Umm...I have even contributed to this off topic crap. I hate to say this but this thread has lost its point and is now an argument between a couple of people. A very boring argument at that. Come on guys can't we go back to the GPUL from IBM. This how much will it cost/apples problems/ will we see workstations is just increasingly off of the topic. The threads name is "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM" Some one needs to take it back on this topic. I would give you guys some interesting information on the subject but I have nothing interesting to post right now. And before you flame me please just realize that I only want this interesting thread to go back to being interesting.
GPUL? I don't think that's what Apple will call it. PowerMac GPUL? Yeah, right.
So what will the shipping product be called?
PowerMac G5? Err.. Doesn't sound revolutionary and the "real" G5 may still be coming from Motorola.
xMac? Err.. Don't know about you, but this makes me think ex-Mac or anti-Macintosh. No good.
PowerMac? Maybe, but like "Power Mac G5," not too revolutionary.
After thinking about it for awhile I came to this conclusion...
POWERMac GX - This name screams BIG IRON. Putting "POWER" in all caps emphasizes speed, but also refers to IBM's chip. GX tells you this machine this isn't just one generation ahead of the G4, it's many generations ahead. Though this is a falsehood, it's still good marketing. GX also alludes to the bus protocol used by the POWER4. Now, I know GPUL won't use the GX Bus, but I thought it was worth mentioning. GX, most importantly, creates the image of high-end. The same can't be said about the G4 anymore since eMacs, iMacs, and PowerBooks use it as well as PowerMacs.
POWERMac GX is a great name for a next generation desktop using the GPUL processor. Now will Apple use it? I doubt it. Apple's marketing experts will probably come up with something better.
You know....sometimes Apple does a silly job on naming their products...........that One-Eye Mike(tm)..........they call it Mirror Drive Door....what a silly name.
I think Apple will name that GPUL based machine to either:
Ed, do I really sound like "yet another person calling for Apple's demise"? I hope not since my next computer that I spend my own money on will be a Mac just like every other computer I've spent my own money on was a Mac.
IMHO though, the "user base" issue is misleading and/or overused. The user base is not simply the sum of all Macs (or any other type of computer) ever built and sold. The real user base is determined by how many are built and sold in any given year minus the number that are either scrapped or marginalized into irrelevance. The importance of user base, to me, is that it's an indicator of how much real potential exists for selling software and other upgrades. For the most part, people don't buy anything for machines that are more than five years old. Is MS selling more or fewer copies of Office v.X compared to Office 1998?
edit: Is MS selling more or fewer copies of Office v.X compared to what they were selling of Office 98 four years ago (not today).
That's the kind of real-world indicator of user base that has a practical element to it.
This view of user base is very important to us Mac users as it's an indicator of the incentive that exists for software developers to continue to commit to the Mac platform. And in the end, it's not the shareware level of developer that will matter. Good software from the monolithic developers like Adobe, MS and (isert your favorite here) are the ones that are needed to keep people buying more Macs and hopefully attract new users, too.
<strong>Um, that's the article we're discussing</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe a while ago, but seems this thread has wandered into the realm of the demise of Apple or Apple vs Windows XP or IBM vs Intel or anything but "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM"
Not complaining mind you, still very interesting points being made.
Seriously, I found the article and posted it because I thought it was relevant to the thread. I just saw a link to it earlier today, which is why I thought it was new. I don't think anyone has enough time to read every one of the 25 pages to see if this article was mentioned before.
Maybe I could have checked the first page, though, just to check. But if it wasn't on the first page, I can't be expected to go through and read every page to check.
Any more than two cores and this thing is going to cost some serious $$$. Looks like 1GHz Sahara will be out soon. For iBooks once the PowerBooks hit 1.2GHz in January.
Someone already posted a new thread with that article, but a mod closed it because it makes more sense to wade through 50 pages of off-topic BS to see the link.
Looking at that IBM road map it seems about time for their next chip to come out. I mean we have been at 700Mhz now its time for the next series. We will see a new chip at MWSF it will either be a GPUL or 7500 form motorola. My guess is we will have the 7500 from motorola. I imagine apple will call it the G5. or... maybe...That IBM chip will be ready and in that case they will call it something like X1 or similar.
But honestly I imagine that the 7500 from motorola will be showed off at MWSF and shipping in february. Then at the end of the 2003 summer we will see the GPUL from IBM.
