Even more disapointing TS news - Page 5

Oh, I think they have a choice, and they choose not to migrate all of their lineup to the G5 CPU, amongst other features. They choose to have a super small form factor for the Mac mini. They choose to have super small form factors for their laptops. They choose to have all-in-one form factors for their low-cost desktops.

I can understand the laptops not having a 970-based CPU, but with desktops, there is nothing holding them back. A 1.6 GHz 970fx is what, 35 Watts max. A 1.8 GHz 970fx is probably 40 Watts. There's nothing technical holding Apple back from putting them into a $500 desktop. There's nothing technical holding them back from shipping a slightly upgradable (2 DIMM slots and a graphics slot) desktop with 1.6 to 2+ GHz desktops starting at $800.

There's nothing technical holding them back from shipping a 1.5 inch thick Powerbook G5 either. Also, instead of having Power Mac G5 lineup of 1.8, 2.0, 2.5, they could have shipped a 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5 GHz lineup, with Radeon 9600 cards as standard. Those are all choices that they could make or could have made.

The current lineup they have now - high-end desktop G5 and power sensitive all-in-one G5 - is also not very optimal for inventory either. If they had low-end and mid-range G5 desktops, 970 CPU, support ASICs, and graphics chips all could be waterfalled down the lineup as new higher perfomance parts (that always go into the high-end machines first) are shipped. The way they have it now, they have to squeeze the PowerMac channel dry or make sure their inventory goes down to a certain number before a revision can be shipped. I thought that was the point of the unified architecture awhile back.

It's very unusual the choices they have made. Aesthetic design rules all at Apple.

THT, with regards to the Mac mini, I do see your point. However, I am a little confused about the rest. For example, the iMac DOES include a G5 processor, so it isn't like its form factor is not letting them build in a G5.

And with regards to the PowerBook's, sure they could do it, but it would weigh 9 pounds excluding battery, and it would be bulky... In other words, it would be a brick. Now I don't know about you, but having a PowerBook that's light and small seems more than simply form over function to me. After all, I don't want to be lugging around the "G5 desktop replacement brick". That said, I do want a G5 PowerBook, it's just that I want it to be ultra light and portable. And for that my friend, we're just gonna have to wait for IBM to show us the goods.

The problem is that a lot of us would be very happy with a "G5 desktop replacement brick" as you call it. But since Apple is a monopoly they don't need to cater to their customers nearly as much as the windows hardware venders do, so we will never see one -- which is extremely frustrating.

My point was about easier control of inventory. If Apple had mid-range and low-end desktops that can accommodate large Watt CPUs, Apple can waterfall the ~5 week inventory of Power Mac G5 and Xserve G5 CPUs down to the mid-range and low-end desktops. This would give them better control of inventory and of when they can announce a revision. They wouldn't need to squeeze water from a rock at the end of every revision, ie, reduce their inventory. Said inventory simply gets sold in a cheaper lineup.

The iMac G5 has a presumed Watt sensitive form factor. Do you think they can put the current 2+ GHz 970fx into the iMac? I'm guessing they can't, and therefore have to wait for a process tweak before it can be updated. A simple G5 mini - take the Power Mac G5 case and cut out the volume and space required for 1 of the CPUs, 2 PCI slots, and 4 DIMM slots and you'd have something at least half the size - however, would be able to use those 2, 2.3 and 2.5 GHz 970fx w/o much effort. It should just be drop in.

There desktop lineup really should be Mac mini G5 (no expansion), PM G5 mini (slight expansion), and PM G5 (actual expansion). The eMac and iMac would then be the boutique Macs or education Macs that Apple sells at whatever price they need to sell it at.


The laptop market is arguably more important than the desktop market. If there is a market where Apple needs to cater to as many people as possible, this is it. Apple needs to have a low-end (iBook), mid-range (Powerbook G4), high-end (Powerbook G5), ultra-light, and possibly palm-top.

