An optical port could be a networking port of sorts. It could be Firewire2 and/or a way to cluster professional machines. That's one thing I would suspect because DDSS and DTS aren't reason enough for it to be an optical audio port. That would make more sense in the iBook or iMac.
<strong>The optical port would allow connection to a stereo with an optical port. This is the standard that stereo is using now. In case you have not heard a Sound Blaster Audigy system with 5.1, it is just incredible. I have a soundblaster for Mac and also one for my athlon. The sound from the Mac is no different than the normal mac output, but the athlon with optical 5.1 is a thing of beauty for the ears. Trust me, this is worth the money for gamers, musicians, and for anyone planning to work with or burn DVD's. This will be standard for all computers in the future so why not on the Mac. Anyway I am ready to buy today if something comes out....I hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can do that without an optical port....I don't think a large percentage of PowerMac buyers frequently relocate surround systems from their televisions to their computers - best to add 5.1 support in the hardware/OS and then get a pair of USB speakers specifically suited to the task than to bother with optical.
You can do that without an optical port....I don't think a large percentage of PowerMac buyers frequently relocate surround systems from their televisions to their computers - best to add 5.1 support in the hardware/OS and then get a pair of USB speakers specifically suited to the task than to bother with optical.
S</strong><hr></blockquote>
Becouse my $1000+ sterio system is much better quality running through my $1000+ Bose speakers than any set of USB speakers on the market, and all I would need to buy is a cable. Then I could run iTunes as a MP3 player on my sterio system with AppleScript automating it.
onlooker, you really need to go and look at the latest Motorola roadmap. Their first roadmap with the G5 (>2 years ago) listed it as "2+ GHz", but the current one says 800MHz - 2 GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it says that now we've been screwed by motorola again. Those @$$H0L3$ can't stop trying to screw Apple for satupid clone debocle. They would have lost money on it anyway. It probablty saved them from more layoffs to begin with.
After reading the responses to this post, I just have to laugh at everyone. So many are quick to judge and say it "can't" happen, that there's "no way" these things are possible.
I really like the comments that say "no one in the know would say this..." and that none of the rumor sites mention this. Oh, and the rumor sites are soooo realiable. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Really, it sounds like an attempt to debunk any theory not their own. bah.
I personally enjoy a little speculation. It keeps me interested in a company that doesn't say that much about itself most of the time.
As for 1.8GHz, why not? Because no one's heard of it? As a person who works for one of the top 3 PC vendors, I can tell you, there's stuff done on the inside that you'll never hear about. Operational security doesn't have to be a joke, you know.
This is the first snippet that's gotten me really excited. All this other crap about 1.2GHz or just 1.0GHz releases is just bunk. Jobs is enough of a showman and enough of a businessman to understand his audience and his market.
Granted, this may be complete garbage, but at least it's entertaining garbage, which is more than can be said for all the whining and b**ching going here.
If it says that now we've been screwed by motorola again. Those @$$H0L3$ can't stop trying to screw Apple for satupid clone debocle. They would have lost money on it anyway. It probablty saved them from more layoffs to begin with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is a pretty ridiculous argument. yes, motorola decided to "screw" apple by intentionally making their processors slower. that way, they could lay off thousands of people and hemorrage money to "show them." all the while, apple is showing profits and, by all accounts, doing pretty well. yeah, that was the plan at motorola. they sure showed apple who to mess with.
Becouse my $1000+ sterio system is much better quality running through my $1000+ Bose speakers than any set of USB speakers on the market, and all I would need to buy is a cable. Then I could run iTunes as a MP3 player on my sterio system with AppleScript automating it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you'd reread, my point is not that YOU wouldn't do this, but that no significant percentage of PowerMac buyers would to make it worth Apple's trouble/cost. Not to mention that if you have a setup like that and have even half a brain, it's most likely situated around a television/home theater. Unless your mac is squarely in front of the couch or in the center of the room, your surround field would be way off, and then what's the point of having it in surround at all?