<strong>Don't sweat it Luca. Thanks for the thought.
The debates have recently been about whether Powermacs using these chips will be affordable.
Things will kick off again after Oct 15. When we know alot more(hopefully) about the proc. I want clarification on how many Cores it will have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bet after Oct. 15 this thread will swell to over 50 pages
when Steve Jobs became CEO, one of the first things he did was simplify the product line. Too many computers - too little differentiation - too confusing.
But, suddenly, Apple once again has a large and overlapping product line.
There's the iMac G3 (which they are still selling)
There's the eMac for education -- whoops - uh, e is for Everyone!
Then there's the REAL iMac for, um, consumers with a lot of extra money to spend...
Then there's the POWERMAC, which, oddly, uses the same processor as the consumer model... but two of them.
I think Apple is about to SERIOUSLY alter its product line -- actually, they need to. Because one, Mac users are waiting for faster machines, and two, windows users need to feel there is no performance hit for switching to mac.
That said, let me make some totally wild, speculative predictions here:
I predict that by the end of 2003, Apple's product line will look like this:
Consumer:
iMac G4
iBook G4
Prosumer:
Powerbook G5 (moto)
Powermac G5 (moto)
Professional:
Powermac Pro (IBM GPUL)
Server:
xServe (IBM GPUL)
Consumer Electronics:
iPod
iPhone/Pad/TV thingy/Etc?
This way, it's all nice and clear. G4 is a consumer chip. G5's are in cases that allow upgrades and prosumer flexibility. And then the Pro line leaves no holds barred and becomes a serious work horse for high end professionals. Larger cases - more pci buses, etc...
I've said this kind of thing before and I know many others have too. But I look at what's happening right now and I just can't imagine any other plausible scenario. There's just no way Apple is going to put a 64bit processor in a consumer computer (ie, powermac). The cost will far outweigh the benefit to people who want to make the odd movie, rips some music tracks and browse the web. They'll keep that kind of performance for high end applications (and pocketbooks) where that kind of power can REALLY be used right now.
It is going to be an exciting year!
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: The Mactivist ]</p>
Comments
So what will the shipping product be called?
PowerMac G5? Err.. Doesn't sound revolutionary and the "real" G5 may still be coming from Motorola.
xMac? Err.. Don't know about you, but this makes me think ex-Mac or anti-Macintosh. No good.
PowerMac? Maybe, but like "Power Mac G5," not too revolutionary.
After thinking about it for awhile I came to this conclusion...
POWERMac GX - This name screams BIG IRON. Putting "POWER" in all caps emphasizes speed, but also refers to IBM's chip. GX tells you this machine this isn't just one generation ahead of the G4, it's many generations ahead. Though this is a falsehood, it's still good marketing. GX also alludes to the bus protocol used by the POWER4. Now, I know GPUL won't use the GX Bus, but I thought it was worth mentioning. GX, most importantly, creates the image of high-end. The same can't be said about the G4 anymore since eMacs, iMacs, and PowerBooks use it as well as PowerMacs.
POWERMac GX is a great name for a next generation desktop using the GPUL processor. Now will Apple use it? I doubt it. Apple's marketing experts will probably come up with something better.
What do you guys think?
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
I think Apple will name that GPUL based machine to either:
PowerMac G5 64bit
or
PowerMac GL
or
Xtreme Mac
IMHO though, the "user base" issue is misleading and/or overused. The user base is not simply the sum of all Macs (or any other type of computer) ever built and sold. The real user base is determined by how many are built and sold in any given year minus the number that are either scrapped or marginalized into irrelevance. The importance of user base, to me, is that it's an indicator of how much real potential exists for selling software and other upgrades. For the most part, people don't buy anything for machines that are more than five years old. Is MS selling more or fewer copies of Office v.X compared to Office 1998?
edit: Is MS selling more or fewer copies of Office v.X compared to what they were selling of Office 98 four years ago (not today).
That's the kind of real-world indicator of user base that has a practical element to it.
This view of user base is very important to us Mac users as it's an indicator of the incentive that exists for software developers to continue to commit to the Mac platform. And in the end, it's not the shareware level of developer that will matter. Good software from the monolithic developers like Adobe, MS and (isert your favorite here) are the ones that are needed to keep people buying more Macs and hopefully attract new users, too.