So, you should not have choose brick if you don't want it. But there will be a nontrivial set of people who will fork over $3000+ for it.

Those "bricks" are portable desktop computers that look like big carry-around laptops. Someone a while back started a discussion about a possible portable desktop Mac that I found interesting. If Apple made such a beast, I'd guess it would likely look like what it is, but of course very cool. It would probably not be a laptop impostor.

I believe the only thing keeping Apple from catering to more customer needs is hard business reality. Until sales are much higher, Apple must limit the number of products it offers.

Right, but Freescale is still making them and Apple is still buying them. So they technically didn't bail on Apple. They just cut out a project that was bleeding money. They were designing products for fab technology that they didn't have. They had to kill the 850 or whatever it was. They simply didn't have the ability to make it.

As for now, they're just starting to turn it around. Designing and fabbing custom processors is a very risky undertaking for them. If they make one false move, they're back up the creek.

IBM on the other hand, doesn't suffer from this problem. They have a ton of resources at their disposal and can afford to assume the risk of custom work. And guess who pays for this increased risk? Apple pays for it in unit pricing. Remember, Apple doesn't buy 970s by the unit. They buy it by the lot. And I can guarantee you that Apple and IBM work very closely with eachother to avoid excess inventory on both sides. This in turn simplifies the pricing structure that IBM requires to recoup its investment and manufacturing costs.

I just think the argument doesn't hold water. You're comparing apples and oranges since we're talking about two companies with vastly different financial profiles.

All these examples of IBM's CPU design and fab prowess are compelling and well-founded, and generate hope for Apple's future. Unfortunately, where the tires hit the road, IBM hasn't proven they are anything more than a one hit wonder with the 970. Here it is over a year since Jobs promised 3 GHz, presumably based on assurances from IBM, and we are stuck nowhere near 3 GHz. For a whole year we've been stuck at 2.5 GHz, with rumors swirling of a mythical dual core 970, and yet Apple has nothing.

There comes a point where a company's reputation matters less than what they can deliver. Apple can try telling high end Powermac buyers that the Macs are powered by CPUs from a very prestigious company that is most highly respecting in technical markets, but if Wintels are outperforming Powermacs 2:1 nobody will give a peep about IBM's rep.

What I don't understand is, given IBM's history and "reputation," why isn't IBM the first to market with desktop dual core CPUs? The truth is that IBM should be the first to market with dual core CPUs, and the fact that they aren't going to be strongly suggests that something is wrong. Since we know IBM has good fabs, my own uneducated guess is that IBM simply doesn't consider a desktop dual core CPU to be worth their while, Apple's needs be damned. IBM can make mountains of money on game console CPUs that are easier to bring to market than a 970mp, and far more profitable.

Apple is screwed once again on CPU performance. I fear that that my favorite computer company is slowly devolving into a maker of boutique computers that are stylish and good for interior decorating ideas but underperform too badly to be of any use beyond email and word processing. The Mini already proves that Apple cares more about style than function and performance, since they could have used it to boost their 970 buying volume and leverage greater desktop PPC R&D at IBM.

One of these days...

If I believed what you say, I'd have to conclude that IBM abandoned its plans to make the Power PC a widely used chip, and now intends to focus on game consoles. I simply cannot buy such a scenario. I'm sure IBM is glad to get the game console business, but rather than be distracted by it, I'd bet IBM uses everything learned to advancing the Power PC in general. I think many of us sense that the Cell already made a major positive impact on the Power PC's future.

So why does IBM care about Apple? Apple is currently the most highly visible customer IBM has using its chips. It's fair to say Apple is a showcase for IBM's Power PC technology. That being the case, IBM is not going to let Apple suffer in the market place for lack competitive CPUs.

It was Monday that Intel announced. Let's see, today is Friday. Check back in a few months.

More likely, IMO, is that Apple doesn't want to ship a machine with a massive power profile like those of the dual P4 and (to a lesser extent) the dual Operton. Especially since Delphi's water cooling unit doesn't look like it'll hold water for long. This is the aesthetics-are-paramount rule that THT mentioned raising its, uh, ugly head again.

