First let me say that my intent was never to imply that Apple was holding back on upgrading the PowerMacs until better economic conditions. The latter part of this thread was driven by Matsu's:
"Nobody, ever waits to release a product that is ready to go, ever, period, end of story."
While economic climate is not a good reason to wait on a product release in this case, there are others. My intent was to posit alternate explanations for Apple not releasing a developed or nearly developed G5.
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>In the case of a cpu completely developed, the increased speed should more than offset the ramp up expense(re: remember the development cost has already been incurred). In Apple'sMotorola's case this is doubly, triply, oh heck let's say quadruply so. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This supports my point. In order to offset development expenses the increase in speed (and future possible increase) needs to be enough to generate sales for several years. Once a CPU is committed to they are pretty much tied to it for several years. If it can't keep up with the Jones then you have...well a G4.
[quote]<strong>Those companies that canceled product lines, AFTER production facilities were completed, had better look for better R&D personnel. </strong><hr></blockquote>
In 90+% of the cases you're right but, sometimes, bad things happen to good products (Ooh, good book title). Market forces, new government regulations, or an incompetent sole supplier can wreak havoc with an otherwise well thought out project plan.
[quote]<strong>Changing or adapting a project in midstream is not jermaine to the argument here. That's becomes the realm of cost benefit analysis. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I think that is exactly crux of this discussion: whether you change or adapt a product (or product delivery schedule) due to technical difficulties or economic climate is, at its core, a cost benefit analysis. Can you sell the damn thing?
[quote]<strong>Not me. Apple's dismal sales of Powermacs speaks for itself. Look around, on every mac centric board, it's the same. Apple's powermacs are lagging way behind not only in processor speed, but in actual daily computing speed on real aps.
... Apple doesn't need to leap frog Intel/AMD by any stretch of the imagination. If Apple could have, and they obviously couldn't, in a heartbeat they would have introduced a G4 @ 1.5GHz using HiP7 on a DDR MPX bus.let alone a G5 @ 1.5GHz w/ Rapid I/O on a DDR bus. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, I think that this makes my point for me. If the perception of Apple is, in fact, this extreme, how could the introduction of a next generation processor that still lags behind the competition benefit the company? Granted, if they could have gotten another iota of performance out of the G4 they probably would have, but it seems agreed that it just wasn't there at this time and that Motorola is not cooperating on (or capable of) a DDR MPX bus. They had to do something so we get dual 1.25s.
[quote]<strong>neumac, just thought I'd add that I respect your's, Programmer's and everyone's opinions</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ditto, and a reasoned discussion is always a good way pass the time.
[quote]<strong>There is absolutely no way that Apple or Motorola has sat on a fully developed G5 or HiP7 G4 waiting for a better economic situation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, agreed, but they may have had other reasons
i've gotten a more info that confirms that the ibm power4 derivative is meant for powermacs. don't expect a next-gen chip for macs from moto any time soon.
[quote]And for economics... more specificlly micro, It's a well know tactic to "close up shop and wait" rather then work in a slow enviorment.<hr></blockquote>
Apple cant do that because it will continue to lose pros to Windows, and it will be extremely difficult to win them back once they invest in a new platform. In essense, they're going to have to do that anyways though.
But in Apple's case, they are soooooo far behind in general processsing speed, let alone MHz, and sooooo far behind in motherboard design, they wouldn't hesitate to use the absolute best available. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, that doesn't make sense.
If they are soooooo (6 o's) behind, then a 20% speed bump should still leave them sooooo (5 o's) behind. Bottom line, they're still behind, and the people who are complaining that they are behind, will continue to complain that they are behind.
The only way to ameliorate that group of people is to move aheaaad (3 a's) and that doesn't happen by shipping slightly better products. It usually means stopping your incremental R&D outside of the minimum needed to keep the lights on, and investing everything you have on leaping ahead while your competition performs incremental R&D.
Apple's done this before. Apple II->Macintosh, 68k->PPC, OS 9->OS X. Old formula.
