macbidouille.com Apples 12 month plan

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Time to drool and dream



Fresch French info:



It's only a rumor, but before finding some evidences, it might let you dream

a bit.



June-July 2003: PPC 970 PowerMac and Xserve, PowerBooks with G4 @ 1.25 GHz.

August-September 2003: iMacs with 1.25 and 1.4GHz G4 processors.

November 2003: iBook still equiped with G3 processors, but Apple will now use the Gobi version of the processor at 1 and 1.2 GHz.

January-February 2004: Second generation of PPC 970, running at 2.5 GHz (maybe more). They will be used in PowerMacs and Xserves. iMacs will run for the first time with PPC970 at 1.4 and 1.6 GHz.

March 2004 (less sure): First presentation of the PPC980, mobile version of the PPC970, probably used to replace PowerBook's G4.



Two new products are being developed by Apple :

- The Xstation is a highly professional super computer with up to 64 processors (mini. 4). It will be equiped with the latest GPU and support a high quantity of memory. Price between 10000 and 75000$ (maybe more).The Xstation will aim people using some big apps as Maya and other CAD and high resolution video softwares.

- The Xserve Enterprise Edition (2 rackable units) will run with a Power 5 and will support a very large data flow.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Already having a heated discussion over this post from macaboo in this thread
  • Reply 2 of 19
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    Damn! If this is happening, we're having an excellent future to look forward to! Doesn't sound too optimistic, really, quite realistic IMHO.



    A huge, powerful thing like the described Xstation would be interesting, and possibly a good way for Apple to conquer new grounds in important, money-rich markets.



    But of course - as long as they can sell me a reasonably priced dual 970-box, I'll be happyhappy
  • Reply 3 of 19
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    mMM...cRACK!
  • Reply 4 of 19
    so i guess that "the year of the laptop" meant the introduction 12" and 17" Albook? not much of a year...



    don't get me wrong, the rest of claims sound pretty exciting, yet pretty far-fetched. i think maybe macbidouille is way off on this one.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Zapchud, you think a 64 processor workstation from Apple is "quite realistic"??? I think it sounds overly optimistic. I think maybe a four or eight(max) processor workstation could be somewhat realistic. 64 processors is just plain BS!!!
  • Reply 6 of 19
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    Zapchud, you think a 64 processor workstation from Apple is "quite realistic"??? I think it sounds overly optimistic. I think maybe a four or eight(max) processor workstation could be somewhat realistic. 64 processors is just plain BS!!!



    Yes, I do.



    I'm not saying it's happening, but we don't know what Apple's been doing, and they have surprised us with things that's "plain BS!!!" before
  • Reply 7 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Zapchud

    Yes, I do.



    I'm not saying it's happening, but we don't know what Apple's been doing, and they have surprised us with things that's "plain BS!!!" before




    Sorry 'bout the "plain BS!!!" Of course Apple can surprise us again like they have done before, but I'd be surprised if Apple introduces a PM/WS with FOUR processors, and I'll will definately be surprised (read shocked) when I see the Xstation p64 introduced.



    A Power driven xServe is possible, but then they would have to compete in a market that they have not been before and with stiff competition from IBM, SUN and others. I'm not saying that it will never happend, but it sure takes a lot of work from Apples side regarding both hardware, software and support to get all the bricks together. It'll be hard making inroads in that market i guess. By the way, anyone knows what a Power processor costs?
  • Reply 8 of 19
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DrBoar

    Time to drool and dream



    January-February 2004: Second generation of PPC 970, running at 2.5 GHz (maybe more). They will be used in PowerMacs and Xserves. iMacs will run for the first time with PPC970 at 1.4 and 1.6 GHz.





    A 700 mhz jump for the PM's, but only a 200 mhz boost for the iMacs, I would hope for a better upgrade than that. Yes I realize the the 970 is faster than the G4, so the speed will be effectively higher, but they would get better sales with a 1.8 ghz top end for the iMac with this time frame, and it would compete better with the Wintel systems as well.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    hotboxdhotboxd Posts: 125member
    Well, personally I think that a 970 Powerbook is far more likely than a 64 processor Xstation, or even a 970 Xserve for that matter. There is no technical reason that Apple cannot release a 970 Powerbook @ 1Ghz and 1.2Ghz. If they're serious about countering the Centrino PC's they'd better release a machine like this soon.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    Zapchud, you think a 64 processor workstation from Apple is "quite realistic"??? I think it sounds overly optimistic. I think maybe a four or eight(max) processor workstation could be somewhat realistic. 64 processors is just plain BS!!!



    Yeah, that'd put them in direct competition with IBM, which in turn might answer something like "look, we don't need AltiVec and we already said to our AIX developers that it's not going to be used, so what if we remove it completely from the 980 or 990 design?"



    If they really want to release such a big tin server I believe that they'd need a brand-new deal with IBM, possibly merging some product lines. Or maybe we'll see such a machine, but part of a new OS X-compatible series of IBM servers/workstations.



    Also, they mention POWER5 for the Xserve next year: my question is, does the POWER5 architechture sport a VMX unit?



    Good food for thought though, if even half of these rumors will end up being true I'll be glad enough...



    ZoSo
  • Reply 11 of 19
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    I don't see any reason why we can't have a top end imac 970 at 1.4 gig, a Powerbook at 1.2 gig and the towers of course.