-S
P.S. Not to nitpick since you're obviously such a consumate audiophile, but it's spelled "s-t-e-r-E-o." Maybe your $2000+ would have been better spent on some more higher education.
[edit] And while I'm at it - you want this so you can run iTunes?!? Last time I checked, iTunes wasn't decoding anything in 5.1 surround, so if you're only going to get a stereo output you might as well just run some monster cable to RCA from the standard output. You're really not gonna hear the difference.
P.S. Not to nitpick since you're obviously such a consumate audiophile, but it's spelled "s-t-e-r-E-o." Maybe your $2000+ would have been better spent on some more higher education.
[edit] And while I'm at it - you want this so you can run iTunes?!? Last time I checked, iTunes wasn't decoding anything in 5.1 surround, so if you're only going to get a stereo output you might as well just run some monster cable to RCA from the standard output. You're really not gonna hear the difference.
First let me thank you for the spelling correction. Personally I'm not worried too much about spelling when I jot a quick line off to a forum, I'm just trying to make a point.
Second, the point I was trying to make is that the whole Digital Hub idea is to integrate Apples computers into the home/lifestyle arena. Adding the digital output would just advance this with an easy way to integrate a Mac into an existing audio/video system, and I think that this has a great value to the market value of all Macs.
Yes it is true that most music is not recorded in 5.1 at this time, but that is changing. Also you are wrong about "most" users. If you don't believe me then check out the sales figures for Audigy 5.1. You also do not have to hook it up to your living room system, some people can actually afford another stereo in their homes, or you can just get the 5.1 powered speaker system for around 100 beans. A double USB setup is not 5.1, as you stated. I am not an audiophile, but this is the direction stereo is heading for computers. As far as cost goes, its not that damned expensive, especially when purchased in quantity. That does not mean however that I beleive this is the only possibility for an optical port, it was just one of the possiblities. I am all for some type of high speed networking thingy, the soundcard will be available at some point in the future anyway.
this is a pretty ridiculous argument. yes, motorola decided to "screw" apple by intentionally making their processors slower. that way, they could lay off thousands of people and hemorrage money to "show them." all the while, apple is showing profits and, by all accounts, doing pretty well. yeah, that was the plan at motorola. they sure showed apple who to mess with.
Do you seriously believe that moto's inability to produce faster chips caused them to layoff nearly 50,000 people?
After the clone fiasco, a moto exec was quoted as saying "Apple is just another customer now."
[quote] That's only a little more valid than saying "My cordless phone is already at 2.4Ghz, and I've had it for a couple years. Why shouldn't we get a 1.8Ghz G5 by mid year.<hr></blockquote>
If you'd reread, my point is not that YOU wouldn't do this, but that no significant percentage of PowerMac buyers would to make it worth Apple's trouble/cost. Not to mention that if you have a setup like that and have even half a brain, it's most likely situated around a television/home theater. Unless your mac is squarely in front of the couch or in the center of the room, your surround field would be way off, and then what's the point of having it in surround at all?
-S
P.S. Not to nitpick since you're obviously such a consumate audiophile, but it's spelled "s-t-e-r-E-o." Maybe your $2000+ would have been better spent on some more higher education.
[edit] And while I'm at it - you want this so you can run iTunes?!? Last time I checked, iTunes wasn't decoding anything in 5.1 surround, so if you're only going to get a stereo output you might as well just run some monster cable to RCA from the standard output. You're really not gonna hear the difference.
1.) optical out is standard stuff on PCs now. especially portables. it only makes sens for apple to embrace optical out audio as they are pushing themselves as the digital hub.
2.) as said, many many people are getting surround sound setups for their computers. this is an important gaming aspect now and adds a new dimension to games. apple limits themselves with their crappy built-in audio options and refusal to offer the soundblaster as BTO. the LEAST they can do is provide optical out
3.) OS X has the hooks for surround sound. you think they just put it there for shits and giggles?