I haven't posted this information yet because I doubt any of you would believe me. But that rumor that the power4 variant was not for apple ...well it's not true.
Apple cant do that because it will continue to lose pros to Windows, and it will be extremely difficult to win them back once they invest in a new platform. In essense, they're going to have to do that anyways though.
<hr></blockquote>
That's 8th grade basic thinking. Sadly, things are just not as black and white as that. It's immensely involved then just saying some one will beat me if I close up shop.
Think of it like a chess game if you must(even if it's cliche). Rok takes pawn, knight takes Rok.
Suffice to say, play smart, not hardworking, especially when your competition is a lot bigger then you.
<strong>I haven't posted this information yet because I doubt any of you would believe me. But that rumor that the power4 variant was not for apple ...well it's not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now I wonder when apple will release a 64bit version of the mac os for these new machines next summer. They could make a 64/32 bit version that would run on both chips right?
<strong>Now I wonder when apple will release a 64bit version of the mac os for these new machines next summer. They could make a 64/32 bit version that would run on both chips right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It'd certainly be a great strategic/marketing move (first 64-bit consumer OS ever, well ahead of M$!) but if what's true for the Hammer is true on the PPC platform too I don't think there's going to be a major performance hit when running 32-bit code, since it's not being emulated (unlike the Itanic ). Am I right on this?
It'd certainly be a great strategic/marketing move (first 64-bit consumer OS ever, well ahead of M$!) but if what's true for the Hammer is true on the PPC platform too I don't think there's going to be a major performance hit when running 32-bit code, since it's not being emulated (unlike the Itanic ). Am I right on this?
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I've read around the net the PowerPC architecture was developed with 64 bitness in mind, so basically a 64bit PPC can run 32bit PPC code natively. Or to put it different - making a 64 bit PPC chip isn't a problem and would require any major architecture changes. I could be wrong, though.
Well, this is my first post here after lurking for years. So be kind!
I was reading MacCentral and came accross this comment about the new IBM Power4/G5 chip we are all anticipating. I thought these comments might help in our discussion here.
<paste>
The Microprocessor Forum also has AMD scheduled to provide details about the Opteron and Intel will provide technical details of the Banias chip. Both of those processors are scheduled for release early in 2003.
At last years forum, IBM disclosed details about the PowerPC processor that is now used in Apple's current iBook.
So, I would expect that IBM mentioning that they will disclose technical details of the 64-bit PowerPC processor means that the design will be finished by then. Its likely that they will follow the same procedure that they did with the 750FX, with imminent sampling to large customers and wide availability of samples early in 2003. Chip production should be in the first quarter of 2003, as it was with the 750FX.
It will be interesting to see what process will be used in the initial production of IBM's new PowerPC chip. Will it be made with the current .13 micron process or will they make it in their new facility using a .09 micron fab process? A smaller process size would not only increase its performance, but lower its cost.
Its questionable whether Apple will use the processor at first. Since Apple may have made an arrangement with Motorola concerning upcoming processors, they may decline to use IBM's new PowerPC chip. Apple doesn't have enough sales to encourage two different processor manufacturers to devote much capital to making high performance chips geared towards Macs. So, its quite possible that Apple may have made some arrangement with Motorola to encourage development of PowerPC processors.
Apple is showing signs of plans for much higher performance computers being available in the near future with their purchase of several high-end professional software applications. So, I would venture to guess that Apple is preparing several major professional hardware and software announcements to be made in early 2003. You have to realize that the professional Mac line has gotten long in the tooth and its very unlikely that will go on for much longer. A major overhaul should be coming in the next few months, otherwise sales will continue to suffer.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a larger server box being announced by Apple in January. The much higher performance of new PowerPC processor designs point towards Apple being capable of moving into higher priced servers early next year. Having 64-bit capability for moving enterprise Unix apps over to the Mac also strengthens that idea.
Intel mentions that Banias will start off at 1.6GHz and yet have about 25% higher performance than a 2GHz Pentium 4. Judging from that, I would expect that these new PowerPC processor desgins from Motorola and IBM could be very competitive, performance wise, with a 3GHz Pentium 4.
