MacWorld in New York - 2002 is Apple's year - Page 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blizaine

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote]Originally posted by BobtheTomato:
<strong>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep to topic please

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

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

Specs are not keeping iMacs from selling.

"Specs are not keeping iMacs from selling."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lemon Bon Bon

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

"Johnny7896
macrumors newbie

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

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

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

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

Okay.

Discuss.

Lemon Bon Bon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay.

Discuss.

Lemon Bon Bon

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pantium 4 vs Pantium 3.

Like the G4 500 vs G4 733?

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

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

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

Lemon Bon Bon

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

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

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

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


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

So, well, who cares, in the end?

ting5

why are there so many Dorsal wanna be's?

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

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

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

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

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

[quote]Originally posted by Mike:
<strong>

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

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

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

For Pete's Sake...

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

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

Benchmarks are one thing.

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

Sure, it's 'perception'...

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

Lemon Bon Bon

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

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

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

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

For Classic, the System folder is the culprit.

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

Oh BTW, 13 days...

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

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

edit: he's not worth it.

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

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

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


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

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

Agreed Matsu.

Beat me to it.

Lemon Bon Bon

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

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

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

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

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

It is just Overpriced.

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

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

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

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

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

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>

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

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

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

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