<strong>When has Steve Jobs ever sought conformity to other's standards?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When he's wanted (or needed) to sell to somebody that will only buy certain standards. Moki's original suggestion (months ago) that Apple would introduce an additional line of MacOS X machines based on an x86 processor was largely to address those parts of the business market that are particular about their hardware.
<strong>I think Apple creates its own FUD by its secrecy. Intel announces years in advance its roadmap with specific dates and speeds. Apple is so fearful that people will put off their purchases that they keep everthing quiet. You can still make an iMac in secret but when your customers have no idea what the future of the PowerPC platform is, it does inspire confidence.
Before this IBM announcement, no one had any idea what future Power Macs will be (and I guess we still don't beyond rumor). Based on Motorola's website, the desktop PowerPC has very little future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pre-announcing products is complicated... it can be seen as a commitment which opens Apple up to attacks if they change their mind, thus limiting their flexibility and responsiveness to market conditions. It also lets the competition plan against what they are working on. Since there are three companies involved in AIM it can also reveal more about the other company's plans than they want revealed.
For Intel roadmaps are critical because 75+% of the market builds & plans products based on their chips. AMD can be a little more secretive, but they need to show that they have a plan to combat Intel.
[quote] Sources said that benchmarks and applications tests demonstrate that a 1GHz GPUL processor doubles the performance of the 1GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 processor in current Macs. Even so, they said, the first run on GPUL processors should range from 1.4 to 2GHz, depending on yield.
"Perhaps the most disappointing news for Mac fans, sources said, is that IBM does not expect to be finished with GPUL project until late summer 2003. "
Probably means not in a Mac until fall or later.
Then again, the good news according to the article is;
"Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details."
[quote]Meanwhile, sources said, Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. <hr></blockquote>
Having 2 high-end processors from different manufacturers is A Good Thing™
<strong>The most depressing quote from the eweek article;
"Perhaps the most disappointing news for Mac fans, sources said, is that IBM does not expect to be finished with GPUL project until late summer 2003. "
Probably means not in a Mac until fall or later.
Then again, the good news according to the article is;
"Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details."
Nothing new as far as timeframes go. I think we see 130 nano G4's in a Powermac revision and these GPUL Macs coming after MWNY. Sounds about right. I like the speed increase. I'd love to see the performance of Powermacs Double.
Frankly I see Apple as being pretty worried about these rumors. This will cause many people to hold on on Powermac purchases unless they are just in dire need. At any rate if priced right these Powermacs will sell by the bushell.
I really think the eWeek article about the IBM GPUL is deserving of a new thread and this one is long enough obviously. Im just guessing the mods would close it down cause theyre lock-happy.
Pre-announcing products is complicated... it can be seen as a commitment which opens Apple up to attacks if they change their mind, thus limiting their flexibility and responsiveness to market conditions. It also lets the competition plan against what they are working on. ...</strong>
Hmmm... they may think this way, but it doesn't have to be this way at all. Apple is super secret about future hardware because it's pricing structure is conducive to extreme cyclical sales. It's all about performance per dollar, and Apple's performance per dollar swings with every product introduction because they always keep the same price points.
The obvious solution is to vary the price points, or add features, so that performance per dollar is the same throughout the year and their sales should be fairly even throughout the year. This will also reduce the need to be secret because there are no incentives to holding back until the next product introduction because people won't be saving money.
The obvious solution is to vary the price points, or add features, so that performance per dollar is the same throughout the year and their sales should be fairly even throughout the year. This will also reduce the need to be secret because there are no incentives to holding back until the next product introduction because people won't be saving money."<hr></blockquote>
Never thought of that, valid point and good reasoning.
They have actually done that, erratically: Remember when you could pick up a Ti for $2200?
They should try to do that more consistently, though. Rumors notwithstanding, there will probably be a rush on purchases of the current Macs just because Steve has said the next ones won't boot OS 9, but Apple can't count on that every time.
Intel ca announce what's coming because they push the envelope. There is a constant refresh of their line. A consumer can buy now and feel they're getting a kick ass machine and two years later can by another box that smokes that last one.
Right now PPC refresh is sooo slow, and barley steady (for the past three years as a whole). Many of us are just going to wait because to justify a large $$ investment we want something heads and tails above our last purchase two years in the past.
I'm still using a Blue and White w/ g4 upgrade. Yes the current line is much better then what I am using but I've already waited so long I will wait longer until the Machines that we all (most) are waiting for, comes out.