The widening Apple performance gap should no longer look like the grand canyon in 2003. Which company will have little boy bragging rights to the fastest processor in 2003 remains to be seen, but the performance of these topend computers should more than meet the needs of all but the fringe of the consumer and corporate markets. Processor performance should not be a major deciding factor against Apple bringing in new customers in 2003.
</paste>
Personally I hope the new Pwr4G5 is here early to mid 2003 and that a low power version of SOMETHING will be available for the PowerBook soon afterwards.
I've notices a trend with Intel in de-emphasizing the frequency of a chip. And this may play into Apple's (and AMD's) hands quite well. First, Intel knows as well as many of us tech types know that x86 as an architecture does not have a bright future. In fact the P4 looks like it was designed by a marketing team and not an engineering team. Also, Intel has said that IA64 is the replacement for x86. By it's very nature, IA64 is more in line with a RISC architecture and methodology although it employs VLIW methods but this makes it a good performer at low frequency. Note the Itanium2 barely scales to 1GHz (and 112watts at that). Intel doesn't want to stretch out the P4 or even an upcoming P5 any more than it has to in fear that it will make it's own billion dollar project itanium look like a lame duck even thought it is a strong performer. Maybe the P4 CAN scale to 5GHz. But would that be good for Intel? They merely need to scale the P4 so it keeps up itsperformance with the likes of Athlon and Hammer etc. No more, no less.
I forsee Intel to further de-emphasize MHz as a rating for performance to make a desktop transition to Itanium less hostile (imagine a person at Best Buy looking at a discontinued P4 systems at 4.5GHz for $699 and a 1.6GHz Itanium system for $1499 and looking at GHz as the basis of performance. That is Intel's nightmare.). And this may be a hard thing to do for Apple, or AMD even (their PR scheme still isn't catching on), but Intel has the sway to do this. And the positives out way the negatives. And there are negatives I conceed; like it would open a door for competitors to market ther processors more efectively. It will take some initiative on Intel's part. It may also take a combination of factors to show a processors performance rating like frequency/IPC/FSB-GBps. you may see a computers performance measured as 2.0-5-4.8. the numbers would still be with out meaning to normal consumers but at least it will reflect the actual performance of different processors compared than just MHz alone.
Its questionable whether Apple will use the processor at first.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think your post is great! However, I believe that Apple will use the 64-bit IBM chip as soon as it is ready. I'll just call it the G5, and I think that is what Steve will call it too. Can you imagine the uproar from Mac user's if the chip is available and Apple ignores it for a while? Nope, gotta use it pronto. The natives are restless and pounding their drums.
Apple may be creative in how they use the G5 at first. My guess is that it will be one or two very high end workstation class Macs. The G4 will still be used in most PowerMacs for a while. Once G5 fabrication has gone to the 0.09 process and is tuned for high volumes, we may see G5s in all the PowerMacs.
Somewhere around October 15 I expect some news. IBM will be presenting details of the G5 and will remove all doubts about the AltiVec instructions. "We cannot comment on customers at this time," will not hide the fact that it's gotta be an Apple chip. How long can Steve hold off an announcement then? If the G5 is for high end workstations, it is in Apple's interest to say so soon. If people expect lower end PowerMacs will have it, sales will drop.
<strong>"If the current towers were single CPUs at 1. 7 GHz, 2GHz and a 2.5 GHz coming real soon we would not even have this discussion even if the performance would be quite similar."
Agreed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember when Apple was offering a single-proc 733 and a dual 533, and the smart money was on the dual 533?
Anyone who's seen just how silky OS X is on a DP machine would still be complaining if the towers had single CPUs. Even if the clock speed was double. If anything, the above-quote post just illustrates the shallowness of the whole cry for more MHz. If you want Lightwave to run fast, you want robust 64 bit FP support, which is not tied to MHz.
If they are soooooo (6 o's) behind, then a 20% speed bump should still leave them sooooo (5 o's) behind. Bottom line, they're still behind, and the people who are complaining that they are behind, will continue to complain that they are behind.