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: Hudson ]</p>
Not quite as good as "this OS goes to 11" re. mac OS XI.
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: Stoo ]</p>
Looks like there already is a G5 in the works.
<strong>Um, that's the article we're discussing</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe a while ago, but seems this thread has wandered into the realm of the demise of Apple or Apple vs Windows XP or IBM vs Intel or anything but "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM"
Not complaining mind you, still very interesting points being made.
<strong>Um, that's the article we're discussing</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny how these things happen after 25 pages, eh?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Maybe I could have checked the first page, though, just to check. But if it wasn't on the first page, I can't be expected to go through and read every page to check.
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg</a>;
So is GPUL the 1GHz+ Superscalar chip, or is it the 2GHz+ Ultrascalar chip?
Oh, looks like Apple PI might be RapidIO instead of HyperTransport.
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg"; target="_blank">IBM PowerPC Stategic Roadmap</a>
The 1+ GHz
Multicore Superscalar
SMP Capable
Integrated SIMD Engine
RapidIO
n-way Crossbar CoreConnect
yada, yada, yada
is shown as the next generation PowerPC chip right above the last generation PowerPC chip that is listed as [quote]Up to 700MHz<hr></blockquote>....
Well, are we not already up to that there 700 MHz?? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> (my emphasis)
I'm hoping this roadmap is showing what I'm implying.
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
The debates have recently been about whether Powermacs using these chips will be affordable.
Things will kick off again after Oct 15. When we know alot more(hopefully) about the proc. I want clarification on how many Cores it will have.
But honestly I imagine that the 7500 from motorola will be showed off at MWSF and shipping in february. Then at the end of the 2003 summer we will see the GPUL from IBM.
<strong>Don't sweat it Luca. Thanks for the thought.
The debates have recently been about whether Powermacs using these chips will be affordable.
Things will kick off again after Oct 15. When we know alot more(hopefully) about the proc. I want clarification on how many Cores it will have.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I bet after Oct. 15 this thread will swell to over 50 pages
when Steve Jobs became CEO, one of the first things he did was simplify the product line. Too many computers - too little differentiation - too confusing.
But, suddenly, Apple once again has a large and overlapping product line.
There's the iMac G3 (which they are still selling)
There's the eMac for education -- whoops - uh, e is for Everyone!
Then there's the REAL iMac for, um, consumers with a lot of extra money to spend...
Then there's the POWERMAC, which, oddly, uses the same processor as the consumer model... but two of them.
I think Apple is about to SERIOUSLY alter its product line -- actually, they need to. Because one, Mac users are waiting for faster machines, and two, windows users need to feel there is no performance hit for switching to mac.
That said, let me make some totally wild, speculative predictions here:
I predict that by the end of 2003, Apple's product line will look like this:
Consumer:
iMac G4
iBook G4
Prosumer:
Powerbook G5 (moto)
Powermac G5 (moto)
Professional:
Powermac Pro (IBM GPUL)
Server:
xServe (IBM GPUL)
Consumer Electronics:
iPod
iPhone/Pad/TV thingy/Etc?
This way, it's all nice and clear. G4 is a consumer chip. G5's are in cases that allow upgrades and prosumer flexibility. And then the Pro line leaves no holds barred and becomes a serious work horse for high end professionals. Larger cases - more pci buses, etc...
I've said this kind of thing before and I know many others have too. But I look at what's happening right now and I just can't imagine any other plausible scenario. There's just no way Apple is going to put a 64bit processor in a consumer computer (ie, powermac). The cost will far outweigh the benefit to people who want to make the odd movie, rips some music tracks and browse the web. They'll keep that kind of performance for high end applications (and pocketbooks) where that kind of power can REALLY be used right now.
It is going to be an exciting year!
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: The Mactivist ]</p>
<strong>One Interesting thing about that IBM Roadmap:
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg"; target="_blank">IBM PowerPC Stategic Roadmap</a>
The 1+ GHz
Multicore Superscalar
SMP Capable
Integrated SIMD Engine
RapidIO
n-way Crossbar CoreConnect
yada, yada, yada
is shown as the next generation PowerPC chip right above the last generation PowerPC chip that is listed as ....
Well, are we not already up to that there 700 MHz?? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> (my emphasis)
I'm hoping this roadmap is showing what I'm implying.
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the G3 currently at?