or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › So The iMac Is Next, Right?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

So The iMac Is Next, Right? - Page 3

post #81 of 129
Quote:
The 7457 is a stop gap at best. 200 MHz frontside bus? Big deal. 300 MHz increase in clock speed? Yawn. The "problem" is that the G5 raises the bar so high not only over PCs, but over the rest of the Mac lineup.

Apple can and will get away with one more lame-o G4 speedbump to the iMac line this year, but only because they'll be making so much money off pent up Power Mac demand that the iMac can afford to flounder for another six months.

In 2004 however, Apple's going to have to make a long term decision regarding its mid-range offerings. If the iMac is going to stay as the $1,299 - $1,799 solution then it MUST get a G5. Don't forget the Power Macs will be at dual 2.5 GHz G5s by then. A 1.4 GHz G4 ain't gonna cut it in a $1800 machine.

As Matsu says, the only other option is to dump the iMac all together and bring out a G5 based micro-tower/shuttle/Cube thing in various configurations from $999 to $1,599. But that's a whole 'nother thread...

That post is in the money.

An insightful post above about the cooling of the Towers. The G5 towers are twice as quiet as the current G4 towers. 9 fans aren't needed. BUT! They made a quiet as a Cube tower? Gosh! Over-engineering indeed. People assume an iMac2 or a single 970 will need 9 fans. It's obvious it won't! A 0.09 shrinko and it's there. The mobo is prob' pricey...and aint the 970 board 'long'. That seems to put it out of the iMac2 design hemisphere.

The G5 has an impact on people waiting. We know the G5 is here and its coming to the rest of the lines eventually. Would I buy an iMac 2 now? Nope. For an extra five hundred quid over the entry iMac 2, I get a machine that is four times as fast, at least. Over four times the bandwidth and a better graphics card and a superdrive and better memory, a bigger hard drive, bigger ram limit, a cool new case with perforations thrown in for free. The entry iMac 2 is a comparative rip-off! Each of the two iMac 2s need a three to five hundred pound inc VAT price cut. The top end iMac should be hovering at around £999 inc VAT. The entry iMac at £695 inc VAT. They may see decent sales then...

1.3 gig G4 iMac2 prices aint going to cut it vs a low end G5 Tower. Deep price cuts pending. Steep specs pending. The iMac2 needs a damn good sorting. And I don't see how a 1.42 G4 is going to go in the iMac 2 when its not even in the renewed G4 tower line. And then there's the heat issue of a 1.42 vs a 1.4 G5.

The G5 has created a desktop chasm in Apple's line between the haves and the have nots.

That, for now, is a GOOD THING.

Lemon Bon Bon
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #82 of 129
Hi there,
I hope Apple gets more aggressive now that they have the PPC 970.
It's only logical that a PPC 970 dissipates more heat, but that is only because of the high frequency. A G4 at that clock rate would dissipate just as much heat.
So the whole heat discussion is going nowhere. The G4 and 970 are just about as energy efficient.
It's up to Apples will to decide which processor to take.
And lets hope IBM gets out a lot more energy efficient 0.09 micron PPC 970 soon.
I see the major headaches in designing the motherboard for the PPC 970.
That's why we will probably see the drop in 7457 in the next iMac and PB.
A system based around a PPC 970 can easily be cheaper than a 7457 because you need pricey L3 cache to get acceptable performance out of that sucker.
About the issue of cannibalizing sales.
Apple needs to get more market share. They can achieve more market share with aggressive advertising (such as the switch campaign) demystifying the Mac and showing its elegance, simplicity and power. They need to show consumers that they can be productive and creative at a reasonable price point.
That's how they get the average Joe to *consider* a Mac.
Then they need to have a competitive offer and a matching product. They need to have a product a customer really wants. Apple can't expect the customer to compromise. Because than another WinTel product will get bought.
The most obvious gap in the product line is a small minitower with limited expandability. These would sell to business and the consumer.
Apple also needs to build a wow machine. Something like an xStation with 8 dualcore PPC 970. This jewel would shine on the whole product line. Every Apple customer would have bragging rights and could state: "Martix 3 was created on a Mac. Wanna see the movie of our last garden party?"
Apple should not care about the competition between the lines. Although they need a clear distinction in performance and functionality between lines. What counts in the end is how strong the platform is as a whole. This question is almost interchangeable with the question of how big Apples' userbase is.
I think the only way to attract more customers is to get more aggressive on pricing, performance, advertising, customizability and diversity.
Of course all of it makes only sense if you have a G5 in *every* product.
Make the distinction based on clock speed and number of processors. This would have the added benefit of having only one chipset across all lines! Slower clocked PPC 970 are very cheap, just because there is no market for them right now. IBM throws them in the trash right now. Imagine a 1GHz 12' iBook G5 at $999. That would sell. And it would still be about 4 times slower than the top of the line at $3000. So there is enough distinction. The G4 days (in that respect) are over.
Apple is above the competition with their constant innovation, their OS and now the G5.
I hope they keep the pace and I wish that by this time next year we will only see the 0.09 micron PPC 970 and PPC 980 being used.
BTW the PPC 980 and POWER 5 are expected 01H/04!
Cheerio