The only way to ameliorate that group of people is to move aheaaad (3 a's) and that doesn't happen by shipping slightly better products. It usually means stopping your incremental R&D outside of the minimum needed to keep the lights on, and investing everything you have on leaping ahead while your competition performs incremental R&D.
Apple's done this before. Apple II->Macintosh, 68k->PPC, OS 9->OS X. Old formula.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The introduction of the dual 1.25GHz. PowerMac proves my point that Apple will use the best tech available at the time. The number of 0's in my "so" are really really irrelevant.
The alternate argument, to what I'm saying would mean, that due to the economic climate, Apple sat on or canceled a completed design of a G5 or G4 on HiP7, waiting for the economy to improve. I strongly disagree.
I think we arguing different things
[quote]Matsu:
Nobody, ever waits to release a product that is ready to go, <hr></blockquote>
"ready to go" to me means R&D is done, manufacturing is ready to proceed. At this point, there is no reason other than complete failure of the product to provide ANY increased benefit over the previous product(sarcasm - insert itanium here)
[quote]neumac
"If it can't keep up with the Jones then you have...well a G4."<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Now that's funny, thanks for the laughter.
[quote]neumac
Sorry, I think that is exactly crux of this discussion: whether you change or adapt a product (or product delivery schedule) due to technical difficulties or economic climate is, at its core, a cost benefit analysis. Can you sell the damn thing?<hr></blockquote>
I think we're arguing different points. Matsu said." Nobody, ever waits to release a product that is ready to go,..." Not in development not designed only, but "ready to go". Design completed, testing completed, production facility set up, just turn the master power switch on and G5's come spitting out the other end.
I have no problems with believing projects get canceled, adapted etc.
<strong>At last years forum, IBM disclosed details about the PowerPC processor that is now used in Apple's current iBook.
So, I would expect that IBM mentioning that they will disclose technical details of the 64-bit PowerPC processor means that the design will be finished by then. Its likely that they will follow the same procedure that they did with the 750FX, with imminent sampling to large customers and wide availability of samples early in 2003. Chip production should be in the first quarter of 2003, as it was with the 750FX.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is only one MDF per year so, based on the sampling frequency, you can't really drawn any conclusions from when the new processor will be ready. It could be next September, but they want to talk about the finished design at this year's conference because they'll ship just before next year's. Similarly the processor could be ready to go out the door in November (although I highly doubt that).
Comments
"Nobody, ever waits to release a product that is ready to go, ever, period, end of story."
While economic climate is not a good reason to wait on a product release in this case, there are others. My intent was to posit alternate explanations for Apple not releasing a developed or nearly developed G5.
[quote]Originally posted by rickag:
<strong>In the case of a cpu completely developed, the increased speed should more than offset the ramp up expense(re: remember the development cost has already been incurred). In Apple'sMotorola's case this is doubly, triply, oh heck let's say quadruply so. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This supports my point. In order to offset development expenses the increase in speed (and future possible increase) needs to be enough to generate sales for several years. Once a CPU is committed to they are pretty much tied to it for several years. If it can't keep up with the Jones then you have...well a G4.
[quote]<strong>Those companies that canceled product lines, AFTER production facilities were completed, had better look for better R&D personnel. </strong><hr></blockquote>
In 90+% of the cases you're right but, sometimes, bad things happen to good products (Ooh, good book title). Market forces, new government regulations, or an incompetent sole supplier can wreak havoc with an otherwise well thought out project plan.
[quote]<strong>Changing or adapting a project in midstream is not jermaine to the argument here. That's becomes the realm of cost benefit analysis. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I think that is exactly crux of this discussion: whether you change or adapt a product (or product delivery schedule) due to technical difficulties or economic climate is, at its core, a cost benefit analysis. Can you sell the damn thing?
[quote]<strong>Not me. Apple's dismal sales of Powermacs speaks for itself. Look around, on every mac centric board, it's the same. Apple's powermacs are lagging way behind not only in processor speed, but in actual daily computing speed on real aps.
