Considering the fact that I just bought a 17" iMac 2 days after WWDC, this thread is making me depressed.
The only thing I'll say (by way of justifying my purchase) is that the iMac is STILL a great deal...
I priced out a Dual G4 PowerMac, and Single G5 PowerMac as other alternatives before making my purchase...Here's the way it broke down for what I wanted (Superdrive, 30GB iPod)
PowerMac G4, Dual
512 MB RAM
Superdrive
Cinema display (widescreen)
TOTAL: Over $3700
PowerMac G5, similarly equipped: $4,100
iMac 17"
768MB RAM
30GB iPod
Applecare
Canon i850 printer
TOTAL: $2700
There is still value in the iMac line, though I do agree that a lower price point would've made my decision a no-brainer, instead of the 4-day stress-inducing face-off it turned out to be.
Depends on how much value you place on the overpriced 17" LCD.
I would have looked at a Single 1.25Ghz G4 (w 1MB L3) and a third party 17" LCD for roughly the same price as the iMac. In a year you'll be able to add the 4X superdrive for 150USD.
As others have pointed out, the solution to this mess comes in 2004 with the .09 G5. Assuming that this chip at 1.6-2.0 GHz is low power, low heat and low cost, it can be Apple's low-end chip. Put it in iMacs, eMacs and even iBooks. Save the 2.5 and 3.0 chips for the Power Macs of course, especially as duals, but the whole line must go G5 as soon as possible.
One chip in all Macs. Consumer machines differentiated from pro machines how they always should have been; not by the type of processor, but by clock speed, multi-processing, I/O, upgradeability and expandability.
This time next year:
1.6 GHz G5 Combo Drive eMac $999
1.6 GHz G5 Combo Drive 17" iMac $1,399
1.8 GHz G5 Superdrive 17" iMac $1,799
Single 2.0 GHz G5 Superdrive Power Mac $1,799
Dual 2.5 GHz G5 Superdrive Power Mac $2,399
Dual 3.0 GHz G5 Superdrive Power Mac $2,999
G5 eMacs and iMacs for consumers, small business, education and switchers; Power Macs for pros with no cannibalization in either direction. Everybody wins.
It's not like I'm saying it'll never happen, just NOT in 03/04 (mebbe LATE '04, mebbe, just), and not before the Powerbooks, and not to the eMac, whose days are numbered. LCD prices are dropping rapidly every day. Just the other day I had my pick of a VERY nice 1280x1024 19" LCD or a widescreen 17" LCD (1440x900) combination TV/Monitor both just under 1000 CANADIAN, roughly 700 USD !!!
Yeah, the res for the 19 was a touch low, but it had exceptional brightness contrast and viewing angle, and you could VERY comfortably sit back fromthe display and work, nice.
The eMac will keep a G4 and become a commodity computer or Apple will kill it. By mid 2005 NOBODY will buy a CRT based machine, 15" LCD's will be had for under 150 USD RETAIL. eMac will die before the G5 sees the insides of it.
I also expect a CHEAPER G5 based system, something in the 1299 range, but such a machine will be a "HEADLESS" machine (where the PMG4 sits) and frankly it makes more sense than an iMac. Apple may finally be staring into the cold hard reality that consumers want headless machines, expect the G5's to be distributed accordingly.
All this is predicated on a .09u G5, and that WILL change things, but we haven't got one yet, and in any case, the Powerbook will get one BEFORE the iMac. And also, the new "headless" tier currently occupied by the PMG4 will also get a G5 before the iMac.
None of us knows what Moto will bring, but I do not think that they will be let out. They are testing .09u on their 200mm fab, and an older design, and if they have such a profound die shrink ready, it will come with other improvements whenthey move it to a new fab. The .13u part is already done, it will be in the next PB revs, it cuts G4 power consumption in half, at .09u savings will be even greater. You may laugh, but I think you may even see a "G5" class chip from moto within 2 years. Probably not an IBM level CPU, but some hybrid of the 64 bit 8xxx's FSB and memory adress space and the G4's low power consumption, think G5 light.
I think IBM stated a quick migration to .09u for the G5, and the plant that it is bieng manufactured at was designed for .09u. I get the idea from what I have read from IBM that they plan to have the 970 on .09u by the end of the year.
Since they are reprotedly "ahead of scheduel" with the 970 as it is, and getting better than expected yields at "speed" I wouldnt be supprised if they migrate to the new process sooner so that their blade processors are cooler and less costly, which will make the servers more competative and open the 970 to a larger portion of Apples product line (ie, more sales to Apple).
IBM wants this chip to succeed. Right now IBM and Apple are the only anounced customers for these chips. Based on IBM's past desires for the PowerPC, I would be willing to bet that they have their eyes set on taking on the Intel platform again. To do this they need to get the chip and motherboard down to a price that can compete with systems using AMD/Intel. The smaller process makes this closer to a reality, so all that will be left is to find 3rd party linex box makers to build computers based off of IBM hardware desings (CHRP II so to say). I dont think that the this would be a run-away success right now, but given a year of good benchmarks and real world performance tests on both IBM and Apple computers and IBM might start getting that interest from 3rd party vendors, which would bring in even more return on IBM's investment in the 970, and help pay for a 980 (or whatever).
