or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Anonymous source says desktop G5 is dead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anonymous source says desktop G5 is dead - Page 2

post #41 of 63
snoop around on Mot's site enough and you're bound to find something interested... Make of this what you will...

<a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC5XX120301PWC.pdf" target="_blank">http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/MPC5XX120301PWC.pdf</a>

specifically, check out the roadmap towards the end of the pdf... if the g5 is referred to as Book E (which mot and ibm have used as the basis of future ppc processors), looks like we'll be waiting till next year at least...

can't wait till my new dual comes in Monday... been procrastinating an upgrade since I bought my beige g3 the day they were released years ago... so very long overdue..
post #42 of 63
Thread Starter 
Notice that Motorola's presentations all are aimed at the embedded PPC market. They simply don't care about desktop CPU applications. Although this could be due to the secrecy that Apple likes to have, it still shows how much Motorola is committed to the embedded market.

If you look at PPC design, it is also aimed at the embedded market. Wouldn't we rather have a G4 that dissipated 100 W of power, if it ran at 2 GHz? I sure as hell would . But instead we get CPUs that are all low power by Wintel standards. Nobody needs a low power CPU for a desktop computer, bring on the watts and give me performance, that's what I say.
post #43 of 63
Oh.My.God.

some people simply shouldn't have a computer, is this what happens when we start converting the other 95%?
post #44 of 63
Thread Starter 
So you actually care how many watts the CPU uses in your Powermac?

Apparently you don't have any opinion, or anything to say, because all you do in your post is blubber about some arrogant assumption that I'm not part of the 5% elite. I've been using Apples since the Apple IIe, so you'd better come to terms with me being part of the 5% Mac market. I've never owned a PC, and I've never enjoyed using one.

So, either post something of value that relates to FH, or STFU! Thank you.

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
post #45 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>If you look at PPC design, it is also aimed at the embedded market. Wouldn't we rather have a G4 that dissipated 100 W of power, if it ran at 2 GHz? I sure as hell would . But instead we get CPUs that are all low power by Wintel standards. Nobody needs a low power CPU for a desktop computer, bring on the watts and give me performance, that's what I say.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, for one, there's the cooling/noise issue. While admittedly Macs aren't that silent even with G4s at the current power levels, imagine just how enjoyable working on a machine with a processor dissipating 100W alone and the required coolant system would be. Maybe others don't care that much, but I tend to think less moise is a good thing. (And no, I don't understand why Apple doesn't use more silent fans either.)

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #46 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by sc_markt:
<strong>
I work with engineers who have been in the semiconducter industry for a long time. According to these guys, IBM's wafer fab costs are 2X to 4X higher than normal. This means a chip from Motorola that costs $100.00 could cost $200.00 to $400.00 dollars from IBM.


- Mark</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's say you're right. Then, we owe ourselves a question: Why would the big boys at Apple do so much business with the G3 processors from IBM for the low-end cheapie machines for these years? (Still in the iBook...) Why would Nintendo, with their Game Cube costing $100 less than Sony's or Microsoft's offerings, be offering an IBM processor? Sure, silicon may be cheaper elsewhere, but what IBM is able to do with that silicon (lower power consumption, higher performance, integrating more function on the CPU) may be what tips the scales. Is that a process cost, or is that a development cost that gets shifted to the process to pay for the more expensive development? That's the real question here.
post #47 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Chrys Robyn:
<strong>
Let's say you're right. Then, we owe ourselves a question: Why would the big boys at Apple do so much business with the G3 processors from IBM for the low-end cheapie machines for these years? (Still in the iBook...) Why would Nintendo, with their Game Cube costing $100 less than Sony's or Microsoft's offerings, be offering an IBM processor? Sure, silicon may be cheaper elsewhere, but what IBM is able to do with that silicon (lower power consumption, higher performance, integrating more function on the CPU) may be what tips the scales. Is that a process cost, or is that a development cost that gets shifted to the process to pay for the more expensive development? That's the real question here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good point.


-mithral &lt;continues lurking&gt;
The crowd goes wild! It thinks you're terrific.
Reply
The crowd goes wild! It thinks you're terrific.
Reply
post #48 of 63
Junky,

In the interest in fair play...........Moto would never do this. It just doesn't make ANY sense ( unless the G5 just doesn't work ). There's real life and then there's business. This is business. When you are in business, you don't let your feelings get in the way. That's the way the world is ( for better or worse ).