... Apple doesn't need to leap frog Intel/AMD by any stretch of the imagination. If Apple could have, and they obviously couldn't, in a heartbeat they would have introduced a G4 @ 1.5GHz using HiP7 on a DDR MPX bus.let alone a G5 @ 1.5GHz w/ Rapid I/O on a DDR bus. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, I think that this makes my point for me. If the perception of Apple is, in fact, this extreme, how could the introduction of a next generation processor that still lags behind the competition benefit the company? Granted, if they could have gotten another iota of performance out of the G4 they probably would have, but it seems agreed that it just wasn't there at this time and that Motorola is not cooperating on (or capable of) a DDR MPX bus. They had to do something so we get dual 1.25s.
[quote]<strong>neumac, just thought I'd add that I respect your's, Programmer's and everyone's opinions</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ditto, and a reasoned discussion is always a good way pass the time.
[quote]<strong>There is absolutely no way that Apple or Motorola has sat on a fully developed G5 or HiP7 G4 waiting for a better economic situation. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, agreed, but they may have had other reasons
There is a very involved issue of project prediction.
On a basic level it's the faster you want it, the more you have to spend.
Given this, say you have a fully developed chip in the works.
Well you can choose to push it now, or you can slowly do it, while improving the process and use less amount of empoyment/contracts.
Every idiot knows that with more time, things tend to become cheaper.
And for economics... more specificlly micro, It's a well know tactic to "close up shop and wait" rather then work in a slow enviorment.
~Kuku
Apple cant do that because it will continue to lose pros to Windows, and it will be extremely difficult to win them back once they invest in a new platform. In essense, they're going to have to do that anyways though.
<strong>
You're right in a general sense.
But in Apple's case, they are soooooo far behind in general processsing speed, let alone MHz, and sooooo far behind in motherboard design, they wouldn't hesitate to use the absolute best available. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, that doesn't make sense.
If they are soooooo (6 o's) behind, then a 20% speed bump should still leave them sooooo (5 o's) behind. Bottom line, they're still behind, and the people who are complaining that they are behind, will continue to complain that they are behind.
The only way to ameliorate that group of people is to move aheaaad (3 a's) and that doesn't happen by shipping slightly better products. It usually means stopping your incremental R&D outside of the minimum needed to keep the lights on, and investing everything you have on leaping ahead while your competition performs incremental R&D.
Apple's done this before. Apple II->Macintosh, 68k->PPC, OS 9->OS X. Old formula.
Can I wait??
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Apple cant do that because it will continue to lose pros to Windows, and it will be extremely difficult to win them back once they invest in a new platform. In essense, they're going to have to do that anyways though.
<hr></blockquote>
That's 8th grade basic thinking. Sadly, things are just not as black and white as that. It's immensely involved then just saying some one will beat me if I close up shop.
Think of it like a chess game if you must(even if it's cliche). Rok takes pawn, knight takes Rok.
Suffice to say, play smart, not hardworking, especially when your competition is a lot bigger then you.
~Kuku
<strong>I haven't posted this information yet because I doubt any of you would believe me. But that rumor that the power4 variant was not for apple ...well it's not true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
uh, i just said that.
<strong>Now I wonder when apple will release a 64bit version of the mac os for these new machines next summer. They could make a 64/32 bit version that would run on both chips right?</strong><hr></blockquote>
It'd certainly be a great strategic/marketing move (first 64-bit consumer OS ever, well ahead of M$!) but if what's true for the Hammer is true on the PPC platform too I don't think there's going to be a major performance hit when running 32-bit code, since it's not being emulated (unlike the Itanic
ZoSo
<strong>
It'd certainly be a great strategic/marketing move (first 64-bit consumer OS ever, well ahead of M$!) but if what's true for the Hammer is true on the PPC platform too I don't think there's going to be a major performance hit when running 32-bit code, since it's not being emulated (unlike the Itanic
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
From what I've read around the net the PowerPC architecture was developed with 64 bitness in mind, so basically a 64bit PPC can run 32bit PPC code natively. Or to put it different - making a 64 bit PPC chip isn't a problem and would require any major architecture changes. I could be wrong, though.
