap machine?

You talk to me about this being 'Apple's year'?

I say it belongs to Jaguar which is really what the Mac is truly about.

But the hardware specs suck. They will do until we see a G5. Maybe next year will be 'Apple's Year' on the hardware front.

Raise your glass to 'Jaguar'.

Lemon Bon Bon

[illume Gallery]

Yes Jaguar is the key to what ever is coming, Apple has hyped it enough..it's payoff time. i think low price is one of the major changes coming, people don't have the money they use to just for a computer they don't make money from.

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: illume Gallery ]</p>

[Lemon Bon Bon]

Exactly illume. In a saturated PC market Apple must offer a compelling reason to upgrade/switch etc.

Jaguar may well be it. But Apple won't get the numbers they're after (10%...Steve Jobs wants to double market share...) unless it is 'compelling.'

Define 'compelling' for this years Mac show? I'll leave it up to you guys.

For me? If no G5 then Special Edition 1 gig G4, 17 inch LCD iMac with better bus, memory and Geforce 4mx.

If no bump then cut the damned prices. Under a grand at old imac prices? With only the top iMac over a grand. I'd buy!

What frustrates me most about Apple is when they are so close...in many respects. Just price the damn thing to go. Even in a rough economy...people know a bargain when the see one.

Lemon Bon Bon

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>

[bunge]

Quartz Extreme & Jaguar promise to make the user experience for average tasks (Web, email, *cough* Word *cough*) much more pleasant and FAST.

New Powermacs combined with the updated OS promise to make the Pro market experience much faster as well.

It could be a very good year for Apple.

The 'darkside' will always be advancing, but Apple still has the edge. It can better anticipate Future Hardware & their own Operating System. This will keep them ahead of the curve for a long time. They are behind, but I think it's simply because the OS is so new. Even XP is old, it's an update NT. It's, he he, refined at least by MS's standards.

Jaguar will help probably more than most of us know.

[cowofwar]

Yes, Jaguar will be great. Too bad practically no one will be able to use quartz extreme :(

It's also supposedly coming out in August, so how much can they hype it at MWNY if it isn't available immediately? That will hurt it.

I'm just waiting for another whole banner thing going on at Apple's site. The moment if and when I see it promoting this MWNY as the best one yet, then I'll have lost all hope.

[apple.otaku]

All you do is complain and make negative comments. You must be a joy to be around. Grow a ponytail and get a Gateway already. You're better off on a PC and the Mac community is better off without you trolling these boards.

[Gamblor]

[quote] Yes, Jaguar will be great. Too bad practically no one will be able to use quartz extreme <hr></blockquote>

I just don't get this. Here's a list of machines that will benefit from QE:

G4 iMac QS PowerMacs, plus older PMs w/ Radeon graphics eMacs new iBooks w/Radeon graphics TiBooks w/ Radeon graphics anybody who's upgraded to Radeon/GF2MX+ graphics


...and that's "practically no one"? That's probably a few million machines...

[quote] It's also supposedly coming out in August, so how much can they hype it at MWNY if it isn't available immediately? That will hurt it. <hr></blockquote>

How would it be hurt? Hyping 10.1 before it came out didn't seem to do any damage.

[SteveS]

First, my apologies to Amorph. This may be perceived as rant, however, it's also on topic with Future Hardware, particularly next week's future hardware.


[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Well, if it aint Zealot Apologist Steve...complete with non-detachable RDF!
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes Bon-Bon, we know, everyone that doesn't bitch and moan about everything Apple does, and thereby agree with you, is subject to RDF. I wonder if you actually believe yourself sometimes ;-)

[quote]<strong>
The guy who thinks 'power'Macs are competitive when most objective Mac people think otherwise and realise the shortcomings of the current 'power'Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apparently, you don't read very well. I specifically mentioned the expected dual 1.3 - 1.5GHZ G4 systems - hence FUTURE HARDWARE.

[quote]<strong>
Gee, wonder why people are debating the cpu so much? The lack of DDR? The single pumped bus?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

blah, blah... Yes, you're good at quoting buzzwords, but apparently have no idea what they mean. Otherwise, you would have attempted to demonstrate the real world performance difference between a DDR system w/o L3 cache and a non-DDR system with L3 cache, etc. It's obvious you're stuck on buzzwords, but do not have the technical means of understanding what you're preaching about.