[ 02-04-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #49 of 63
post #50 of 63
let's put this into perspective/if apple wanted to, they could take their business elsewhere/they may have killed the clones, but at least they kept the chip at motorola/they are probably wanting to take the chip in-house cos i know i would if i were steve/he relies on no-one but Apple for all the hardware except the chip, the most vital piece of the puzzle.

i propose that if moto were being childish, steve would simply speed up the in-house development and take the chip away from them/let's hear them bitch then.../i reckon the G5 will come from Apple and be produced by IBM/the whole "fab process is too expensive" sounds like sour grapes from moto's part/of course they are gonna say that/the G5 will never die/i hope
never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
Reply
never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
Reply
post #51 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>So you actually care how many watts the CPU uses in your Powermac?

Apparently you don't have any opinion, or anything to say, because all you do in your post is blubber about some arrogant assumption that I'm not part of the 5% elite. I've been using Apples since the Apple IIe, so you'd better come to terms with me being part of the 5% Mac market. I've never owned a PC, and I've never enjoyed using one.

So, either post something of value that relates to FH, or STFU! Thank you.

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


why? because your original post was based on so much fact? STFU? i could say the same for you.



how bout this, maccentral or macnn (help me out with a link people), quoted a motorola pr rep as saying they kept quiet on the apollo in respect of apples secrecy issues, why not so with the g5... a much more important chip for apple.
post #52 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>So you actually care how many watts the CPU uses in your Powermac?

Apparently you don't have any opinion, or anything to say, because all you do in your post is blubber about some arrogant assumption that I'm not part of the 5% elite. I've been using Apples since the Apple IIe, so you'd better come to terms with me being part of the 5% Mac market. I've never owned a PC, and I've never enjoyed using one.

So, either post something of value that relates to FH, or STFU! Thank you.

[ 02-03-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know, I'm gonna have to stick up for my UCSB brethren here. One of the most pleasant FEATURES of my iMac is that there is NO FAN! Why is that? Perhaps it's because the CPU has a low power usage.

And it's funny that you should urge someone to post something of value, given the utter crap that you find on, say, the maccentral forums that you feel the need to repost here.

(sheesh, I sound bitter... must be that paper I still need to write)
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #53 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>

You know, I'm gonna have to stick up for my UCSB brethren here. One of the most pleasant FEATURES of my iMac is that there is NO FAN! Why is that? Perhaps it's because the CPU has a low power usage.

And it's funny that you should urge someone to post something of value, given the utter crap that you find on, say, the maccentral forums that you feel the need to repost here.

(sheesh, I sound bitter... must be that paper I still need to write)</strong><hr></blockquote>

thunderdome power baby! how bout you come down to IV and get your ass kicked at DP...


anyways, anyone seen rbald around lately? i found a link for him <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=frm&s=50009562&f=48409524" target="_blank">battlefront</a>

also, jyd, iloveyou

okok i'm tired of being mean, reading some of your other posts... you have some merit, but sometimes.. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> although i could say the same for me

anyways pass that onto rblad, also- way off topic, apple may have incured the wrath of nvidia like they did the wrath of motorola, <a href="http://www.appleturns.com" target="_blank">atat</a> is reporting that apple pulled their pr release on the g4ti going bto on the new powermacs because nvidia hasnt even announced it yet! and it included full specs and all... hehehe just like what ati did to apple <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #54 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by janitor:
<strong>

thunderdome power baby! how bout you come down to IV and get your ass kicked at DP...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well I'll be a half-drunk San Nic freshman takin' the Walk 'O Shame down DP at 3AM...

Here I thought I was the only gaucho on AI, then two in one thread???? :eek:

We should throw an AI kegger or something to celebrate. (any news at all is reason to party in IV)

I'm 'bout to get beat down by his 20 page PolySci paper. Hope you guys (janitor & agent302) survive your midterms. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />


-mithral

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Mithral ]</p>
The crowd goes wild! It thinks you're terrific.
Reply
The crowd goes wild! It thinks you're terrific.
Reply
post #55 of 63
ehehe... i owned my polysci 6 midterm :cool:
post #56 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by janitor:
<strong>ehehe... i owned my polysci 6 midterm :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm a poli sci major!
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #57 of 63
Thread Starter 
[quote] Well, for one, there's the cooling/noise issue. While admittedly Macs aren't that silent even with G4s at the current power levels, imagine just how enjoyable working on a machine with a processor dissipating 100W alone and the required coolant system would be. Maybe others don't care that much, but I tend to think less moise is a good thing. (And no, I don't understand why Apple doesn't use more silent fans either.)
<hr></blockquote>

He he, well I was exaggerating with the 100 W figure, but you're right, we don't need powermacs that are incredibly loud. But I dare say that if Apple spent an extra $10 on their fans, Powermacs would suddenly run nearly silent.

My intent though is to point out that Motorola is primarily a CPU supplier for the embedded chip market, so trade-offs are made with the needs of that market in mind, rather than the Mac market. I think PPC performance suffers because of this, but I suppose the other side of the coin is that Apple reportedly has taken over some PPC development, and that design changes can easily be made for the desktop PPCs that change the balance of tradeoffs.