I was reading MacCentral and came accross this comment about the new IBM Power4/G5 chip we are all anticipating. I thought these comments might help in our discussion here.
<paste>
The Microprocessor Forum also has AMD scheduled to provide details about the Opteron and Intel will provide technical details of the Banias chip. Both of those processors are scheduled for release early in 2003.
At last years forum, IBM disclosed details about the PowerPC processor that is now used in Apple's current iBook.
So, I would expect that IBM mentioning that they will disclose technical details of the 64-bit PowerPC processor means that the design will be finished by then. Its likely that they will follow the same procedure that they did with the 750FX, with imminent sampling to large customers and wide availability of samples early in 2003. Chip production should be in the first quarter of 2003, as it was with the 750FX.
It will be interesting to see what process will be used in the initial production of IBM's new PowerPC chip. Will it be made with the current .13 micron process or will they make it in their new facility using a .09 micron fab process? A smaller process size would not only increase its performance, but lower its cost.
Its questionable whether Apple will use the processor at first. Since Apple may have made an arrangement with Motorola concerning upcoming processors, they may decline to use IBM's new PowerPC chip. Apple doesn't have enough sales to encourage two different processor manufacturers to devote much capital to making high performance chips geared towards Macs. So, its quite possible that Apple may have made some arrangement with Motorola to encourage development of PowerPC processors.
Apple is showing signs of plans for much higher performance computers being available in the near future with their purchase of several high-end professional software applications. So, I would venture to guess that Apple is preparing several major professional hardware and software announcements to be made in early 2003. You have to realize that the professional Mac line has gotten long in the tooth and its very unlikely that will go on for much longer. A major overhaul should be coming in the next few months, otherwise sales will continue to suffer.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a larger server box being announced by Apple in January. The much higher performance of new PowerPC processor designs point towards Apple being capable of moving into higher priced servers early next year. Having 64-bit capability for moving enterprise Unix apps over to the Mac also strengthens that idea.
Intel mentions that Banias will start off at 1.6GHz and yet have about 25% higher performance than a 2GHz Pentium 4. Judging from that, I would expect that these new PowerPC processor desgins from Motorola and IBM could be very competitive, performance wise, with a 3GHz Pentium 4.
The widening Apple performance gap should no longer look like the grand canyon in 2003. Which company will have little boy bragging rights to the fastest processor in 2003 remains to be seen, but the performance of these topend computers should more than meet the needs of all but the fringe of the consumer and corporate markets. Processor performance should not be a major deciding factor against Apple bringing in new customers in 2003.
</paste>
Personally I hope the new Pwr4G5 is here early to mid 2003 and that a low power version of SOMETHING will be available for the PowerBook soon afterwards.
I forsee Intel to further de-emphasize MHz as a rating for performance to make a desktop transition to Itanium less hostile (imagine a person at Best Buy looking at a discontinued P4 systems at 4.5GHz for $699 and a 1.6GHz Itanium system for $1499 and looking at GHz as the basis of performance. That is Intel's nightmare.). And this may be a hard thing to do for Apple, or AMD even (their PR scheme still isn't catching on), but Intel has the sway to do this. And the positives out way the negatives. And there are negatives I conceed; like it would open a door for competitors to market ther processors more efectively. It will take some initiative on Intel's part. It may also take a combination of factors to show a processors performance rating like frequency/IPC/FSB-GBps. you may see a computers performance measured as 2.0-5-4.8. the numbers would still be with out meaning to normal consumers but at least it will reflect the actual performance of different processors compared than just MHz alone.
<strong>
Its questionable whether Apple will use the processor at first.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think your post is great! However, I believe that Apple will use the 64-bit IBM chip as soon as it is ready. I'll just call it the G5, and I think that is what Steve will call it too. Can you imagine the uproar from Mac user's if the chip is available and Apple ignores it for a while? Nope, gotta use it pronto. The natives are restless and pounding their drums.