cocoa tree
post #83 of 129
Originally posted by Cocoa Tree:

Quote:
I think the only way to attract more customers is to get more aggressive on pricing, performance, advertising, customizability and diversity.

Y'know, Cocoa Tree, I could have written that post myself.

It gave me a cosy glow all over. And I think Apple will follow what you say roughly over the next 12 months. This is their opportunity to kick Wintel in the b*lls.

You're right. Apple does need to get that G5 into everything else, at least into everything over 1K as soon as possible. And once they do...they need to blitz the advertising! They need to be everywhere.

Microsoft: 'Where do you want to go today?'
Apple: 'Where do you want to be TOMORROW?'

Personally, I do expect the G5 to penetrate maybe the X-serves at a slightly lower clock, say 1.4 and dual 1.4? Nobody has brought up the subject of where all those 1.4 970s went/are going? Maybe they could sneak in an iMac2 at 1.4 gig? Maybe into a 17 inch Powerbook come San Fran' 04?

The 970 will become more pervasive in Apple's product line after the 0.09 die shrink.

That can leave the G4 for the sub-1K market. A headless G4 iCube-Mac for £495 to £795 inc VAT. CHEAP. CHEAP. CHEAP.

I'm expecting loads more software from Apple and maybe one more DLD. But what?

Excellent post. Look forward to seeing some more from you.

Cheers,

Lemon Bon Bon

PS. I wouldn't rule Apple out of producing an 'Uber-Workstation' for the Matrix elite! Sure Pixar would like them! A quad processor Mac? Maybe. But perhaps a dual core dual processor 'Quad' Mac when the 980 comes along?

Look at the dual 2 gig 970 and THAT bandwidth. And IBM and Apple haven't even broken a sweat!
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #84 of 129
I wouldn't mind a dual 1 Ghz G4 iMac personally. If the 7457 is cool enough for a superthin laptop then they can put two of them in an iMac don't you think?
post #85 of 129
There are right now too many models available. It should be like:

eMac G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $799
iMac 17" G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $1299
iMac 17" G5 1.xGHz with Super Drive $1799

PowerMac G4 dual
PowerMac G5 3 different models

iBook 12.1" new G3 with Combo Drive $999
PowerBook 12.1" & 15.1" & 17.1" G5

Xserve
post #86 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by Stratosfear
There are right now too many models available. It should be like:

eMac G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $799
iMac 17" G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $1299
iMac 17" G5 1.xGHz with Super Drive $1799

PowerMac G4 dual
PowerMac G5 3 different models

iBook 12.1" new G3 with Combo Drive $999
PowerBook 12.1" & 15.1" & 17.1" G5

Xserve

Ugh, I don't think so. Apple gives people some of the fewest options of anyone currently.... if anything they need to add the number of options and make every system configurable. For starters, give people a choice of video cards for systems like the iMac and eMac (Make the internal connector between card and monitor detachable) .....not everyone wants a Powermac you know.

And FFS people, stop screwing the eMac, not everyone wants a TFT Flat screen either.
post #87 of 129
I admit the future is the 970.

But Apple has a choice right now...a drop in replacement for the 7455 (the 7457) or engineering a brand spanking new low end mobo to take advantage of the 970.

My money is on a speed-bumped 7457, followed by a g5 machine in 2004.

Why?

-the 1.25 ghz 7455 cost about $475. (from the Register) The 970 is rumoured to be 25-35% cheaper.(for what speed, I don't know) That would put it around $300. But a 1 ghz 7457 will set you back $189. So right off the top, you're going to save more than $100 bucks on your machine. Next, figure in the cost of more expensive memory, etc... The Result, a 970 means a more expensive iMac.