IBM doesn't care about being first to market. If you compare recent history it is Intel's forte to do paper launches and make grandiose statements or roadmaps(Tejas anyone?) and then reneg.Today Big Blue is a model of steadiness and stability(hasn't always been that way of course).

Yes Intel is first to dual-core with the shabbiest DC architecture. They're pricing them low because they can fab better than AMD but the fact is as Intel always does there are blatant compromises.

Where Mac users are misguided or even manipulated is in our interpretation of how information in the PC land is disseminated. We often take the press release or hyperbole as fact or shipping product. These hardware technogies are more similar than they are dissimilar.

I can excuse IBM/Apple for coming to the party late as long as they are the best dressed.

Dual core is old news, and old hat to IBM anyway. They were already first to do it a few years ago with the Power4 weren't they?

Yes, dual core is old news, for the big iron servers. The Power 4 CPU is too power hungry for a desktop, even water cooled. This is the whole paradox; IBM has been making bitch-ass dual core server CPUs for years, yet they cannot get a dual core desktop CPU on the market, even while CPU makers with no dual core experience are putting out dual core desktop CPUs.

It makes no sense. It's as if Apple is a curse upon any CPU maker that dares to supply Apple with any chips.

This is why apple needs to give up hardware and focus on software. They are excellent at what they do with software, why not cave in with the x86 architecture and just put OS X out there. I don't want anyone to reply to that idea because it will throw the thread off course... but to be honest, I'm really getting tired of this same old routine of waiting and waiting. They have great hardware, but these annual updates are a bit too slow. Technology moves at a much faster pace then once a year people. If apple does come out with dual 2.7 g5's... I might be macless for much longer then I anticipated. I shouldn't have ever sold my dual 2.0. Silly me I thought a powerbook would be nice (dog ass slow), or I could wait for new powermacs. If the 2.7s are released without a price change? I'm out of the mac scene for a while, and I'm ashamed to say that after 12 years of loyalty.

Several of us are in that camp apparently. Onlooker promised to put together some killer DC AMD kit for us when and if it's biz as usual at WWDC.

(18 years of loyalty - first Mac an SE)

Actually IBM does sell by working unit and not by wafers. Motorola is the same so I'd be surprised if Apple's agreement isn't for the same. It's IBM's problem if they can't get decent yields, except for the supply problems it causes their customers.

Sure it does, they have no customer yet. Not only do they need to hit certain yields, but a certain price point and profile.

Intel and AMD can cater to the white box market or make paper launches while maintaining the bulk of their sales in the lower market. IBM doesn't do that.

you can't be serious

I'd go for that, if they had a decent operating system. Its either stay with apple and get sub-par hardware or leave Apple and get a sub-par operating system. What a choice

And we're supposed to keep rewarding Apple for updates like that? 200mhz is an insult to its users.

doesn't mean you just "leave" Apple. Apple is not perfect and being loyal means sticking with something through thick and thin. I've never had absolute Apple loyalty, and never will, but i won't just push them aside when things aren't hunky-dory.

No offense to anyone, but it would be interesting to see if all the people complaining about the "insulting 200mhz update" are actually ones that would buy a PM to begin with. How many people out there are really looking to upgrade their 2.5ghz with a faster CPU?

I'd like to see Apple break out with a 3ghz PM as much as the next person. However, I'm not going to jump off a bridge, cursing Apple the entire way down if they don't.

2.7ghz is still still 35% faster than my 2.0ghz PM. And that's not including any video/hard drive/RAM/etc.. upgrades they may also throw in at the same price or lower than the current pricing scheme.

Seems alright by me.

Assuming that's true, what is Apple going to do about it? Will they just keep releasing bumps until IBM can make the quad-core work without needed crazy power/heat workarounds? There's a PowerMac segment (albeit small) that's just hooked on the idea that their Mac "dream machine" needs to be quad-core. I have to admit that I too have fallen prey to this Quad Mac fantasy, at least to some extent.