Apple may be creative in how they use the G5 at first. My guess is that it will be one or two very high end workstation class Macs. The G4 will still be used in most PowerMacs for a while. Once G5 fabrication has gone to the 0.09 process and is tuned for high volumes, we may see G5s in all the PowerMacs.
Somewhere around October 15 I expect some news. IBM will be presenting details of the G5 and will remove all doubts about the AltiVec instructions. "We cannot comment on customers at this time," will not hide the fact that it's gotta be an Apple chip. How long can Steve hold off an announcement then? If the G5 is for high end workstations, it is in Apple's interest to say so soon. If people expect lower end PowerMacs will have it, sales will drop.
<strong>"If the current towers were single CPUs at 1. 7 GHz, 2GHz and a 2.5 GHz coming real soon we would not even have this discussion even if the performance would be quite similar."
Agreed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remember when Apple was offering a single-proc 733 and a dual 533, and the smart money was on the dual 533?
Anyone who's seen just how silky OS X is on a DP machine would still be complaining if the towers had single CPUs. Even if the clock speed was double. If anything, the above-quote post just illustrates the shallowness of the whole cry for more MHz. If you want Lightwave to run fast, you want robust 64 bit FP support, which is not tied to MHz.
[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
engpjp
<strong>
Actually, that doesn't make sense.
If they are soooooo (6 o's) behind, then a 20% speed bump should still leave them sooooo (5 o's) behind. Bottom line, they're still behind, and the people who are complaining that they are behind, will continue to complain that they are behind.
The only way to ameliorate that group of people is to move aheaaad (3 a's) and that doesn't happen by shipping slightly better products. It usually means stopping your incremental R&D outside of the minimum needed to keep the lights on, and investing everything you have on leaping ahead while your competition performs incremental R&D.
Apple's done this before. Apple II->Macintosh, 68k->PPC, OS 9->OS X. Old formula.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The introduction of the dual 1.25GHz. PowerMac proves my point that Apple will use the best tech available at the time. The number of 0's in my "so" are really really irrelevant.
The alternate argument, to what I'm saying would mean, that due to the economic climate, Apple sat on or canceled a completed design of a G5 or G4 on HiP7, waiting for the economy to improve. I strongly disagree.
I think we arguing different things
[quote]Matsu:
Nobody, ever waits to release a product that is ready to go, <hr></blockquote>
"ready to go" to me means R&D is done, manufacturing is ready to proceed. At this point, there is no reason other than complete failure of the product to provide ANY increased benefit over the previous product(sarcasm - insert itanium here)
[quote]neumac
"If it can't keep up with the Jones then you have...well a G4."<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Now that's funny, thanks for the laughter.
[quote]neumac
Sorry, I think that is exactly crux of this discussion: whether you change or adapt a product (or product delivery schedule) due to technical difficulties or economic climate is, at its core, a cost benefit analysis. Can you sell the damn thing?<hr></blockquote>
I think we're arguing different points. Matsu said." Nobody, ever waits to release a product that is ready to go,..." Not in development not designed only, but "ready to go". Design completed, testing completed, production facility set up, just turn the master power switch on and G5's come spitting out the other end.
I have no problems with believing projects get canceled, adapted etc.
[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
<strong>At last years forum, IBM disclosed details about the PowerPC processor that is now used in Apple's current iBook.
So, I would expect that IBM mentioning that they will disclose technical details of the 64-bit PowerPC processor means that the design will be finished by then. Its likely that they will follow the same procedure that they did with the 750FX, with imminent sampling to large customers and wide availability of samples early in 2003. Chip production should be in the first quarter of 2003, as it was with the 750FX.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is only one MDF per year so, based on the sampling frequency, you can't really drawn any conclusions from when the new processor will be ready. It could be next September, but they want to talk about the finished design at this year's conference because they'll ship just before next year's. Similarly the processor could be ready to go out the door in November (although I highly doubt that).
<strong>.... the processor could be ready to go out the door in November (although I highly doubt that).</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is very likely true