-The 7457s 1.3 ghz Maximum is about as solid as the the 7455s current max of 1 ghz. "Extrapolating from Motorola's own figures, the 7457 should consume 30W as 1.4GHz and around 33W at 1.6GHz, based on a 1.6V core voltage." (the Register) Apple currently runs the 7455 at up to 1.85V. So I wouldn't be surprised at all see a 1.8 ghz 7457.

-A 200 mhz MPX bus will allow ddr sdram. And because the iMac is a single cpu...it won't be nearly as hamstrung as the dual g4s were. In any event, the slow bus is partially compensated for in the 7457 with increases in both L2 and L3 cache.

Now... will this make for a dream iMac? No. And I started off by saying that the future, eventually, is the 970. But the 7457 will be a solid performance improvement AND should allow a price cut, all while allowing Apple to stave off the cost engineering a whole new iMac.
Apple's I've owned: AppleTV2; Ipad2; Iphone4; Iphone3; 13" 2010 MBP; 13" CoreDuo MB; 14" iBook (1 Ghz g4); Powerbase 240; PB 5300; Newton; PB 800; Mac LC; Mac plus; Mac 512; Apple II+.
Reply
Apple's I've owned: AppleTV2; Ipad2; Iphone4; Iphone3; 13" 2010 MBP; 13" CoreDuo MB; 14" iBook (1 Ghz g4); Powerbase 240; PB 5300; Newton; PB 800; Mac LC; Mac plus; Mac 512; Apple II+.
Reply
post #88 of 129
1.25 G4 upgrad cards are now selling for $449-$469 range at OWC, so I would imagine that the upgrade manufacturers are getting them for at least 30% ($314-$328, the ballance of the price going to profit margin, R&D expenses, and the daughter cards themselves) less than that and Apple even less per chip in volume purchases. A 50% savings on the 7455's would bring us down to $157-$164 per chip price for the 7457's. The quoted prices of the 7455 and 7457 equil a 60% savings for the 7457's, which by my calculations would put the 7457's down around $125 by my estimates.
post #89 of 129
There are two lines of 7455, you know. The XPC which costs more, and the MPC which costs a LOT less, in the 100USD range, both with similar speeds. I don't know how, but I suspet that Moto takes the best stuff to mark XPC, that can switch at lower voltages or run at higher speeds. The 7457, with it's process shrink would eliminate this distinction and should offer better than XPC performance at MPC or lower prices. If Apple sticks to G4's in consumer lines (and they will) it will because they won't pay more than 100-125 bucks for them, and will reuse a much cheaper motherboard.

Not a bad plan so long as they pass the savings on to me.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #90 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
There are two lines of 7455, you know. The XPC which costs more, and the MPC which costs a LOT less, in the 100USD range, both with similar speeds. I don't know how, but I suspet that Moto takes the best stuff to mark XPC, that can switch at lower voltages or run at higher speeds. The 7457, with it's process shrink would eliminate this distinction and should offer better than XPC performance at MPC or lower prices. If Apple sticks to G4's in consumer lines (and they will) it will because they won't pay more than 100-125 bucks for them, and will reuse a much cheaper motherboard.

Not a bad plan so long as they pass the savings on to me.

And they get the speed that they need to compete. A Porsche would not compete in its market with a Yugo's engine. Apples looks and software and the megahertz myth will make up for only so much in the face of lower cost computers with double or more the speed of the fastest iMacs.
post #91 of 129
Well, lets assume that moto can crank up the .13u G4 speeds. The .13u parts are ready, but so far moto hasn't announced very high speeds or even faster FSB, that's no need to worry, unless they actually have nothing. They've never listed the 1.25-1.42Ghz parts on their public site, but they've existed for a long time, same with the 167Mhz bus, but we know it's there. So, for my part I believe that a 7457 will have AT LEAST a 167Mhz bus and more than likely a 200Mhz bus to go along witht he expanded L2, while consuming roughly half the power of 7455 at the same clock speeds. We know that a .18u to .13u process shrink is good for (conservatively) an immediate 30% boost in clock speeds. That take the G4 comfortable between 1.33 and 1.67, and slightly hotter parts into the 1.8-2Ghz range.

We also know that the big FSB of cheaper pentium boards doesn't offer nearly the performance boost it's numbers might suggest, and MANY cheaper PC's still stick to cheaper DDR implementations.

SO, IF Apple can drop the price of various iMacs by 250-500USD, then I expect them to stick with a G4.

