Apple MAC Professional model
Do you remember those boxes a few macworlds back where there were six different boxes with two per category with a consumer range, mid-range and pro range?
I've only "heard" that there will be an even higher end model that will move the current Pro-Mac to the mid-range(where the cube was) and sport different processors and RAM buses altogether.
Does this sound familiar.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: willywalloo ]</p>
I've only "heard" that there will be an even higher end model that will move the current Pro-Mac to the mid-range(where the cube was) and sport different processors and RAM buses altogether.
Does this sound familiar.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: willywalloo ]</p>
Comments
What have you heard
It would be a weird stray, but maybe it's Apple's ongoing strategy to "get rid of the floppy."
-walloo
EDIT: Update - 19 of 40. Way to go.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>Unfortunately this thread will probably be locked because there is most likely another thread that this relates to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, I can't find it. Maybe you'd like to point it out to me?
whoa.
I think the quote was..'Apple will finally show us the Power of the G4 and unveil a 4x system'
But wouldn't that only make sense for a super-high end system?
<strong>
Nope, I can't find it. Maybe you'd like to point it out to me?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, there have been numerous threads that have discussed the need for a high-end workstation to compliment recent 3d hardware and software acquisitions. Unfortunately, they have been locked for one silly reason or another. I guess we'll just have to let this thread go 3 pages and then lock it so we can have another new thread discussing the same thing 2 weeks later.
<strong>THIS IS A JAW-DROPPING EXPERIENCE.
whoa.</strong><hr></blockquote>
willywalloo - Check your private messages.
I think I've gotta take a break, that's all I know for now.
-->JAMIE, even though your private message said nothing about the "JAWDROPPING" quote, the emotion behind that was more me being happy and amazed that it has stayed unlocked and nothing of vengence. (thanks)
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: willywalloo ]</p>
<strong>The idea of a 4x CPU has been tossed around, I have heard that one.
I think the quote was..'Apple will finally show us the Power of the G4 and unveil a 4x system'
But wouldn't that only make sense for a super-high end system?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IIRC, some of the engineers here have noted previously that the current OS X kernel doesn't (can't?) support 4 chip pipelining without some new type of onchip controller. dual ok. quad not properly implemented (more buck, negligible bang yet)
mmcist? programmer? who deserves the footnote citation?
Jaguar go any way towards addressing (pun) this?
hmmmm?
<strong>IIRC, some of the engineers here have noted previously that the current OS X kernel doesn't (can't?) support 4 chip pipelining without some new type of onchip controller. dual ok. quad not properly implemented (more buck, negligible bang yet)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I follow.
The OS X kernel would simply need a constant changed from 2 to 4 (or more ), a recompile, and (realistically) testing to make sure nothing broke. It's currently configured for "up to two processors" because there's no point configuring it for more.
The CPUs themselves might require extra support logic to run in a quad configuation; I'm not up on the extent or quality of the 7455's MP support.
However, the biggest problem is keeping four G4s fat and happy. That will require a whole new, radically different motherboard.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>
However, the biggest problem is keeping four G4s fat and happy. That will require a whole new, radically different motherboard.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
... it's starting to sound more and more like Moki is a credible source , (if I got the moniker right), isn't he the guy who said that Apple had two mobo's they where working on, a fairly significant update which would've been full DDR, FW2 etc ... and a second insurance upgrade ... unfortunately, they had problems with the better mobo, and he said - about a month ago - that we where probably going to get the stopgap instead.
Well, if the current Mac don't scream stop-gap, I don't know what does. I'd say his take on events was probably correct.
This seems to point more and more to the expense and danger of trying to go it alone as a computer company, there just seems to be a lot more to building a good mobo than was expected.
Apple seems kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place, waiting for a G5 and another company working on G5 mobo's and chipset problems to team up with and save them.
(kinda makes you wonder if IBM won't make Apple sweat a few billion, delay the G5 just long enough to kill Apple's stock, and then just buy 'em and parachute in with all the hardware solutions necessary)