4.) DVDs. Apple is making a huge push into the DVD authoring arena. DVD Studio Pro is great, it comes with a DD5.1 encoder. But guess what? there is no way to preview your 5.1 output? what good is that?
Applenut, you do not need optical to do 5.1 - it can be done with USB, and there are options out there. "Optical" isn't necessarily standard on anything these days - bit Dolby 5.1 is, whether it be through optical, coax, or software/USB. I'm also aware that OS X has the hooks for surround - I don't believe I ever debated that.
I think that anyone who is that serious about it is either going to have equipment which by its own nature provides surround output, or they're going to want something like a Soundblaster anyway.....there are so many solutions, I just think it would be a waste of Apple's time. That said, I think they need to focus on getting OS X's 5.1 implementation ready to go.
I know an awful lot of musicians, audio engineers, record label owners, and music distributors, and I can tell you that NONE of them are devoting any time or effort trying to figure out how to record/release their music in 5.1. There are a few major artits/labels trying it just for giggles, but the whole 5.1 audio thing is primarily a home theater thing -- DTS or Dolby Digital.
<strong>Applenut, you do not need optical to do 5.1 - it can be done with USB, and there are options out there. "Optical" isn't necessarily standard on anything these days - bit Dolby 5.1 is, whether it be through optical, coax, or software/USB. I'm also aware that OS X has the hooks for surround - I don't believe I ever debated that.
I think that anyone who is that serious about it is either going to have equipment which by its own nature provides surround output, or they're going to want something like a Soundblaster anyway.....there are so many solutions, I just think it would be a waste of Apple's time. That said, I think they need to focus on getting OS X's 5.1 implementation ready to go.
S</strong><hr></blockquote>
show me a 5.1 USB solution
optical is standard on everything. all dvd players have optical. coaxal is not standard
all surround receivers on the market today have at least optical.
minidisc has optical
and countless other audio interfaces.
Apple needs to include a SPDIF port. Everyone else does. the cost is not insanely more if a little more and it fits in with their strategy.
Apple sucks with audio. Nearly all PCs have better audio capabilities straight out of the box simply because they ship with a crappy soundblaster.
Whatever guys, what is this like something that you just have a special love for on your mac, old fashioned audio? Optical is going to be on every stereo and PC. Soundblaster doesn't make the Audigy for mac, yes there are other alternatives to optical for 5.1 but that is going to be the defacto standard. USB sound is not a favorite for anyone that I know, but maybe you know people who like it. So just to end this, spiffy your right, USB rules and it is the 5.1 answer on macs. Why spend the extra money on something new, lets just use USB and let the PC companies go optical..... because for $3500 god knows we cant get great sound and 1GHZ.!!! LOL I just want 5.1 digital on my mac, it sounds so sweeeeet.
Comments
can you spell b-o-l-o-g-n-a ?
<strong>The optical port would allow connection to a stereo with an optical port. This is the standard that stereo is using now. In case you have not heard a Sound Blaster Audigy system with 5.1, it is just incredible. I have a soundblaster for Mac and also one for my athlon. The sound from the Mac is no different than the normal mac output, but the athlon with optical 5.1 is a thing of beauty for the ears. Trust me, this is worth the money for gamers, musicians, and for anyone planning to work with or burn DVD's. This will be standard for all computers in the future so why not on the Mac. Anyway I am ready to buy today if something comes out....I hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can do that without an optical port....I don't think a large percentage of PowerMac buyers frequently relocate surround systems from their televisions to their computers - best to add 5.1 support in the hardware/OS and then get a pair of USB speakers specifically suited to the task than to bother with optical.
S
<strong>
Yes, but this person reported the USB version to two significant digits.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, for God's sake! You probably balance your check book with an abacus, too!
tsukurite
<strong>
You can do that without an optical port....I don't think a large percentage of PowerMac buyers frequently relocate surround systems from their televisions to their computers - best to add 5.1 support in the hardware/OS and then get a pair of USB speakers specifically suited to the task than to bother with optical.