THE iMAC NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER BEFORE IT GETS ANY FASTER. At 1799 the superdrive 17 is a HORRIBLE deal, and even if it got a G5, it'd still look bad when for 200 more you'd get a much better motherboard and GPU, and a faster CPU. Everyone admits that even now the only G5 with a remote chance of fitting the iMac is a 1.2. Hmmm. 1799 1.2Ghz G5 iMac versus, 1999 1.6ghz G5 PMac with at far superior graphics and more expansion and display flexibility AND a 33% faster CPU. Anyone who already has a decent monitor is buying the PM, period. And there are lotsa people with good monitors to spare.

But, since the iMac is supposed to be a full featured CONSUMER AIO machine. Taking the superdrive 17 down to 1299 turns it into a VERY nice deal, and believe it or not a 200Mhz FSB G4 in the 1.5Ghz range will still be competitive with consumer X86 systems. They might sport better specs for less money, but their mobo and integration lets them down. Keeping the G4 lets Apple put nicer OPTIONS into the standard config, things like bigger HDD's, MORE RAM, a better GPU and faster Superdrive, while SIMULTANEOUSLY DROPPING THE PRICE by a significant margin. Ultimately, these extras AND PRICE are more important to consumers (especially AIO consumers) than is outright CPU performance.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #92 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Taking the superdrive 17 down to 1299 turns it into a VERY nice deal

If Apple is going in this direction, I hope you're right.

But, me personally, I very much doubt Apple could sell the 17" iMac w/ a superdrive for $1299. If the MPC 7457 is a drop in replacement, and is only a couple of hundred $ cheaper, I don't see where the $500 price drop comes in.

But @ $1299 Apple probably could spur some additional sales.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #93 of 129
It's there if you get a cheaper G4 platform, Optical and Hard-drives and HUGE LCD price drops will give the rest. I'd be surprised if that 17" panel wasn't fully 50% cheaper for Apple now than when they first introduced it.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #94 of 129
Another strike against the G5 iMac



I win! told ya so.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #95 of 129
A few questions about that graph:

1. Where did you get 30 watts at 1.2GHz? I can find a reference for 97 watts, but 30 is new to me.

2. I thought the 97 watt figure had been dismissed as the eeTimes' writer confusing the total consumption for both processors for the consumption for a single processor. Does it really make sense that the PPC 970 would consume just 3 watts shy of the POWER 4's 100 watts, considering the POWER 4 has two execution units, 32MB of L3 cache on chip, and all the groovy larger-than-normal-process-element-for-the-sake-of-reliability stuff that the 970 lacks?

3. Do you really think IBM, considering their track record for being conservative in giving estimated statistics for processors before being shipped, would be off by 50% on the low end, and more than 100% on the high end? It doesn't really make sense...
post #96 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
I thought the 97 watt figure had been dismissed as the eeTimes' writer confusing the total consumption for both processors for the consumption for a single processor.

This was my understanding also.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #97 of 129
I think it's very possible to be far off at the high-end. Heat tends to grow exponentially versus speed, so that a 50% faster part can often be much more than 50% hotter. As for the bottom end, iDunno, just something I picked up out of the other thread, and mebbe we should talk about it there, The new PB G5 thing, folrget the real title, but it's a long thread, shouldn't be hard to spot.

Getting back to the feasibility of a 1299 Superdrive 17" iMac.

I was in the local store today an I noted 3 models, from 1899, 1999, and 2399 CANADIAN. ALL OF THEM FEATURED 1280x1024 LCD displays (with good contrast and color as far as I could tell) and 64MB or better graphics.

The first was an HP with a CDRW and DVDrom, 2.66P4, 533FSB.

The latter two were Gateways with 2.8 and 3.06HT P4's on 533 and 800Mhz FSB respectively.

They had 80-160GB HDD's.

The 1999 and 2399 models both featured DVD BURNING DRIVES!

1999 Canadian is awfully close to 1299USD, so I don't think I'm too far off the mark, considering the same display size, two opticals in each machine, and bigger HDD's and faster grafics in each of the PC models.

iMac SIMPLY MUST come down to this price IMMEDIATELY. It's far from cheap and it buys a well spec'd tower INCLUDING a 17" LCD on the PC side.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #98 of 129
I'd say we'd need to give the "Apple" Markup. So a good pricepoint to look at would be.

iMac 17"
1.25Ghz G4
80GB HD
Superdrive
256MB
$1499

Next year Apple needs to refocus on offer a better Mobo solution with integrated components. Design a nice lowcost Mobo with decent graphics integrated. Apple needs to take a queue from Intel. Consumers aren't focused on Hardware but rather clock speed. Apple needs to ratchet the clock speed up quickly in the consumer lineup and integrate as much as they can to save costs.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #99 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
THE iMAC NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER BEFORE IT GETS ANY FASTER.