If we had refresh and performance pushes like Wintel I would be getting ready for my third refresh instead of holding on to my Blue and White.
-tink
(:</strong><hr></blockquote>
The other thing 'bout Intel is say I buy a mobo that supports the P4 3.06GHz, I can just swap out the CPU for a faster one upto a year later...sure you can do that in theory with the Mac, but getting the part is much, much harder...and you'll need an entirely new daughter card since the cpu is soldered on...
Oh well, I don't think I can hold out any longer than MWSF2003, so I'm hoping for the best by then...
I think Motorola should focus on their embedded systems and cell phones, which seems to be what they are doing anyway...and leave the chip design team to Apple or IBM...I'd really love to see Apple design CPUs in-house, and fab it either with IBM or TSM...who knows...
"...noting that Apple is testing the CPU, dubbed the GigaProcessor Ultralite (GPUL) on Mac OS X-based hardware to ensure that "the processor complies with a new bus architecture on tap for future Macs."
If you read that statement carefully, it looks as though Apple has already set up a new bus architecture and now they're testing the GPUL to make sure they play nice together. That could possibly indicate that Apple already has another chip in mind to go along with this new bus architecture. I mean the article makes it seem as if Apple already has most of their ducks in a row, and they're testing the GPUL to see if it *also* works.
So what does that mean? Does Moto have something else planned, or is it x86 maybe? I mean obviously the GPUL will be on the mac at some point now, but it may only be in high end models and servers - what will the other processors be? Speedbumped G4s designed to run on Apple's new bus architecture?
Comments
<strong>When has Steve Jobs ever sought conformity to other's standards?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When he's wanted (or needed) to sell to somebody that will only buy certain standards. Moki's original suggestion (months ago) that Apple would introduce an additional line of MacOS X machines based on an x86 processor was largely to address those parts of the business market that are particular about their hardware.
<strong>I think Apple creates its own FUD by its secrecy. Intel announces years in advance its roadmap with specific dates and speeds. Apple is so fearful that people will put off their purchases that they keep everthing quiet. You can still make an iMac in secret but when your customers have no idea what the future of the PowerPC platform is, it does inspire confidence.
Before this IBM announcement, no one had any idea what future Power Macs will be (and I guess we still don't beyond rumor). Based on Motorola's website, the desktop PowerPC has very little future.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pre-announcing products is complicated... it can be seen as a commitment which opens Apple up to attacks if they change their mind, thus limiting their flexibility and responsiveness to market conditions. It also lets the competition plan against what they are working on. Since there are three companies involved in AIM it can also reveal more about the other company's plans than they want revealed.
For Intel roadmaps are critical because 75+% of the market builds & plans products based on their chips. AMD can be a little more secretive, but they need to show that they have a plan to combat Intel.
<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543317,00.asp"; target="_blank">eWeek article</a>
[quote] Sources said that benchmarks and applications tests demonstrate that a 1GHz GPUL processor doubles the performance of the 1GHz Motorola PowerPC G4 processor in current Macs. Even so, they said, the first run on GPUL processors should range from 1.4 to 2GHz, depending on yield.
<hr></blockquote>
"Perhaps the most disappointing news for Mac fans, sources said, is that IBM does not expect to be finished with GPUL project until late summer 2003. "
Probably means not in a Mac until fall or later.
Then again, the good news
"Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details."
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
[quote]Meanwhile, sources said, Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. <hr></blockquote>
Having 2 high-end processors from different manufacturers is A Good Thing™
Edit: Well, rickag is faster than me.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Franck ]</p>
<strong>The most depressing quote from the eweek article;
"Perhaps the most disappointing news for Mac fans, sources said, is that IBM does not expect to be finished with GPUL project until late summer 2003. "
Probably means not in a Mac until fall or later.
Then again, the good news
"Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003. The G5, according to published product road maps from Motorola, should be available as 32- and 64-bit products with backward compatibility, though Motorola has provided few additional details."
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing new as far as timeframes go. I think we see 130 nano G4's in a Powermac revision and these GPUL Macs coming after MWNY. Sounds about right. I like the speed increase. I'd love to see the performance of Powermacs Double.
Frankly I see Apple as being pretty worried about these rumors. This will cause many people to hold on on Powermac purchases unless they are just in dire need. At any rate if priced right these Powermacs will sell by the bushell.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
<strong>
".... I think we see 130 nano G4's in a Powermac revision and these GPUL Macs coming after MWNY......."</strong><hr></blockquote>
The eweek article refers to a G5, not the G4, hope we see a G5 very early in 2003.
quote from the eweek article"Motorola's long-awaited PowerPC G5 CPU from Motorola is likely to break cover perhaps as soon as early 2003."