S</strong><hr></blockquote>
Becouse my $1000+ sterio system is much better quality running through my $1000+ Bose speakers than any set of USB speakers on the market, and all I would need to buy is a cable. Then I could run iTunes as a MP3 player on my sterio system with AppleScript automating it.
<strong>
onlooker, you really need to go and look at the latest Motorola roadmap. Their first roadmap with the G5 (>2 years ago) listed it as "2+ GHz", but the current one says 800MHz - 2 GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it says that now we've been screwed by motorola again. Those @$$H0L3$ can't stop trying to screw Apple for satupid clone debocle. They would have lost money on it anyway. It probablty saved them from more layoffs to begin with.
I really like the comments that say "no one in the know would say this..." and that none of the rumor sites mention this. Oh, and the rumor sites are soooo realiable. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Really, it sounds like an attempt to debunk any theory not their own. bah.
I personally enjoy a little speculation. It keeps me interested in a company that doesn't say that much about itself most of the time.
As for 1.8GHz, why not? Because no one's heard of it? As a person who works for one of the top 3 PC vendors, I can tell you, there's stuff done on the inside that you'll never hear about. Operational security doesn't have to be a joke, you know.
This is the first snippet that's gotten me really excited. All this other crap about 1.2GHz or just 1.0GHz releases is just bunk. Jobs is enough of a showman and enough of a businessman to understand his audience and his market.
Granted, this may be complete garbage, but at least it's entertaining garbage, which is more than can be said for all the whining and b**ching going here.
tsukurite
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: tsukurite ]</p>
which would yield 1820MHZ.
It also reveals Athlon XP's at >3 GHZ, oh well
<strong>
If it says that now we've been screwed by motorola again. Those @$$H0L3$ can't stop trying to screw Apple for satupid clone debocle. They would have lost money on it anyway. It probablty saved them from more layoffs to begin with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this is a pretty ridiculous argument. yes, motorola decided to "screw" apple by intentionally making their processors slower. that way, they could lay off thousands of people and hemorrage money to "show them." all the while, apple is showing profits and, by all accounts, doing pretty well. yeah, that was the plan at motorola. they sure showed apple who to mess with.
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>
<strong>
Becouse my $1000+ sterio system is much better quality running through my $1000+ Bose speakers than any set of USB speakers on the market, and all I would need to buy is a cable. Then I could run iTunes as a MP3 player on my sterio system with AppleScript automating it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you'd reread, my point is not that YOU wouldn't do this, but that no significant percentage of PowerMac buyers would to make it worth Apple's trouble/cost. Not to mention that if you have a setup like that and have even half a brain, it's most likely situated around a television/home theater. Unless your mac is squarely in front of the couch or in the center of the room, your surround field would be way off, and then what's the point of having it in surround at all?
-S
P.S. Not to nitpick since you're obviously such a consumate audiophile, but it's spelled "s-t-e-r-E-o."
[edit] And while I'm at it - you want this so you can run iTunes?!? Last time I checked, iTunes wasn't decoding anything in 5.1 surround, so if you're only going to get a stereo output you might as well just run some monster cable to RCA from the standard output. You're really not gonna hear the difference.
-S
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</p>
<strong>
P.S. Not to nitpick since you're obviously such a consumate audiophile, but it's spelled "s-t-e-r-E-o."
[edit] And while I'm at it - you want this so you can run iTunes?!? Last time I checked, iTunes wasn't decoding anything in 5.1 surround, so if you're only going to get a stereo output you might as well just run some monster cable to RCA from the standard output. You're really not gonna hear the difference.
-S
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
First let me thank you for the spelling correction. Personally I'm not worried too much about spelling when I jot a quick line off to a forum, I'm just trying to make a point.
Second, the point I was trying to make is that the whole Digital Hub idea is to integrate Apples computers into the home/lifestyle arena. Adding the digital output would just advance this with an easy way to integrate a Mac into an existing audio/video system, and I think that this has a great value to the market value of all Macs.