This is really the whole crux of the argument and the whole point of this thread.

Apple needs to make up their mind. From here on out is the iMac going to be a true consumer machine priced aggressively to increase market share, or is it to be a fast prosumer machine able to justify its $1800 price tag?

Right now it's neither, and I (unfortunately) don't expect that to change with the next ho-hum speed bump. By MWSF 2004 however, Steve's going to have to pick a role for the iMac and go with it.

I think it will get a G5 in that time frame and be positioned where the Cube + 15" Studio Display was two years ago: a powerful, small footprint, quiet prosumer desktop with lots of bang for the buck.

This would of course require Apple addressing the true low end in a meaningful way. If the iMac is not to be "the computer for the rest of us", then what the hell is?

(Hint: it sure ain't the eMac.)
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #100 of 129
The 1Ghz eMac right now smokes any 15" LCD iMac, and any 2 year old G4 Tower or cube out there! The eMac kicks @$$, stop bashing the eMac people!!!!!!!

P.S. If not for the LCD iMac, the eMac would have been an incredible next generation "Crt iMac"....and don't forget, it was that G3 Crt iMac that saved Apple in the first place!!!!!!!
post #101 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by 3777
The 1Ghz eMac right now smokes any 15" LCD iMac, and any 2 year old G4 Tower or cube out there! The eMac kicks @$$, stop bashing the eMac people!!!!!!!

Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #102 of 129
Quote:
This is really the whole crux of the argument and the whole point of this thread.

Apple needs to make up their mind. From here on out is the iMac going to be a true consumer machine priced aggressively to increase market share, or is it to be a fast prosumer machine able to justify its $1800 price tag?

Right now it's neither, and I (unfortunately) don't expect that to change with the next ho-hum speed bump. By MWSF 2004 however, Steve's going to have to pick a role for the iMac and go with it.

I think it will get a G5 in that time frame and be positioned where the Cube + 15" Studio Display was two years ago: a powerful, small footprint, quiet prosumer desktop with lots of bang for the buck.

This would of course require Apple addressing the true low end in a meaningful way. If the iMac is not to be "the computer for the rest of us", then what the hell is?

(Hint: it sure ain't the eMac.)

Great post. That sums it all up really. The iMac has become confused (poor iMac... )

If it gets a G5 by middle of next year then it would make a nice alternative to a low end tower for those who wanted power, style and simplicity (as well as a monitor thrown in for free...but you pay the price in terms of limited expansion.).

Meanwhile, if the iMac does (well, it has) abandoned its traditional 'value' space then what is going to replace it? ...a headless iCube would do for me. With limited expandability. Needs to be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry cheap. Starting model needs to get way below the starting eMac.

Matsu's upto 1.6 gig G4 consumer line is looking likely for the next half year which will allow the G4 to play 'G3' to bigger brother 'G5'.

Lemon Bon Bon

Quote:
iMac SIMPLY MUST come down to this price IMMEDIATELY. It's far from cheap and it buys a well spec'd tower INCLUDING a 17" LCD on the PC side.
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...
Reply
post #103 of 129
High end iMac - $1299
Low end iMac - $999

High end eMac - $799
Low end eMac - $599

As for the rest:

iBook - $1299, $999, $799

pBook - good where they are (maybe $100, $200, and $300 price drops to make them irresistable)

pMac - $999 (dual G4), $1299, $1999, $2699

The iMac needs to get there right now (!!!), and the rest need to get there by next year at the latest if Apple is serious about closing the deal with the potential "switchers."

As an example, my dad had ordered an iMac when I told him about iChatAV/iSight (he can be impulsive like that). But then he started looking around and asking questions. He's not very technologically inclined, but he is a small businessman (now 90% retired) and he recognized that the iMac wasn't offering any great value at the moment. So he canceled his order. He's convinced that Apple will have to do something drastic to the iMac soon (either up the power/specs dramatically or lower the price), and he's prepared to wait. He may wait a long time if Apple doesn't come thru with the goods (he can also be very subborn). And in the meantime, Apple is out a sale in a relatively typical household.

