New PowerMac specs - Page 5

[quote]Dudes, do you notice on how these are all duals? I mean its a deal<hr></blockquote>

I agree. From an ordinary buyer's perspective this is good news. The base model goes up $100 but for that you go from a single 800 to dual 867s?! I'll take five! Seriously, unless Apple does something stupid like ship them with no L3 cache or something, I can make the case that these are at least twice as fast as the DP450s in my office. They'll probably run about $1,500 educational, and that's $1,000 less than those 450s cost two years ago.

[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>

Hey! Don't knock the G4/400, man. I love my 3 year old Sawtooth! </strong><hr></blockquote>

that's what I mean, you're to contended

[quote]Originally posted by theMagius:
<strong>The question ultimately is: will Apples new hardware convince PC users to switch to a Macintosh?

Lets take a look at the RUMORED Apple hardware for US $1699:

• 2 Motorola Processors
• Memory
• Hard Drive
• Keyboard
• Mouse
• Macintosh OSX
• Video Card
• SuperDrive (DVD-RW)
• Modem
• Ethernet

Now, lets take a look at a DELL Dimension 4500 for US $1247:

• 1 Intel Processor
• Memory
• Hard Drive
• Keyboard
• Mouse
• Windows XP Home Edition
• 17 CRT Monitor
• Video Card
• DVD-RW Drive
• Harmon Kardon speakers
• Modem
• Ethernet
• 6 Months Free Internet

Because of certain AMBIGUITIES regarding processor speeds and RAM types/speeds, Ive eliminated any hardware references to SDRAM, DDR, MHz, etc. Its also assumed that the video cards and Hard Drives are equivalent in both cases (pending tomorrows announcement).

Now, looking at these numbers, can someone tell me how Apple is going to convince a potential switcher to pay US $452 more for Macintosh tower that does NOT include a CRT, speakers and internet?

Respectfully,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, from that point of view yes it looks a bit hard for a person considering a Switch. However, try this again with what I think is a fairer comparison (because it sounds like you're talking about the average consumer):

Rumored Superdrive eMac for US $1499

• 1 Motorola Processor
• Memory
• Hard Drive
• Keyboard
• Mouse
• Mac OS X
• 17 CRT Monitor (built-in)
• Video Card
• DVD-RW Drive
• built-in speakers
• Modem
• Ethernet

I don't consider internet access to be a point of comparison... if for some reason you don't have internet access by now, you save $60-$120, but most people who have a computer already likely have an ISP already.

So you're paying $250 more for an Apple consumer system with OS X. It's the premium you pay for an Apple product, and I think some would be willing to pay for it.

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: MCQ ]</p>

I don't know if anyone has already posted this because I didn't bother to check, but, doesn't a 1699 dollar dual 867 g4 seem a little cheap? I mean, I could get a single 800 MHz G4 iMac with a 17 inch screen for 1999 (not to mention the superdrive included). If I were to guess, I would say that it would be closer to 1999 than 1699.
? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Bioflavonoid ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:
<strong>My gut tells me we have a Powerbook type situation here. Like when the 550 and 667 Powerbooks were announced. the dual 867 will be 133MHz bus, the Dual GHz and Dual 1.2 will have ddr ram and ddr FSB, hence the difference in price between the new Dual GHz and the discontinued Dual GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>I want to repost this because I agree and Bodhi usually has very good instincts.

The only thing I would change is that I'm guessing it's not a DDR FSB, but rather a plain 166 FSB with (x-serve-style) DDR RAM in the top two models. I just doubt Apollo can use a DDR FSB, but I'd believe a 166 bus.

Overall, I think if that's true, it's a decent, but not fantastic, upgrade. I'm just annoyed at the price increase. They're trying to .mac their loyal user base to death through the downturn, not innovate.

[quote]
New Power Mac G4 systems to be unveiled tomorrow with speeds up to 1.25GHz
August 12 - 16:33 EDT Apple will unveil new Power Mac G4 systems tomorrow, MacMinute has learned. Sources inform us that three configurations will be offered: dual-867MHz (US$1,699), dual-1GHz ($2,499), and dual-1.25GHz ($3,299). The dual-1GHz and dual-1.25GHz models will feature ATI Radeon 9000 series graphics cards; additional system-specific details are not available. The dual-867MHz configuration is slated to ship by the end of the week, while the new dual-1GHz model will ship towards the end of the month. Availability of the high-end dual-1.25GHz model is being pegged at sometime in September. Current Power Mac G4 systems will be reduced in price as follows: 800MHz ($1,299), 933MHz ($1,499) and dual-1GHz ($2,199). Additionally, Apple will introduce a SuperDrive-equipped eMac for $1,499, sources say, and will reduce the price of CD-RW and Combo Drive iMacs by $100 to $1,299 and $1,499, respectively.<hr></blockquote>

That's crap!