I know this wasn't as widespread as the anti-G5 comments, but still, it shows how you can never underestimate Apple.
<strong>
this is a pretty ridiculous argument. yes, motorola decided to "screw" apple by intentionally making their processors slower. that way, they could lay off thousands of people and hemorrage money to "show them." all the while, apple is showing profits and, by all accounts, doing pretty well. yeah, that was the plan at motorola. they sure showed apple who to mess with.
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you seriously believe that moto's inability to produce faster chips caused them to layoff nearly 50,000 people?
After the clone fiasco, a moto exec was quoted as saying "Apple is just another customer now."
[quote] That's only a little more valid than saying "My cordless phone is already at 2.4Ghz, and I've had it for a couple years. Why shouldn't we get a 1.8Ghz G5 by mid year.<hr></blockquote>
Your phone is prolly more powerful than the P4.
<strong>
If you'd reread, my point is not that YOU wouldn't do this, but that no significant percentage of PowerMac buyers would to make it worth Apple's trouble/cost. Not to mention that if you have a setup like that and have even half a brain, it's most likely situated around a television/home theater. Unless your mac is squarely in front of the couch or in the center of the room, your surround field would be way off, and then what's the point of having it in surround at all?
-S
P.S. Not to nitpick since you're obviously such a consumate audiophile, but it's spelled "s-t-e-r-E-o."
[edit] And while I'm at it - you want this so you can run iTunes?!? Last time I checked, iTunes wasn't decoding anything in 5.1 surround, so if you're only going to get a stereo output you might as well just run some monster cable to RCA from the standard output. You're really not gonna hear the difference.
-S
[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) optical out is standard stuff on PCs now. especially portables. it only makes sens for apple to embrace optical out audio as they are pushing themselves as the digital hub.
2.) as said, many many people are getting surround sound setups for their computers. this is an important gaming aspect now and adds a new dimension to games. apple limits themselves with their crappy built-in audio options and refusal to offer the soundblaster as BTO. the LEAST they can do is provide optical out
3.) OS X has the hooks for surround sound. you think they just put it there for shits and giggles?
4.) DVDs. Apple is making a huge push into the DVD authoring arena. DVD Studio Pro is great, it comes with a DD5.1 encoder. But guess what? there is no way to preview your 5.1 output? what good is that?
<strong>"New G5 info"
can you spell b-o-l-o-g-n-a ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
hehehe its funny you uses bologna as your thing to spell because I'll bet a LARGE precentage of the population spells it baloney
:cool:
I think that anyone who is that serious about it is either going to have equipment which by its own nature provides surround output, or they're going to want something like a Soundblaster anyway.....there are so many solutions, I just think it would be a waste of Apple's time. That said, I think they need to focus on getting OS X's 5.1 implementation ready to go.
S
<strong>Applenut, you do not need optical to do 5.1 - it can be done with USB, and there are options out there. "Optical" isn't necessarily standard on anything these days - bit Dolby 5.1 is, whether it be through optical, coax, or software/USB. I'm also aware that OS X has the hooks for surround - I don't believe I ever debated that.
I think that anyone who is that serious about it is either going to have equipment which by its own nature provides surround output, or they're going to want something like a Soundblaster anyway.....there are so many solutions, I just think it would be a waste of Apple's time. That said, I think they need to focus on getting OS X's 5.1 implementation ready to go.
S</strong><hr></blockquote>
show me a 5.1 USB solution
optical is standard on everything. all dvd players have optical. coaxal is not standard
all surround receivers on the market today have at least optical.
minidisc has optical
and countless other audio interfaces.
Apple needs to include a SPDIF port. Everyone else does. the cost is not insanely more if a little more and it fits in with their strategy.
Apple sucks with audio. Nearly all PCs have better audio capabilities straight out of the box simply because they ship with a crappy soundblaster.