-DCQ
post #104 of 129
The G4 might have taken 18 months to migrate from the tower to the iMac, and rightly so. Why the heck substitute a cool 500 MHz G3 with a hot expensive G4/500 that offer SMP that the OS 9 does not support and AV that few apps use

2004 Q1 that is 6-9 months is my bet.
2003 Q3 will see a speed bump to 1.3 Ghz or so og G4 and a ATI9000 graphics and the DVD migrating downwards (or price drops). I am sure that there are power consumption and heat issues in the iMac but less so than the PB. The very slowest Dell I could find now is a 2.2 GHz Celeron that the iMac tops out at less than half of that is embarrasing. The 4mx card is not a problem now as with a 1 GHz G4 and no L3 cache the system is CPU limited anyhow, my guess is that UT 2003 framrates is quite depressing for a top of the line home computer

The slow adaptation of the G4 was due to the 500 MHz barrier that for along time stopped the tower to get faster and also the fact that for most applications a G3 was as fast as a G4 MHz for MHz. With the G5 Apple can use a 1.2 GHz G5 and it will be both slower than the towers and faster than any G4 in use.

My dream would be that Apple in Q3 2003 would go for 1.0 -1.2 GHz G5s and skip the G4 speed bump. they wold then become far more competetive with the Intel CPUs and also pour in money in the manufacturing and development of the IBM 9x0 and that is a good thing8) To wait 18 months for the IBM 970 to replace the Motorola G4 would kill the iMac sales. For the iMac to be way behind not only the Intel/AMD but also the G5 towers....

During the 970 productions are there no CPUs that are below 1.6 GHz? And if IBM produce significant amounts of 1.0-1.5 Ghz 970s what the heck does IBM have for use of those?
post #105 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
The G4 might have taken 18 months to migrate from the tower to the iMac, ...

± 28, (depents on how you count)
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #106 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by DCQ
As an example, my dad had ordered an iMac when I told him about iChatAV/iSight (he can be impulsive like that). But then he started looking around and asking questions. He's not very technologically inclined, but he is a small businessman (now 90% retired) and he recognized that the iMac wasn't offering any great value at the moment. So he canceled his order. He's convinced that Apple will have to do something drastic to the iMac soon (either up the power/specs dramatically or lower the price), and he's prepared to wait. He may wait a long time if Apple doesn't come thru with the goods (he can also be very subborn). And in the meantime, Apple is out a sale in a relatively typical household.

-DCQ

That is a big problem with Apple right now and its not just the price but the price and speed of the computers that the iMac is competing agenst in the consumer market. Apple can get away with a bit higher price with their reputation, quality, and value added software. However, the speed gap is too high right now for the iMac. Apple is not a Lotus of the car industry, who was able to compete agenst V8 sport cars with a suped up 4 cylinder. Lotus's 4 cylinder had two turbo chargers and an unrivaled suspension after all. Apples iMac only has 1 AltiVec unit, that while it helps cannot make up for the 50% speed deffacit in like priced computers that the iMac now suffers from. The will have the software to invigerate the consumer market by the end of the year (iChat could be real big), and have an excellent lin-up now (software), what they really need is to get the entry price of the iMac down to $999 or less ($799 would be better), with a minimum speed of 1.4 Ghz (1.6 would be better) topping out around 1.8 Ghz in the G4 line, or 1.2-1.6 in the G5 line. I would be very suprised if we see this happen by year end.

I think that Apple can compete as the Porsche or Sony of the computer industry, however software is only half of the equation. They need the hardware to back it up. Right now, due to production problems, the G4 is lagging so far behind that it needs to leapfrog a generation to be truely competative and really "SELL" the Mac experience, as well as have an entry point that is closer to the overall market for the products that they are selling.
post #107 of 129
But keep in mind the driving force behind the Apple Machine: Marketing. Yes, I said the most evil word in existence.

Despite the fact that it would be in Apple's best interest in terms of competition to move the highest technology to all the products as quickly as possible, Apple does not have a history or habit of doing so. To puntuate this point, they are about to ship a G5, when they are still selling G3's.

So the new iMacs will be faster. But not *that* much faster. They'll likely use the new motorola chips.

You'll likely see a PowerBook G5 before an iMac G5, simply because the PowerBook is a Professional product, and the iMac is a consumer product.

And I don't expect a PowerBook G5 until January '05.

And of course, the iBooks are the redheaded stepchildren. Whatever good technology Apple comes out with, they get it last.

They probably won't go G5 until 2010.

Jason
___________

Life is too short to live in sanity.
Reply
___________

Life is too short to live in sanity.
Reply
post #108 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Another strike against the G5 iMac


Can someone explain this graph to me so that it makes sense, or post a link to the original source document?