Macminute isn't right every time. Think Secret is as reliable as Mosr.com and maccn only hope for being right by copying that crap.

1,25 Ghz ?
How?

166 * 7,5=1,25 Ghz...166 SDRAM ?--&gt; NO

333* 4=1333 / 333 * 3,75 seems very impossible for me....i dont think these multipiers exist..

166/333 DDR Hack? No! They could have released DDR Hack at Powermac line when they introduced XServe.

1,2 Ghz is also unlikely, cause 133 with a multiplier of 9 (remember the times when a multiplier of 5 was HIGH; remeber the 604 with 350 Mhz=50*7)is crappy. That won't be a performance gain over the 1GHz...

I think of 1GHz/333 true DDR, 1,333Ghz/333 DDR, Dual 1333Ghz/333...

Another good thing about the top speed being racheted up to ~1.2 GHz:

iMac GHz+
TiBook GHz-ish
iBook G4 (?)

1) iMac: Despite everyone (including Apple themselves) talking about how iMac is a marvel because of it's small design, it's still plenty big enough to include enough heat sinks and fans to power any chip Motorola has. I suspect that the price on the newest fast chips are quite high, so don't expect any 1.2 GHz iMacs, but I don't think 1 GHz is unreasonable.

2) TiBook: Apple uses a low-powered Powermac chip in TiBooks. If the standard powered ones go above 1.2 GHz, then certainly that means their fabs have improved. If so, their yields of low powered chips at greater speeds has improved. Since the fastest TiBook chip is 80% of the fastest Powermac chip at 1 GHz, then at 1.2 GHz you get chips in the 960 MHz range or so. This would be around 166.67x5.5 (917) or 166x6.0 (1000).

3) IF TiBooks get high speed G4's up near a GHz, then iBooks could conceivable get even lower power g4 chips around 700-800 MHz. I doubt that Apple will drop the G3 (it's any easy way of generating profit for and thus keeping goodwill towards IBM), but it could happen.

The SWITCH campaign takes place in iWorld, kids. And even faster iMacs and iBooks is where the rubber meets the road.

Jet

by gar [quote] I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.
They want a sort of value for money allthough they'll never use the entire value. 50 % at most, that means even a emac is to blassing fast for them and they stick to thier G4 400 for a couple of years.
<hr></blockquote>

Maybe you are right. I am a person who will probably stick with iMacs and laptops. Currently, however, I feel that until the powermac really turns into a POWERMAC, the whole lineup suffers.

The powermac needs to get way out in front of the iMac. (I'm only referring to speed here, BTW.)This will allow the powerbook to get a little more ahead as well.

While the your daily mac predictions are most probably way too optimistic, what looked good to me was the build to order options where the power user could just keep adding on and increasing the pro model gap.

I love macs, have no intention of switching, have ordered Jaguar and .mac. I just don't think that until the Powermac really gets an increase that the mac lineup will really kick the crap of out of the other side. Maybe that doesn't matter....


Seeing the article where the Apple rep states the next quarter being flat to breaking even leads me to believe that the hohum macminute specs are real.

Face it, this is what we're getting. 1.2 at the high end is the best we can hope for right now, and gains will continue to be dismal until IBM rescues the platform. An extremely depressing affair to be sure.

Also, with a Dell you're getting a computer that has been manufactured with the cheapest available parts. In other words, trouble is a coming to the user. Also the software bundle with the eMac is superior in every way for the average consumer. Dell is leveraging its future on numbers rather than profit margins. Eventually it will have to pay the piper, especially if HP-Compaq gets back into the race. Gateway? Forget it, they're outta here by the end of next year, 2004 at the earliest. Anyway, if you don't like Apple products you have plenty of other stuff to buy. Tomorrow iMacs will be cheaper.

The more I look at this, the more the 867 looks like a sweet deal...if it is $1699 my mind is made up...

Also, assuming the specs are right, and the 1.25 does ship 'sometime' in Sept, it doesn't bode well for an update at MWSF. 3 months...seems like the IBM 'holy grail' Mac could be further away than we think...