[quote]<strong>
The Stevie-guy who likes to think that the ponderous dual Gig G4 is a match for the latest Athlon single cpu machine half its price. And even if it was (in your fantasy land...) Mac users have to pay twice as much to get 'hanging in there performance?' We have to get two G4s to 'almost' beat 1 Athlon? What a pathetic loser argument.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

How come you never mention the prices of the dual Athlon machines when talking about price? Why would you care how many processors are in a system, so long as it performs? In the server market, how fast a single processor is, is meaningless. I specifically challenged you to see if you ever used a dual 1GHZ G4. Obviously, you haven't, yet you continue to complain about performance. Yes, there are benchmarks where Athlons are faster. There are also benchmarks where Macs are faster. I contend that Macs are "competitive" in their target markets. That doesn't mean they blow away the competition across the board. Of course, they don't. As I mentioned though, new systems such as dual 1.3 - 1.5 GHZ G4s will certainly be competitive with P4 2.5 and Athlon 2100+ systems. Do you have any evidience to contradict this, or are you just going to rant on with your RDF nonsense? If you do try to bring up some benchmarks, lets review a range of them, not just a few isolated FP based 3D rendering tests where everybody knows Athlons excel, okay? I can repeatedly show you the same PS benches if you want to play that game.

[quote]<strong>
Gee, well, if I don't know how to set my memory allocation then you can't read PC prices or use a dictionary because in no way are Apple's 'power'Macs in any way competitive at the moment with any comparable machine in their price brackets. Not on:
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a retarded argument. What does "you not knowing how to allocate memory for applications" have to do with the "price of computers"? You don't even follow a sense of logic. Perhaps, you're suffering from a GDF (Gates Distortion Field) in such a way to interfere with common sense.

Yes, there is a premium on some Mac offerings. However, the iMac has been proven to be more cost effective than similar flat panel Gateway systems. I've posted similar links in the past. Xserve is competitive with other 1U based units of similar performance, and dual CPU based PCs are typically expensive. Additionally, yes, you can build some PC systems to be a better value with hardware alone. However, you're still not factoring in the cost of using Windows vs. Macs OS. In short, you're comparing Apples to Oranges (literally).

[quote]<strong>
1.5 G4$? Catch up.

I'll buy when we have something like a next generation CPU/memory system on something like Hypertransport or Rio.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Doubtful. You'll find a reason to bash Apple and claim they are not competitive. I do find it amusing how fixated you are on buzzwords, yet you've yet to define a personal need which is not yet met by today's systems. What will hypertransport and Rapid IO do for you that you cannot accomplish now on a current, or what will be current in a week, Mac? What's a matter, cat got your tongue? ;-)

Steve

[Kecksy]

I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.

He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.

The only thing that makes me question whether this chip is the "real" G5 is Dorsal’s comment on the chips integer/FPU performance. He said it was on par with the 7455 at the same clock speed.

I thought this was where the G5 was supposed to be twice as fast as the G4, not as fast. I guess those SPEC scores that surfaced awhile back were just BS.

Or Maybe Dorsal was just talking about theoretical performance numbers. The G5 could still be twice as fast as the G4, since RapidIO and DDR would bring its real world performance closer to its theoretical performance.

So Dorsal? Are these systems you've been testing actually G5 PowerMacs?

If the G5 is coming next week, then this will definitely be a MacWorld to remember, and I’m going to be there! :)

[Telomar]

[quote]Originally posted by JRG:
<strong>Lets look at at the P4, the current state of the art Intel processor. Originally fabbed in a .18 micron Al process it could obtain at least 2GHz.

They then introduced a new version made in their new .13 micron process that started at 1.9GHz(I think, would welcom correction). This will obtain 3GHz before the year is out. That is a 50% increase in clock speeds with a slightly tweaked architecture (but no extra pipeline stages).

Motorola should be able to make the G4 go from 1GHz to 1.5Ghz by shrinking it to a .13 micron process. You even get lower power disipation as a nice side effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The PIV was a completely new processor and had been designed with future scalability in mind. It had plenty in its legs before it went to a 130nm process.

The Athlon on the other hand, that had nothing left, has gone absolutely nowhere since dropping to a 130nm process.

Point is don't make simplistic generalisations as it isn't so simple as change process this way and receive x times speed boost.