Why does the caption reading "97 Watts: Source: IBM 970 doc" have two arrows pointing at blue dots on the "Predicted" graph that are at about 20 and 42 watts? If the caption's not pointing out where the graph hits 97, what is it trying to point out?

Why are there two red lines for "Actual"? eeTimes data vs. IBM data? If so, which one is which? How did anyone come up with a curve for the top red line from only one data point on one end?

Is there any way to know if these figures had anything to do with a dual processor system rather than a single processor?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #109 of 129
I was just on the Gateway site and looking at the profile 4XL. The top end model has the fast pentium processor and a 200Gig HD. THe iMac needs a 200Gig HD, especially with all the video editing any Mac owner can do. The iMac should have these specs.

1.5Ghz
200Gig HD
Bluetooth
Airport XTreme
4 USB 2.0 on machine
New Pro Keyboard with USB 2.0
2 FW 400 / 1 FW 800
post #110 of 129
What I've read about Moto's G4 product is that .13u 7457 product is shipping right friggin now from certain manufacturers. There's a linky here at AI and at other sites. It's pretty impressive from a power consumption standpoint, and it manages to run 1.3Ghz with a low core voltage. Since there are also higher core voltage versions, those should have no trouble reaching 1.6-1.8Ghz while still being a drop in replacement for the 7455. I'd look for those for he rest of '03 and '04.

I really think that Apple will bring back something in the cube space -- between the iMac and the PowerMac -- hold the Pmac prices, substantially lower iMac prices and drop the cube redux WITH a G5 into the middle tier. AS it always should have been.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #111 of 129
I recall hearing the 7457 consumes 10 watts at 1GHz, do we know what the power consumption is at 1.3GHz? I wonder if it's comparable to the 14 watts the 7455 gets at 1GHz... If it is, then I'd imagine we'll be seeing 1.3GHz iMacs sometime soon. Would be nice if it had a 200MHz bus, as well, but I won't hold my breath...
post #112 of 129
I think it is 16W at 1.3 GHz.
post #113 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
I recall hearing the 7457 consumes 10 watts at 1GHz, do we know what the power consumption is at 1.3GHz?

I happen to have the Moto 7457 hardware specification in front of me, the early one, and it says
Code:


Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457

Processor (CPU) Frequency Unit Notes
1 GHz 1.3 GHz
Typical 15.8 18.7 W 1, 2
Maximum 22.0 26.0 W 1, 3
...



Quote:
I wonder if it's comparable to the 14 watts the 7455 gets at 1GHz... If it is, then I'd imagine we'll be seeing 1.3GHz iMacs sometime soon.

I hope not. Which would you rather have? A 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.3 GHz 970? The power consumption for a 1.3 GHz 970 would be 34 Watts given the 47 Watts at 1.8 GHz. Or maybe the better question should be which would you rather have a 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.0 GHz 970?
post #114 of 129
Like many others, I strongly desire a cheap headless machine (with 1 AGP, 1 PCI, 1 hard disk, 1 optical, etc.) and recognize that Apple's price performance needs to be more in line with the x86 world. So, in the armchair CEO role, I would hope to see by Q4 2003, the following or thereabout.
Code:


G4 (7457) based Macs:

eMac 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 17" CRT $599
eMac 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 17" CRT $799

G4 mini 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $599
G4 mini 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $799

iBook 0.87 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $799
iBook 1.00 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $999
iBook 1.25 GHz - no L3 - 256MB PC2100 - 32MB video - 14" LCD $1299

Xserve G4 1.33 GHz - 2MB L3 - 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $1999
Xserve G4 dual 1.33 GHz - 2MB L3 - 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $2699

G5 (970) based Macs:

G5 mini 1.20 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no monitor $999
G5 mini 1.40 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 64MB video - no monitor $1299
G5 mini 1.60 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - no monitor $1599

iMac 1.20 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - 17" LCD $1299
iMac 1.40 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 64MB video - 17" LCD $1599

Powerbook 1.00 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC2700 - 32MB video - 12" LCD $1499
Powerbook 1.20 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - 15" LCD $1799
Powerbook 1.40 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 64MB video - 17" LCD $2499

Power Mac dual 1.6 GHz - 128bit 256MB PC3200 - 64MB video - no mon $1999
Power Mac dual 1.8 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC3200 - 128MB video - no mon $2499
Power Mac dual 2.0 GHz - 128bit 1GB PC3200 - 128MB video - no mon $2999