Peace,

Marc

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Marcus ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by flofighter:
[QB]

That's crap!

rest of post edited for being stupid<hr></blockquote>

Lesson 1: DDR means Double Data Rate over the FSB. In PC land, DDR 266 is on a 133 bus. DDR 333 is on a 166 bus.

Lesson 2: Multipliers work in .5 increments.

Lesson 3: Half of 166 is 83.

Lesson 4: It's actually 133.33 and 166.67, to be more precise.

Therefore:

1250/166.67=7.5

A 1.25 GHz chip is a chip with a 166.67 MHz FSB with a 7.5 multiplier. It's simple math, plus just the tiniest bit of understanding of DDR and FSB.

Jet

[quote]Originally posted by Jet Powers:
<strong>
The SWITCH campaign takes place in iWorld, kids. And even faster iMacs and iBooks is where the rubber meets the road.

Jet</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know, thats one of the best points made on here all day long. Potential switchers are more likely going to be focused on the iBooks and iMacs, not these new PowerMacs. Sure some people will go straight to the power line, I did when I switched, but most people that they're targeting aren't worried about pure power as much as they are ease of use, and reliablity.

[quote]Potential switchers are more likely going to be focused on the iBooks and iMacs, not these new PowerMacs. Sure some people will go straight to the power line, I did when I switched, but most people that they're targeting aren't worried about pure power as much as they are ease of use, and reliablity.
<hr></blockquote>

That is a good point. Which is also exactly why the powermac must gain distance on the iMac. It is dragging down (holding back) the rest of the lineup in terms of speed.

Ease of use, etc can surely help make someone switch. But speed and ease of use and reliability will make it even more of a no brainer. Crank up the powermac so the rest of the platform can fly!

I can't seem to understand why people cannot critize Apple. I can't seem to understand why people fail to accept that the Wintel side is out competition. I can't seem to understand why people constantly pull out the argument "it does what I want I need it do fast enough." OS X isn't that great you know. Sure it's UNIX but everything than you can do on OS X can be done on NT based Windows XP. Sure you get iApps, and what not, but there are freeware apps on the Windows too you know, and believe it or not, they get the same things done that the iApps do. Sure a 1 GHz G4 got most people's work done, but a 1GHz P3 got everyone's work done about the same too. Why do people buy the latest and greatest technology when most of the power goes over their head? Oh, now I know, it's because some of that power trickles down to making their mundane tasks a bit faster. The performance gap between Macs and Wintels is very real. And merely purporting that a 1 GHz G4 is as good as a 2.53 GHz P4 based on the "MHz Myth" is complete bull sh1t that only serves to make people more comfortable with their performance inferior computers. People wake up, if OS X were on x86s we'd all move like one big herd starving for meat. Why is that? Oh because the x86 architecture is much better. OS X only gives you so much. Sure it's nice to look at, and works smoothly, but when it comes down to getting actual work done, Windows XP gets the job done too, and faster--simply, faster. That's the cold hard truth. Because of Motorola we're not even putting up a fight against the Wintel Goliath. Sure there is good news about a 64-bit IBM chip, but that's still long ways down the road. What happens in the mean time? Pro users get the shaft, simple as that. Just because they want to use OS X. Why didn't Apple start working with IBM earlier? They're a big corporation that could have easily handled OS X transitioning and processor transitioning. This is a classic "Give me a break" scenario. Seriously, Apple has to get their act together. Until then, I'm going to go to platform that isn't in a rut.

[quote]Originally posted by Marcus:
<strong>Also, assuming the specs are right, and the 1.25 does ship 'sometime' in Sept, it doesn't bode well for an update at MWSF. 3 months...seems like the IBM 'holy grail' Mac could be further away than we think...
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Marcus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


It only means Motorola is having problems again, and right now, Apple really needs to fight hard to break financial even.

I dont think they will move the chip to 0.13micron if those specs are the real deal. The 7470 is a yet-another-fictional-product-from -MacOSRumors.com (tm), and I really doubt we will see a _new_ Motorola PPC design in an Apple product ever again.

The fact that for the last 2 years, Motorola havent talked about any mac-related PPC technology at the Microprocessor Forum, is a proof good enough for me. The very last thing Motorola talked about was a SOI G4e (2 years ago).. Thats the chip in the inside current Powermacs.