[Cobra]

[quote]There is no way Apple is hosing my cheque book with antiquated tech'. And with our most optimistic or 'realistic' predictions...Apple will still be behind.<hr></blockquote>

Frankly Lemon Whine Whine, I don't see your check book opening up for any kind of hardware that Apple will introduce. :)

[JCG]

[quote]

Jaguar may well be it. But Apple won't get the numbers they're after (10%...Steve Jobs wants to double market share...) unless it is 'compelling.'

[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>

For Apple to reach these goals they will have to have computers that appeal to everyone. Right now the iMag/e-Mac is a great low end computer. The tower, with some system upgrades is a competent Pro-Computer.

What Apple is really missing is a low-end Pro-Sumer model with some upgradable components (most notably would be the graphics card). There is a large market for Gamers who will not buy an all-in one due to bieng stuck with an old graphics system. For this market the tower's price and sales focus just does not fit. If Apple were to add in a lower-end tower ($1000-$1200) or reintroduce the Cube then they might be able to gain these sales, though it might canabilize some of the tower's sales as well.

[SteveS]

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.

He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree. By Motorola's defintion, there are really only two key attributes which define what a G5 is: "Extensible Architechture" - meaning Book E compliant. The other is: New Bus Topology - Rapid IO. Technically, MOT claims both 32bit and 64bit parts, so 64bit is not a requirement for G5.

Steve

[Addison]

[quote]Originally posted by Kecksy:
<strong>I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.

He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.

The only thing that makes me question whether this chip is the "real" G5 is Dorsal’s comment on the chips integer/FPU performance. He said it was on par with the 7455 at the same clock speed.

I thought this was where the G5 was supposed to be twice as fast as the G4, not as fast. I guess those SPEC scores that surfaced awhile back were just BS.

Or Maybe Dorsal was just talking about theoretical performance numbers. The G5 could still be twice as fast as the G4, since RapidIO and DDR would bring its real world performance closer to its theoretical performance.

So Dorsal? Are these systems you've been testing actually G5 PowerMacs?

If the G5 is coming next week, then this will definitely be a MacWorld to remember, and I’m going to be there! :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you have hit the nail on the head. It's interesting how those that have always been sceptical of Dorsal have gone very quite. I think that this time Dorsal has been so specific and there SEEMS to be lots of corroberating evidence...

Well we will find out in 9 days, but I think Dorsal is real.

FWIW I do not see any reason to doubt the ability of Moto to jump from 1 to 1.5 ghz IF they are either moving to another chip OR a different fabrication process. If we were talking about scaling the existing chip using the same production processes I wouold agree. But since the assumption is that production has moved to .13 it seems logical that a one-off jump could be reasonable.

[Bodhi]

[quote]Originally posted by Dorsal M:
<strong>Final machines have been seeded a while ago with updated hardware. That means they were in their final case designs and processor speeds. There is a much more professional look to them and the design is cleaner that the older case design. There is more chrome and metallic accents.

Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.

A more detailed case description will be coming soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Case description will come along after a few rumor sites post some details about it and Dorsal can then write a little paragraph about "the case that was sent to him.." I highly doubt Apple sends out finished brand spanking new cases out for motherboard testing. My brother is an engineer for Chrysler, when they send out a car for testing it's the engine that is being tested, not the body. They disguise the car and make it all out of porportion so no one can rip them off. Apple is the same way, Apple IS industrial design to the fullest degree. Dorsal even said in the past that Apple sent them out in metal boxes that couldn't be opened. Then they could be opened but there was no system profiler, then they all of a sudden knew part numbers but it wasn't a G5, then it was a G5.

Dorsal's prying for attention has exposed him as a fraud. It worked for a while, but it has become Kormac-esque. :p

[apple.otaku]

Don't forget what Quartz Extreme really is. Remember that the GUI speedup is just a side effect of it. That is what SJ discussed in the Keynote because everyone can benefit but the real significance of QE was discussed in the private sessions. Even with a "pokey" 1Ghz you will be able to do things in real time that you can't on even the fastest PC.

[johnsonwax]

[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>
I highly doubt Apple sends out finished brand spanking new cases out for motherboard testing. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, they do send cases out for some kinds of testing. A few years ago I played around with a test Wallstreet that had prototype plastics. The form factor was spot on, but the color wasn't there yet. This was a month to 6 weeks before announce.