    If Apple want to really kickstart their growth and get people flooding into their stores, they know what to do. The old G4 incremental bumps go out the window.



    The 970 gives Apple the chance to completely redefine their game plan. This is their window of opportunity to attack Wintel. 64 bit confusion on their side. Mhz jadeness. Anti-M$ sentiment at an all time high. Corporate sideway glances at alternatives. The creative market looking at diversifying their workflow with genuine performance takers.



    64 bit 'X', 970 towers, super 'X-Stations' etc. Given the software aquisitions Apple has made in the high end arena, I'd think that the 970 could well turn out to be the most underwhelming announcement between now and next March



    We have to unlearn what we have learned about Apple. Their 'World Juke Box' store shows us this. If anybody said to me five years ago that Apple would be the world's biggest online music store and were storming the 3D and Enterprise markets, I'd have wet myself laughing.



    I think that we can just forget about the G4 from Jan' 2004. I think Moto' are on their way out. Personally, I can't see why Powerbooks and iMac releases before then couldn't expediate the process.



    A 970 and Panther will redefine what it is to be a Mac owner.



    That's what I think.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 12 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Macbidoobie has apparently posted 970 benchmarks. Look here
  • Reply 13 of 19
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DrBoar

    Time to drool and dream ...



    Two new products are being developed by Apple :

    - The Xstation is a highly professional super computer with up to 64 processors (mini. 4). It will be equiped with the latest GPU and support a high quantity of memory. Price between 10000 and 75000$ (maybe more).The Xstation will aim people using some big apps as Maya and other CAD and high resolution video softwares.

    - The Xserve Enterprise Edition (2 rackable units) will run with a Power 5 and will support a very large data flow.




    Where would they put 64 processors in a work station? And what kind of power/heat disipation would they need. And do you really need 64 processors on a work station for Maya and CAD work? The rendering should be offloaded to a render farm, like the soon to be released IBM 970 Blade servers. I could see 4, or 8 processors but much more than that and it might as well be a server.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JCG

    Where would they put 64 processors in a work station? And what kind of power/heat disipation would they need. And do you really need 64 processors on a work station for Maya and CAD work? The rendering should be offloaded to a render farm, like the soon to be released IBM 970 Blade servers. I could see 4, or 8 processors but much more than that and it might as well be a server.



    At this pricepoint they could afford using some sort of active cooling. Sombody say fridge Not that it's gonna happen though.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    herbivoreherbivore Posts: 132member
    Could this 64 processor beast have anything to do with the needs of Steve's other company, Pixar? If that might be the case, then sales of the xStation beyond those to Pixar might just be gravy.



    I am not sure what the pricing of the 970 chip might be, but if it is cheaper than the Xeon and offers better performance, Pixar might just be making another switch.



    The time frame given for such a machine indicates that IBM might have gotten the chip over to the 90 nm process. Cooling might not be as big of a factor if such is the case.



    The most intriguing part is with Apple making Power5 based machines. That would put them into competition with IBM itself. I can't see IBM crippling the Power5 just to slow down Apple's ability to compete. Such a move would limit performance in IBM's own machines. How such a move might affect the relationship between the two companies seems a little unclear.



    This is a most interesting road map. If true, it will be interesting to watch how MS and Intel respond.
  • Reply 16 of 19
    salmonstksalmonstk Posts: 560member
    A machine designed for Pixar would be cool. Peopl have made too much of them buying Intel recently. They have a movie to render soon.



    But they probably need new machines for every movie or so. All new Apple's would be cool. And could lead the way for Apple finally taking hold of the Hollywood scene.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by herbivore

    Could this 64 processor beast have anything to do with the needs of Steve's other company, Pixar? If that might be the case, then sales of the xStation beyond those to Pixar might just be gravy.



    I seriously doubt it. I think that 64 way system is somebody's fantasy or at the very outside somebody getting mixed up with IBM's upcoming servers. Either way I wouldn't get your hopes up at all.



    On a side note Pixar is contracted to IBM from memory.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    mccrabmccrab Posts: 201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon



    A 970 and Panther will redefine what it is to be a Mac owner.







    ...and an Apple stockholder
  • Reply 19 of 19
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Damn, I was all excited about the purported 970 benchmarks, and now MacDoobie blew it with this nonsense about the 64 CPU supercomputer on a desk. I can tell which rumor they came up with before and after smokin' that J.



    This xstation is not going to happen, it is simply not Apple's style, and it isn't the direction of computing. You want 64 CPUs? Go buy a rack of xServes. Supposedly Apple has been hard at work on clustering technology, which to me is far more believable. A rack of xServes is scalable enough to fit a variety of needs, and it doesn't infringe on IBM's space, which Apple obviously is not going to do:



    IBM " here ya go, the PPC 970s done. Make us proud!"



    Jobs" Yes! Now I can tell Moto to go fsck themselves in no uncertain terms. Now Macs can run with Wintels. I've been waiting years for this moment!



    IBM" glad we could help. We see Apple as one of our most important business partners."



    Jobs" Good, 'cause after we drop this new chip in our Powermac line, we're going to build a PPC 970-based render station that will open up a can 'o whup-ass on anything you've built! HA AH AHAAHAHAAHHA, SUCKERS!!!!"



    Even a dumbass like Dubya wouldn't be this lacking in diplomacy.
Sign In or Register to comment.