Those of you having discussions about the specs and what may be released, thanks for your input. The others who are insulting each other cause they disagree..let it go man.

[quote]Originally posted by gar:
<strong>I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe that's true for others, but not for me.

I was ready to leap at something like a dual 1.4 GHz with full DDR support. I might not even wait until after work to go buy (or reserve one, at least) -- I'd take a long lunch break and head to the local Apple store, credit card in hand.

But for only a speed bump to 1.2 or 1.25 GHz, especially if it's only Xserve-style DDR (or no DDR at all) -- that's not enough to get me excited.

Dual 1.25, if it has full DDR support, is on the borderline to get me to buy a new Mac. But I'd take my time about it, wait for some reviews, see how much of a measured performance increase there was, see how happy new buyers were.

Why does 0.15 GHz matter that much? It's just a threshold-of-excitement thing, I guess. If you imagine all complainers here are cheapskates who wouldn't be buying anything new anyway, consider this:

January: Purchased 667 MHz TiBook. Sold my 11-month old 500 MHz TiBook on eBay.

May: Purchased 800 MHz TiBook -- mainly because it had a DVI video port -- and a 22" Cinema Display. Sold my 4-month old 667 MHz TiBook on eBay.

Early August: Purchased 20 GB iPod.

Apple is getting a fairly big chunk of my disposable income this year!

I don't need a faster Mac because I think it will increase my productivity 25% or help me earn $X/hour more than I do now. Chances are even the most hyper video and graphics artists aren't going to see a noticeable change in their balance sheets from anything less than a doubling of computing power.

Maybe 5% of computer users have legit reasons for claiming they need a really, really fast computer. I think most of upgrade only because we either haven't upgraded in so long that what we currently have is woefully antiquated... or we just want an exciting new toy.

My current TiBook already covers all my legit needs for having a computer. If I don't buy a new Mac tomorrow it's not because I'm switching to Wintel or because I'm not ready to buy anyway. It's because, if the rumors are true, the new Power Macs simply don't excite me enough to buy them. Believe me -- I'd rather be excited and buying something new. I consider the MacMinute/Think Secret news disappointing.

To me, buying a new Mac would be saying "Way to go, Apple!" These specs that are predicted aren't, however, the way Apple should be going.

I really like OS X, and Jaguar sounds like it's going to be even better. I have no complaints with Apple on the software front. But if they can't do better than 1.25 GHz, they're falling terribly behind on the hardware front. If that's all they can do for now -- maybe because it's the best they could get out of Motorola -- I'll stick with my TiBook for now and hope for some Power4-related spin-off next year.

[Edited because I had a brain lapse vis-Ã*-vis UBB Code vs. HTML]

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by jeromba:
<strong>I think that a lot of people who are complaining don't even have a QuickSilver.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey there.

Lol, I just got more proof that there are going new powermacs tomorrow. I was looking at macmall and I saw that their powermac free ram thing expires today, the 12th---not available on the 13th. hmmmm.... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>Were I to consider buying some Macs for my company to run shake on, the performance Apple offers simply doesn't make it viable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Over the recent years, Apple has been clearly ahead in terms of performance. However, depending on the application, the gap is much narrower now and there is no clear winner.

Your post might signal to others that performance equals megahertz. Don't fall into that trap. While it might be true for some, this is a very shallow indicator.

Some say that Windows caught on years ago... well... LOL... I am a Windows LAN administrator, I have seen the hype and I have to deal with the crap.

[quote]Originally posted by newkid:
<strong>

Over the recent years, Apple has been clearly ahead in terms of performance. However, depending on the application, the gap is much narrower now and there is no clear winner.

Your post might signal to others that performance equals megahertz. Don't fall into that trap. While it might be true for some, this is a very shallow indicator.

Some say that Windows caught on years ago... well... LOL... I am a Windows LAN administrator, I have seen the hype and I have to deal with the crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sing it brother!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the new specs start at 867 and top out at 1.25, this is yet another G4 generation that wont get any of my money. I sold my G4 350 (yikes) last June, anticipating the new PowerMacs. But so far i haven't seen anything that has made me go :eek:

Apple keep throwing us small bones every six months. I think we've been hungry for so long, anything more and people go mad, caught up in the RDF. I've developed an immunity to the RDF. I'm starting to think Apple is just rationing the speed to milk us as long as possible. After thier huge rant about dual-this, and dual-that, all the PMs should have been dual in the first place

I don't see myself switching, but they arent't getting anymore of my money till its something that makes me say... DAMN!! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> In the mean time, my money will go to things like saving for a car, fixing up my place, console gaming, etc. If when they finally get on the ball i'm broke and can't afford a new mac... tough.