At 1 week before announce, it's not surprising that you'll have some real cases going out. Of course there's also hardware floating around that won't ship at the next announce, so you don't always know, but at least they wouldn't have finished plastics on them.

I saw some prototype dual CPU systems that never got released, so it's easy to see what direction Apple is going yet never get the product release right.

[cinder]

At the since-closed COmputer Rennaisance I used to work at - someone brought in a prototype Blackbird powerbook.

That thing was suited up in full plastics, with all the trimmings.

Granted, it might be a little tougher to toss around a laptop without some decent casing - but it was almost identical to the final version.

So, it &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; possible that there were close-to-final plastics on this thing.


and I'd also like to say, I'm totally stoked for new PowerMacs. Period.

[Bodhi]

[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>

Well, they do send cases out for some kinds of testing. A few years ago I played around with a test Wallstreet that had prototype plastics. The form factor was spot on, but the color wasn't there yet. This was a month to 6 weeks before announce.

At 1 week before announce, it's not surprising that you'll have some real cases going out. Of course there's also hardware floating around that won't ship at the next announce, so you don't always know, but at least they wouldn't have finished plastics on them.

I saw some prototype dual CPU systems that never got released, so it's easy to see what direction Apple is going yet never get the product release right.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The examples that have been used are for machines years old which would be in testing more than two years ago, things are different now ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CUBE and Worker Bee. Worker Bee worked for a company outside of Apple that Apple hired (contract work, he actually was on the Apple campus but was not a real Apple employee) to test hardware and software. After the WB incident Apple discontinued using contracted workers for that and brought everything in-house.

My point? Apple is careful as hell right now with its designs. Someone testing thoroughput of a PCI bus does not need to see the plastic case to see if it works or not.

[shetline]

[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>'Apple's Year' implies something really special is going to happen. A 'bumped' G4 isn't special.
Well, not to me it isn't.

I'd like to see Apple move to the next generation of PPC cpu. The symbolic 'G5'...with high speed memory and bus...don't care who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do understand why you're disappointed with the performance level of current Power Macs.

I don't, however, get why you're so hung up about whether the next thing is called a 'G5' or not.

If a 'bumped' G4 means both a jump from 1 GHz to 1.4 or 1.5 GHZ, and full-throttle, better-than-Xserve access to DDR, what's the issue? If that's 'all' we get, that could be quite amazing. Maybe they'll even call a G4 that's so much improved a G5. But it Apple still calls it a G4, what's the big deal?

Is there some concrete G5-ish feature that you think you think we'll be missing in anything that's not explicitly crowned a G5? If it's 64 bits... well, I'll wait until I here talk about a 64-bit version of OS X to even care.

[johnsonwax]

[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>

The examples that have been used are for machines years old which would be in testing more than two years ago, things are different now ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CUBE and Worker Bee. </strong><hr></blockquote>

True, Apple is more careful, but plastics can still be found around and about. What was unique about the cube situation was that it was a new product, and I think for a sufficiently new product, plastics will be much harder to come by (iPod, LCD iMac). Of course, Xserve cases weren't that hard to come by, nor were eMac.

An upgraded tower case isn't a showstopper for Apple to let out, as much as the specs are. Everyone knows that the tower will look more-or-less like it does now. Maybe more rounded or square, more aluminum or plastic, but honestly, not being a consumer item, the styling of the tower isn't a big deal. I'm sure they are out there, but anyone that leaks them will likely not get seeded for some time. Since Apple tends to have multiple hardware prototypes and sometimes multiple case prototypes, leaking is especially hazardous - not only could you be leaking a product that will never ship, you might well make it perfectly clear where that leak came from.

And even with all of their apparent paranoia, Apple higher-ups have been known to bring relatively completed designs and specs to big .edu markets (Maine ordered how many iBook dual USB at intro? CRT and LCD iMacs were shown prior to intro, as was eMac.) and big .com markets (Xserve at Genentech)

The honest truth is that the people that see these systems sign NDAs and stick to them. If Apple showed up at my door with prototype hardware and had me sign an NDA, it would bind not only me but my employer. If I leaked that information, I'm almost positive it would cost me my job (as well it should).

[Jonathan]

this thread has more than run its course.

Just because there might be real info doesn't mean the thread can degenerate into crap.

You either believe it or you don't.