Xserve G5 1.4 GHz - 128bit 512MB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $2999
Xserve G5 dual 1.4 GHz - 128bit 1GB PC2700 - 32MB video - no mon $3999




The low end is still not comparable price performance wise to x86, but once it's that low, people are a lot more forgiving given other redeeming features (software, industrial design, etc.). So, yes, I think the iMac should get a 1 to 1.4 GHz 970 processor and I trust Apple has the knowhow to make it quiet in a similarly stunning design as the current iMac.
post #115 of 129
Quote:
I hope not. Which would you rather have? A 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.3 GHz 970? The power consumption for a 1.3 GHz 970 would be 34 Watts given the 47 Watts at 1.8 GHz. Or maybe the better question should be which would you rather have a 1.3 GHz 7457 or a 1.0 GHz 970?

I hope not as well, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was stating what I expect to see, not what I want to see.

If we're dreaming, then I want to see a 2GHz G5 iMac with a Radeon 9800 Pro, 1GB of dual channel PC3200, a 200GB HD, a Superdrive, and a 19" screen for $999. Unfortunately, I think iMacs with 7457 is quite a bit more realistic...
post #116 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by Gamblor
I hope not as well, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was stating what I expect to see, not what I want to see. ... Unfortunately, I think iMacs with 7457 is quite a bit more realistic...

Indeed, that is probably the case. But a 970 iMac is not an unreasonable technical feat, no? The 7457 isn't going to be that much more power efficient or cost efficient as a 1 to 1.4 GHz 970, especially if IBM has shippable quantities of 1.1 Volt 970 chips. 1.1V 1.3 GHz 970 would reduce power consumptiop down to 24 Watts... but I think your right and the 7457 will be in the next iMacs. Hopefully Apple will surprise us again.
post #117 of 129
With regard to the G5 iMac. The G4 speed bump has the advantage that it can be made with very small changes on the motherboard. With a G5 the 500+ MHz bus and all that other fancy stuff has to be there. It is my impression that the higher the speed is the trickier the layout becomes. The iMac do have some severe constrains.

No matter what route the iMac take in the short turn it has to increase its price performance a lot. Speedbumped G4 combined with a price drop and DVD burner across the line would do the trick. So would a G5 at the same price.

It would look odd if Apple would sell their servers with G4 CPUS while using the IBM 970 intended for blade servers in the iMac. So to observe when the servers switch CPUs, will give us a hint.

No matter what the scenario that will play out I can not envison iMacs using G4s until late 2004/early 2005. The G4 is not far from being at 1/3 the speed of Pentium 4 both speed and performance wise so even as a midrange to low end CPU it looks bad.

2003 H2
Low key speed bumps of varius G4s
IBM release their blade servers with the 970
Apple release their servers with the 970, politly letting IBM get out of the door first
2004Q1 performance bumped towers and a deluge of G5s
post #118 of 129
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBoar
Speedbumped G4 combined with a price drop and DVD burner across the line would do the trick. So would a G5 at the same price.

So would bigger displays.

I think this would be the easiest way to increase the iMac's value proposition for the next 6-12 months while it's stuck with a G4. Hell, they could even get away with a price increase on the high-end.

15" iMac Discontinued

17" iMac Combo 1 GHz G4 $1299

17" iMac Superdrive 1.2 GHz G4 $1599

20" iMac Superdrive 1.3 GHz G4 $1999

The eMac line handles the $799-$1299 range for a year or so until Apple can go G5 in the iMac, kill the eMac and bring back the Cube as the true low-end machine.
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
Attention Internet Users!

"it's" contraction of "it is"
"its" possessive form of the pronoun "it".

It's shameful how grammar on the Internet is losing its accuracy.
Reply
post #119 of 129
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Code:


Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457

Processor (CPU) Frequency Unit Notes
1 GHz 1.3 GHz
Typical 15.8 18.7 W 1, 2
Maximum 22.0 26.0 W 1, 3
...


That is the table for the 1.3v version

Code:


Table 7. Power Consumption for MPC7457

Processor (CPU) Unit Notes
1 GHz
Typical 7.5 W 1, 2
Maximum 12.5 W 1, 3
...
Deep Sleep 2.0 W 1, 3



This is the table for the 1.1v version
post #120 of 129
Until we see what is happening with the powerbooks then we wont know what the immediate future specs of the imac is... or vice versa for the powerbook thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › So The iMac Is Next, Right?