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: keston ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by shannyla:
<strong>

I'm merely amusing myself until I get banned...</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's the spirit.

[quote] If the new specs start at 867 and top out at 1.25, this is yet another G4 generation that wont get any of my money. I sold my G4 350 (yikes) last June, anticipating the new PowerMacs. But so far i haven't seen anything that has made me go <hr></blockquote>

You're doing yourself a disservice. I have a G4/500 sitting next to a Dual Gig. The Dual Gig makes my 500 feel like a jalopy, especially in OSX. Photobench shows a 100% - 400% improvement in every function.

Buy a new Dual Gig tomorrow and you'll feel a huge difference. Believe me, even a small speed increase adds up over the course of a day.

The best part about it, though, is the user experience- I get impatient when I have to (rarely) do something on the 500 nowadays.

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: marcsiry ]</p>

I am not a millionaire, and have other expenses. I am a young single guy living on my own, and have to work hard for my money. Mommy and Daddy do not buy the things I own, and I have rent to pay cuz i dont live in thier basement. (Note: that is not any kind of personal attack).

I cannot be dropping money like if it grew on trees. My point is, unless Apple shows me something that warrants getting my money over my other expenses and responsibilities, they wont. For some it seems to easy to say "just get a dual-giger and whatever...". I'll be making do with my Pismo 400 and iMac 333 for now.

Snappier(tm) interface is nice and all, and useless benchmarks, and seti@home boasting rights might be interesting... But what i want is to see my machine leave a P4 in tyhe dust in Office Apps, Graphic Apps, 3D Applications, Gaming, etc AND NOT cost 3 times as much as a comparable PC <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: keston ]</p>

If the bottom computer is really dual processor, then that price seems low (i.e. wrong) to me. So I can't really get too enraged over a rumor that doesn't quite seem right to me. Since I don't post here very often, I will say that if these rumors are basically correct, then I will be:



I'm not in the market for a new computer right now, but Apple needs to get on the ball now if they are going to be performance competitive when I do look to buy in about 18 months. I think it is a sign of real desperation that so many are now hoping for a Power4 descendant! Now for those of you who say that current computers are fast enough. I have a Quicksilver 733. It is fast enough for my day to day needs, but just because I am not spending every waking moment doing a 3d render doesn't mean that I should have to wait all day when I do want a render. And until a five year old computer is not considered obsolete, I am always going to want the fastest computer I can afford-- for me that wil usually be the bottom end computer.

Last thought before I get banned for the day: it annoys me to no end that some of you are more or less saying you will only ever buy Apple computers. It just conveys the sense that Apple is independent from the rest of the market, and does not need to be price or performance competitive. Apple clearly takes advantage of this loyalty, but I wouldn't necessary argue that it is a healthy thing. I don't have to switch to Windows to see that they have superior hardware at cheaper cost, and I don't think it is too much to ask that Apple employ mature industry standards like DDR. In fact, I would say that if that is too much to ask, then Apple's economic model has failed.

see ya,

failedmathematician

[quote]Apple keep throwing us small bones every six months. <hr></blockquote>

But it's not Apple starving us for upgrades, it's Motorola. Apple threw in their lot with the G4 and now they're paying for it. It's not like they have 2GHz+ processors and they're holding them back just to be mean. They can only ship what Moto delivers. Don't you think this burns Apple just as much as it burns us? But they have to sell machines until they can move to a new chip. I personally believe Apple has some big hardware coming. They didn't buy Nothing Real so they could run Shake on 700Mhz eMacs. I will stay nervously optimistic.

The specs may not be that bad. In fact the low end machine is a decent deal. But I think the reason people are venting at Apple is because they're tired of being let down. Of course in a way we're responsible for the high expectations, but if we didn't have those expectations, where would we be? Most peple on this board are Mac fanatics. A lot are in school, and feeling constantly beseiged by PC users. Anyone working in corporate America is in a similar situation. So there's this continual hope that, come the next Apple product upgrade, we're finally gonna get a computer that holds up hardware-wise (or moreover, spec-wise) to PCs. Only what we get is more dissapointment-once again meager increases in speed and technology-and prices that are way out of line (especially when considering that the new OS is not quite as simple to use as the old one, so you don't have that low IT support cost holding down overall costs like you used to).