Maybe, just maybe
IBM = multicore GPuL late late summer or fall 2003
Motorola = single core G5 early 2003
we shall see what we shall see.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: rickag ]</p>
Pre-announcing products is complicated... it can be seen as a commitment which opens Apple up to attacks if they change their mind, thus limiting their flexibility and responsiveness to market conditions. It also lets the competition plan against what they are working on. ...</strong>
Hmmm... they may think this way, but it doesn't have to be this way at all. Apple is super secret about future hardware because it's pricing structure is conducive to extreme cyclical sales. It's all about performance per dollar, and Apple's performance per dollar swings with every product introduction because they always keep the same price points.
The obvious solution is to vary the price points, or add features, so that performance per dollar is the same throughout the year and their sales should be fairly even throughout the year. This will also reduce the need to be secret because there are no incentives to holding back until the next product introduction because people won't be saving money.
"Hmmm... they may think this way, ......
The obvious solution is to vary the price points, or add features, so that performance per dollar is the same throughout the year and their sales should be fairly even throughout the year. This will also reduce the need to be secret because there are no incentives to holding back until the next product introduction because people won't be saving money."<hr></blockquote>
Never thought of that, valid point and good reasoning.
Answer this one question, k? Does your company's software run on the NeXT Gen systems with some tweaking or no tweaking at all?
They should try to do that more consistently, though. Rumors notwithstanding, there will probably be a rush on purchases of the current Macs just because Steve has said the next ones won't boot OS 9, but Apple can't count on that every time.
<strong>
Intel ca announce what's coming because they push the envelope. There is a constant refresh of their line. A consumer can buy now and feel they're getting a kick ass machine and two years later can by another box that smokes that last one.
Right now PPC refresh is sooo slow, and barley steady (for the past three years as a whole). Many of us are just going to wait because to justify a large $$ investment we want something heads and tails above our last purchase two years in the past.
I'm still using a Blue and White w/ g4 upgrade. Yes the current line is much better then what I am using but I've already waited so long I will wait longer until the Machines that we all (most) are waiting for, comes out.
If we had refresh and performance pushes like Wintel I would be getting ready for my third refresh instead of holding on to my Blue and White.
-tink
(:</strong><hr></blockquote>
The other thing 'bout Intel is say I buy a mobo that supports the P4 3.06GHz, I can just swap out the CPU for a faster one upto a year later...sure you can do that in theory with the Mac, but getting the part is much, much harder...and you'll need an entirely new daughter card since the cpu is soldered on...
Oh well, I don't think I can hold out any longer than MWSF2003, so I'm hoping for the best by then...
I think Motorola should focus on their embedded systems and cell phones, which seems to be what they are doing anyway...and leave the chip design team to Apple or IBM...I'd really love to see Apple design CPUs in-house, and fab it either with IBM or TSM...who knows...
"...noting that Apple is testing the CPU, dubbed the GigaProcessor Ultralite (GPUL) on Mac OS X-based hardware to ensure that "the processor complies with a new bus architecture on tap for future Macs."
If you read that statement carefully, it looks as though Apple has already set up a new bus architecture and now they're testing the GPUL to make sure they play nice together. That could possibly indicate that Apple already has another chip in mind to go along with this new bus architecture. I mean the article makes it seem as if Apple already has most of their ducks in a row, and they're testing the GPUL to see if it *also* works.
So what does that mean? Does Moto have something else planned, or is it x86 maybe? I mean obviously the GPUL will be on the mac at some point now, but it may only be in high end models and servers - what will the other processors be? Speedbumped G4s designed to run on Apple's new bus architecture?
Smiled.
Moto's gonna have a 'G5' and IBM's gonna have a G5?
2003. I think it's gonna be a good year.
But which to buy? The 7500? Or the GPUL...
...or do you get plain ol' greedy and buy both...
Nice post, Moki. You are the calm. The centre of the tornado. Or...or is that Steve Jobs who is the centre of the Tornado.
Moki...your soothing voice...let it whispher those GPUL sweet nothings into my ears...
...ah...GPUL (Homer style daze...)
LEmon BoN BoN
I'd sure like the IBM powered Mac to be placed on top(!)of me...
Lemon Bon Bon