But how many with a 1.8ghz or dual 2.0 ghz are looking to move up?

Even better question is, how many are looking for better gpu options.

We will never know how many back up their claims to want more than they have by purchasing better stuff.


Agreed.

Yeah I'm looking to buy a powermac, and sure they would do the job well just how they are.

But who wants to buy a 12 month old computer, hence why the complaining when we get news of only a 200mhz bump. Alot of us have been waiting since January, as in theor they should have been updated long ago.

I actually sold my dual 2.0 rev b with a 9600xt to get a powerbook. When I realized the powerbooks weren't going to be efficient enough for my work (software dev, web dev, and 3d modeling), I decided I would wait out for the new powermacs.

They main reason I sold the powermac was for better graphics solutions.

I don't see any reason to buy a powermac that is basically the same hardware as the previous year for the same price. To me that means purchasing outdated hardware at maximum price. I'm not die hard to get a mac right now because all of my mac software development is done and I have to finish the linux and windows versions of the apps. So why should I rush out to blow 2400 (dev discount) on a "brand new" powermac when its sporting 12 month old hardware. As a rule of thumb technology doubles every 18 months, 2/3 of that time and no improvement??? No I'll wait for a better improvement in the Powerbook and Powermac department before I buy a mac again.

I love OS X and apple, this isn't their fault completely. These are hard times for them and I understand, but I don't have 2400 dollars of charity money right now either. When they get their machines back in line, I'll buy one.

I will change my quote however, if they come out with 2.7's and DON'T lower the prices and DON'T offer better graphics solutions, then I will not purchase and be macless until they upgrade the powerbooks or powermacs.

Ouch! Didn't think I'd spark that reaction.
I have no faith in the fear that IBM can not make a dual core desktop CPU. There is too much evidence elsewhere to the contrary. The Power4 is old, it had two dual core versions, and the Power5 is a better suited example, and I think IBM would have insisted on it's use to base anything set for large scale production on for Apple.
IBM is making custom order multiple core CPU's for the XBOX 360 which is being demo'd on MTV in a few weeks, and the PS3 will be showing a week after that at E3. Those are two multi core, high powered CPU's that absolutely must generate less heat than one would expect from a PowerMac IMO.
I think if Apple wishes to they can get Power5 based dual core processor out of IBM into a PowerMac by WWDC without any fuss, and still make use of dual core Power4 based processors for servers if need be.
If it came to it Apple and IBM could deal 2 servers at different price points for The 970, and 980 Dual core based PPC processors.
Apple is getting hot, and IBM can capitalize on the Mac. IBM is a company that invests in long term, and Apple is a relatively sort - long term investment if they choose to provide Apple with adequate processors to keep the spirit of technological competitiveness, progress, and the power of IBM.


I'm still really counting on Apple here but I've already configured it in alienware, BOXX, and BYO (build your own). It's expensive, but it should last the test of time vs. $$$ if it comes to it. But if I do I probably wont be buying another Mac for a long time. I think the odds are in Apples favor. For once these guys deserve to come out on the up side of the competition.

ia sd so fucked up i had a n waesome steak din ner and r4o5r4jn hookers. aplle sorovcks poweretbooks rockzorores c axc my soi ckodofgigfrg . omfg i can;t typoe straigfhggtr i aN DRIHI8UNKL;

I think we all are Onlooker. Nobody is looking to abandon ship - unless we keep getting these greasy worms for breakfast.

OMFG! Hilarious! The PM wait has driven Algol straight off the deep end (and right to the bottom of a barrel!!)

LOL WTF did you have LOL WTF BuMseX with them>?!

If Apple had come out with a stripped down, regular-sized G5 machine, chances are it'd still be more expensive than the competition and it would lose the distinction of being interesting in some way. Apple doesn't really have any general hardware advantage over the PC industry, but it does have a kick ass industrial design team. Perhaps on the low end, Apple is just trying to differentiate itself the best it can.