How many times has this happened over the last 2-3 years? And then we have the Motorola situation; now the future of the platform is really up in the air. If Apple was a little more forthcoming, it might ease people's anxieties a bit. But, instead, Apple acts as if everything is fine, and that the only problem is the tanking economy. If anything, people on these boards are too passionate (about their Macs) and too loyal to Apple; the anger comes from feeling that the company take their support for granted.

I'll just say that most of you would actually be very, very pleased with how Jaguar would perform on a dual 1.25 Ghz G4 with a 166 MHz bus and 333 MHz DDR memory. Very pleased. Really, really, really pleased.

Jaguar is not the OS X that you're used to... it really is faster, and giving the G4 more bandwidth in addition to higher clock speeds will make you take notice, I guarantee it. So everybody relax.

Considering the retail Radeon 9700 Mac Edition is about 6 months away, the specs on the first page are pure rubbish.

PowerMac G4 Workstation

Quad Motorola PowerPC G4 7470 CPUs @ 1.6GHz
512KB on-die 1:1 L2 cache per CPU
4MB backside 2:1 L3 cache per CPU
333MHz DDR Front Side Bus
4GB PC2700 333MHz DDR SDRAM (4 @ 1GB DIMMs)
Dual ATA133 interfaces (hardware RAID implemented in system controller; supports 4 devices)
Four (4) 120GB ATA133 HDDs (RAID Level 0/Striped; 7,200rpm; 8MB cache per HDD)
Single ATA100 interface (supports 2 devices)
SuperDrive2 optical drive (slot-loading)
CD-R/RW optical drive (slot-loading)
AGP Pro110 8x graphics slot
nVidia/Apple Quartz Extreme OpenGL card (512MB DDR2 RAM; dual NV30 GPUs; dual ADC ports)
Two (2) Apple Cinema HD Displays (23"/1920x1200/32bit)
Four (4) PCI-X expansion slots (133MHz/64bit; dual busses; two slots per bus)
Two (2) FireWire2 ports (800Mbps)
Two (2) FireWire ports (400Mbps)
Four (4) USB ports (12Mbps)
10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet; RJ45 port
Airport2/BlueTooth integrated into single PC Card
Keyboard (USB standard/BlueTooth optional)
Mouse (USB standard/BlueTooth optional; three-button optional)
Mac OS X v10.2 (JagWire) standard

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

[quote]Originally posted by MacRonin:
<strong>PowerMac G4 Workstation

Quad Motorola PowerPC G4 7470 CPUs @ 1.6GHz
512KB on-die 1:1 L2 cache per CPU
4MB backside 2:1 L3 cache per CPU
333MHz DDR Front Side Bus
4GB PC2700 333MHz DDR SDRAM (4 @ 1GB DIMMs)
Dual ATA133 interfaces (hardware RAID implemented in system controller; supports 4 devices)
Four (4) 120GB ATA133 HDDs (RAID Level 0/Striped; 7,200rpm; 8MB cache per HDD)
Single ATA100 interface (supports 2 devices)
SuperDrive2 optical drive (slot-loading)
CD-R/RW optical drive (slot-loading)
AGP Pro110 8x graphics slot
nVidia/Apple Quartz Extreme OpenGL card (512MB DDR2 RAM; dual NV30 GPUs; dual ADC ports)
Two (2) Apple Cinema HD Displays (23"/1920x1200/32bit)
Four (4) PCI-X expansion slots (133MHz/64bit; dual busses; two slots per bus)
Two (2) FireWire2 ports (800Mbps)
Two (2) FireWire ports (400Mbps)
Four (4) USB ports (12Mbps)
10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet; RJ45 port
Airport2/BlueTooth integrated into single PC Card
Keyboard (USB standard/BlueTooth optional)
Mouse (USB standard/BlueTooth optional; three-button optional)
Mac OS X v10.2 (JagWire) standard

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>


..Um.. I'll have what he's having.

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Considering the retail Radeon 9700 Mac Edition is about 6 months away, the specs on the first page are pure rubbish.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The issue is drivers, Samples cards are out now and PC product is expected to be shipping in a month, so if Apple wrote the SW it COULD happen sooner (theough I think it would be more like 2-4 Months instead of 6). I hope one way or the other they get it ready soon.