Damn, it was never my intent to start a flame war with this thread...all I wanted was to point out a post made by someone suggesting that the G5 was dead, so that AI member could DISCUSS the merits of the post, and come up with reasons why the G5 is NOT dead. I personally don't believe that it's dead, but it's always nice to hear from other people as well.

However I think there is truth to the idea that Moto execs have invested less R&D in desktop PPC development out of spite for Apple. Yes, they are business, but they are also human, and it's a very human thing to get pissed off when someone breaks a promise like Steve Jobs did with the clones. The perception of Motorola being run by a team of Vulcan businessmen who base their decisions on logic alone doesn't ring true for me. The coincidence is too fishy--we say PPC development lag for a few years after the clones were killed, and now that Moto has had time to cool down, PPC development is picking up again (remember that the chips we see are ~2 years after the R&D began, so the problems with PPC performance would have begun about 2 years after the clone agreement was broken). For anyone who says that businesses are always run by logic, I need only to point out the iPod. Any logical businessman would have made the iPod fully compatible with windows, but out of pride Jobs made sure that the iPod works only with Macs! Surely Apple could have sold twice as many if they worked with Windows, no?

Well for the record let me state again, I do NOT think that the G5 for Macs was ever "killed", but it would have been nice if more people posted reasons WHY they think it wasn't killed, instead of attacking me. I'll remember for the future to only post good news for discussion.
post #58 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>Well for the record let me state again, I do NOT think that the G5 for Macs was ever "killed", but it would have been nice if more people posted reasons WHY they think it wasn't killed, instead of attacking me. I'll remember for the future to only post good news for discussion. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I appreciate your mentioning of this now. I think that the whole thread might have taken a different direction if you had mentioned your skepticism at the outset, because your initial post reads as though you truly believed what "Wolff" posted at Maccentral. Anyhow, I think it's important not to post "good" news, but rather more "plausible news." Conspiracies are fun, but they aren't really likely. Just thought I'd add that
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
"Oh boy, sleep! That's where I'm a viking!"
Reply
post #59 of 63
[quote]Well for the record let me state again, I do NOT think that the G5 for Macs was ever "killed", but it would have been nice if more people posted reasons WHY they think it wasn't killed, instead of attacking me. I'll remember for the future to only post good news for discussion. <hr></blockquote>

Really, you should have said so straight away.

Think about the kinds of responses that could have been given. There's the business-related response, i.e.

"Motorola's management, for all their faults, are not a pack of Howler Monkeys. Apple remains an exceedingly important account, since Apple pays top dollar (relatively speaking) for Moto's newest chips. In addition, Apple's advertising for PPC gives Moto's products a huge boost in mindshare. And finally, any attempt to kill off the desktop G5 would almost certainly invite a huge lawsuit from Apple."

These points have been amply made over and over again in this thread and in other AI threads. You're hardly a newbie here: you've seen all this before.

Apart from the above, there's really very little to say in answer to your question. Technological reasons (rumourological or not) are simply not relevant to this kind of "Why?" question. So it's hard to see what else you thought there might be.
post #60 of 63
I'm holding out for the G9

Ooops, that's a Summit ! How did we end up in the valley?
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
"Run faster. History is a constant race between invention and catastrophe. Education helps but it is never enough. You must also run." Leto Atreides II
Reply
post #61 of 63
G9? I must be losing touch.

I posted some rumours about the G8 a while ago (direct from Kofi Annan), but no one took them seriously.

post #62 of 63
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>For anyone who says that businesses are always run by logic, I need only to point out the iPod. Any logical businessman would have made the iPod fully compatible with windows, but out of pride Jobs made sure that the iPod works only with Macs! Surely Apple could have sold twice as many if they worked with Windows, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but that is extremely simplistic thinking. The hard disk being used is very new and probably in low supply. Steve already said that the iPods are being sold as fast as Apple can make them.

On the other hand, the Apple-only strategy has made at least a few people buy a Mac (sooner) so they could use the device. So they had a choice, just sell the maximum number of iPods, or sell the maximum number and make an extra profit on Macs (with higher profit margins).

Tuvok would be proud of Steve, IMO.

[ 02-10-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
post #63 of 63
There will be a G5 in july or january 2003. You can be sure of this. You can be sure also, that we won't know his specifications until is shipment.
Many people where thinking (me included) that the Appolo will be based upon SOI 0,13micron, and it was 0,18 , nobody know that the L3 cache will be DDR memory and half speed, that they will be Cache locking stuff ...and it was just a minor evolution.

So the next generation after the G4 will be called the G5 and we will see them in powermac first on a new mobo : every other thing is pure speculation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Anonymous source says desktop G5 is dead