I think his name was supposed to be alcohol but he was too drunk to spell it.

guys, I have been using Tiger for about 24 hrs now, it will take one wicked fast PC to get me to switch to windows over the power, productivity and stability that X brings to the table. XP is a freaking joke in comparison, and my shop runs both every day. I thought Panther was amazing... you all have so much to look forward to with Tiger, Apple rocks the house once again, and I'm no fanboy, this OS is more than I could have hoped for, and it's only running on a dual G4 and and iBook. I have been bitching about slow towers for a year now, (justifiably so) but the thought of actaully going through with my idle threats to get a high end PC for my main workstation are vapour at best. Maybe if longhorn rocks and X stays still, and were freaking out about dual FX 2.9's rumored for WWDC '06 i'll be closer to realizing that nasty reality, but right now switching to XP on ANY hardware would be ten steps back. Speed is great but it comes down to billable hours done each week, and in my business (large format print/design) this is THE platform by a very large margin. It's like comparing a high end Porsche to an American muscle car. Straight off the line is great, but come on...

I very much agree with mikenap on tiger and OS X. I've been using Tiger since WWDC until I sold my 2.0. It is an AMAZING system. Its absolutely the best OS available by far. It really needs to be seen in person before one can even speak on it.

Sometimes I forget what an amazing OS apple produces when I'm on a PC. (I just built a 3.6ghz p4 and oc'd it to 4.0ghz)... so I still have a hard on for it. I really hope that aple comes out with faster powermacs than stated above...

If they don't... I'm going to renig on my statement above... I'm going to get a 1.67ghz powerbook temporarily until the PCI-E powermacs come out.

Usually alcohol makes things foggier, but tonight they made things clear again.

Both Intel and AMD describe the benefits of dual core processors
as a way to help improve multitasking.

This is something we've been able to do for years with OSX.

It reminds me of years ago when I outran a corvette through the turns
of a winding road with a Datsun B-210

Comparing benchmarks between a high performance X86 machine
to a Power PC is like comparing a drag racer to an Indy car.

The X86 machine may run a faster quarter mile, but the PowerPC
is built to take the turns in a 500 mile endurance race.

The OS was not designed for it, and wont see as much improvements as OS X, but well have to see. Linux is also way better suited for this kind of multiprocessor support.

Here's the one thing I've never understood about Apple. They are so progressive when it comes to design, but are so conservative when comes to marketing their products. They don't do anything to rock the boat and instead of being agressive, they fully expect things to come to them.

It's not only the operating system that wasn't designed for it, the apps weren't designed for it either. The second core is only being used for background tasks. AMD was smart to release the professional opterons before the consumer athlons, the software (and operating systems) the opterons use will actually make use of that second core,

Just an interesting thought... AND WHY I think the graphic cards being the same is complete BS...

Go to apple's website, and BTO a powermac.

What do you see under graphics cards for the dual 2.0?

NVidia 5200 Ultra (standard)
ATI 9600xt
NVidia 6800 Ultra

2 Months ago you would have also seen

ATI 9800XT
&
NVidia 6800 GT

So what happened to these cards? My guess is they sold out of them and don't have any plans to replace them... why wouldn't they replace them if the next machines were going to be AGP? This is why I think they are moving to the PCI-E standard. I believe apple is trying to blow all of their AGP cards out of stock, instead of ordering more. About 4 months ago we heard rumors of apple receiving stocks of x700's... I wonder how true these rumors were

I seriously believe at the very least we will see a graphics card and graphics card bus update in the next version. Or just a graphics card update with better cards... 6600GT's do come in agp format now... It will be interesting to see why these graphics cards have disappeared from the custom build site.

Why is it when there are pending updates, there is *always someone who knows someone who works at an Apple store - which has received "shipments" and knows what's going to be released? Why is that?

Every time.