[quote]Originally posted by keston:

<strong>But what i want is to see my machine leave a P4 in tyhe dust in Office Apps, Graphic Apps, 3D Applications, Gaming, etc AND NOT cost 3 times as much as a comparable PC <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, then you might as well switch to PCs, as Intel will always make sure their desktop CPUs are the fastest, are at least close to the fastest processor available. Not even the POWER4 puts the P4 "in the dust", I doubt the next-gen 64-bit IBM PPC will either.

[quote] I am not a millionaire, and have other expenses. I am a young single guy living on my own, and have to work hard for my money. Mommy and Daddy do not buy the things I own, and I have rent to pay cuz i dont live in thier basement. (Note: that is not any kind of personal attack). <hr></blockquote>

Ha! I haven't seen my parents in months, I support my wife, and I guarantee I pay more rent than you do :-)

However, I'm also a professional graphic artist, and I presume herein lies the difference. A Mac is not an "extra expense" for me, it's a vital tool. Even a little bit of performance increase has a measurable impact on my bottom line.

If I were to adopt a similar attitude as yours, that would be like a carpenter holding off on buying a hammer until they come out with a model that drives two nails at a time.

I can understand how you're cool to the rumored specs- you probably don't need a Mac to make your living. To me, it's a cut and dried business decision. Will the new machines present a cost/benefit improvement over my current machines?

If the answer is yes, then I'm foolish not to upgrade if I can afford it. In the case of the rumored machines, I don't see a big enough benefit to go $1500 out of pocket to step up to the dual 1.2 gig- unless it provides enough capability that I can make an extra $1500 in three to six months.

If I were a film editor, I might realize that extra income in three weeks. If I used my Mac exclusively to play WCIII, then it wouldn't ever make sense.

As for the comparison with Windows machines, that's a fair one if you're willing to make the concessions that working in that environment requires. A coworker at a recent freelance gig spent a day of downtime because his Windows machine suffered from a conflict between Photoshop and a printer driver- it eventually destroyed his machine, requiring an OS reinstall.

At the rate I'm billing that job, a day's work is at least $600. That's a third of the way to the difference between my current machine and the new topline Mac.

To me, the rumored machines sound pretty good for the money.

A few thoughts:

People are only disappointed because rumors of 1.4 Ghz were flying all over the place last week.

It's foolish to be complaining about performance of a computer none of you have seen, used, or found benchmarks for. You all say Apple is going to release slow hardware. You don't know that.

The Dual 533 was much faster than the Dual 500, and the performance increase was due to motherboard improvements. The G4 is a very fast chip, but it is starved by the bus. We should be begging for motherboard upgrades, not processor upgrades.

Right now, we don't really know much about the new motherboards, just the processors that run on them.

The 867 sounds like it will be similar to the Yikes. The Yikes wasn't around very long... ;o)

If the rumor is true, it is a 25% speed increase, not including motherboard improvments. If we can get a 25% speed increase every 6 months, we'll stay on pace with Moore's Law.

Jaguar + QE + DDR = fast.

Apple might have a couple 2Ghz chips in a lab for testing. However, that is a far cry from having tens of thousands of them to do a production run.

[quote]Originally posted by sniffer:
<strong>

Actually, 333 doesn't go into 1.25 Ghz very well. Unless there are new clock multipliers that work at 3.75x, it appears unlikely that 1.25 is a real number. I'm sure someone over at ThinkSecret did the same calculations and came to the same conclusion.

266 * 4.5 = 1197 (~1.2)
333 * 3.5 = ~1166
333* 4 = ~1333

Take your pick....</strong><hr></blockquote>

We're talking double-pump here. So for 333 effective, you'd have a 166 mHz processor bus. And the Moto dude said that the current MX bus could do that.

166.666666667 * 7.5 = 1250.000025

Remember, each pulse of the 166 clock gets 2 chunks of data.

theres some rumors out there that 1.2 is just the faster one, not the fastest. Man I wish I could convince our studio to upgrade i'm on a g3 400 anybody hiring graphic artist, I'm experienced in broadcast hehe.

Craig

Was speaking w/ a local apple authorized dealer today about the 933 / flat panel rebate.
He said I shouldn't buy anything right now.
He then said something about new product tomorrow at 9am ET.

He said he 'suspects' - but said it in a way like he maybe knew ??

1.0
1.2
1.4
with faster bus speeds

Said he did not know about pricing, but definitely said I should just wait until tomorrow.

not sure if this is accurate or what