One thing for sure, IBM has a vested interest in Apples success with the G5.
When a G5 is wedged into the half-dome iMac enclosure, won't the shape/size have to be changed to accommodate the 9 fans?
\
No. Powermacs are designed with 9 fans because they must dissipate up to 200 watts in Dual 2Ghz Powermacs. By the time the iMac would get a single 970 it would be at 90nm making it a smaller and cooler running chip. Probably between 20-30 watts which is similiar to the current 1Ghz 180nm G4s being used.
The thing is to get the Mobo costs down. Apple may need to design yet a third Motherboard. Stripping some features to reduce costs. I'd guess that the current G5 Dual Motherboard is at LEAST $350. Way too expensive for iMacs.
eMacs/iBooks can utilize 130nm G4s at up to 1.1Ghz. That would be just fine for anyone looking for $1k machines.
I don't see Apple scrambling to put the G5 in an iMac as soon as they can. I do see them using it as an excuse to finally put decent G4s in the lineup. 7457 G4s? Why not - it seems as though they're ready, or will be soon.
I don't see Apple scrambling to put the G5 in an iMac as soon as they can. I do see them using it as an excuse to finally put decent G4s in the lineup. 7457 G4s? Why not - it seems as though they're ready, or will be soon.
The 7457 is a stop gap at best. 200 MHz frontside bus? Big deal. 300 MHz increase in clock speed? Yawn. The "problem" is that the G5 raises the bar so high not only over PCs, but over the rest of the Mac lineup.
Apple can and will get away with one more lame-o G4 speedbump to the iMac line this year, but only because they'll be making so much money off pent up Power Mac demand that the iMac can afford to flounder for another six months.
In 2004 however, Apple's going to have to make a long term decision regarding its mid-range offerings. If the iMac is going to stay as the $1,299 - $1,799 solution then it MUST get a G5. Don't forget the Power Macs will be at dual 2.5 GHz G5s by then. A 1.4 GHz G4 ain't gonna cut it in a $1800 machine.
As Matsu says, the only other option is to dump the iMac all together and bring out a G5 based micro-tower/shuttle/Cube thing in various configurations from $999 to $1,599. But that's a whole 'nother thread...
It's not like I'm saying it'll never happen, just NOT in 03/04 (mebbe LATE '04, mebbe, just), and not before the Powerbooks, and not to the eMac, whose days are numbered. LCD prices are dropping rapidly every day. Just the other day I had my pick of a VERY nice 1280x1024 19" LCD or a widescreen 17" LCD (1440x900) combination TV/Monitor both just under 1000 CANADIAN, roughly 700 USD !!!
eMacs don't only have a CRT because of cost issues. They're also perceived to be a lot sturdier than LCDs. The fact that they're monolithic is also an advantage, as are the built-in speakers.
Always remember the eMac's target market: K-12. The more abuse the machine can take at the hands of little kids, the better.
On another topic, the G5 doesn't have 9 fans because one 90nm 970 would require them, or even because two 2GHz 130nm 970s require them: They have 9 fans so that the computer will run quietly no matter what you put in it. This, and the G5's insane airflow, are overengineering at its best - and in a beast like this, you want overengineering.
9 large fans running at 1/10 speed (the default for most of the G5's fans) are a lot quieter, and a lot more reliable, than two or three small fans running full tilt. For a single die-shrunk 970 in a carefully cooled and far more controlled space (i.e., no variable number of drives, or PCI cards), the one quiet fan in the iMac should suffice.
...snip... For a single die-shrunk 970 in a carefully cooled and far more controlled space (i.e., no variable number of drives, or PCI cards), the one quiet fan in the iMac should suffice.
I'm no engineer, but this is what I think, too. There are hardly any variables in constrast to the tower factor. Perhaps Apple will perforate the iMac's hemisphere (like a collander) or remove the power supply to a brick (like the Cube had). Perhaps Apple needs to do nothing to the current iMac form factor.
I have a feeling that we'll see a G5 chip in the iMac sooner than later--maybe at 1GHz and 1.2Ghz.
At least we're having this discussion--"There's a speed gap within Apple's line-up." Thank frickin' God.
For those who think the 7457 has a 200 MHz bus, you might want to read this for some insights: 7457
This Mot site page was updated before the G5 was announced but when I first looked at that page some months ago, it did say 200 MHz. Now it says 133 MHz. I have no idea why the change. Of course, what Mot sez and what Apple actually uses may be two different things. For instance, nowhere on Moto's site does it mention a 7455 at 1.42 GHz with a 167 MHz bus. Apple may be skimming the cream off the top of the chip yield.
The big deal with the 7457 is that it's a very cool running chip and has twice the L2 cache of the 7455. I wouldn't expect Apple to put the old 1.42 GHz G4 into the iMac because it runs way too hot and it's expensive compared with the 7457. Besides, I'll bet a 7457 w/133 MHz bus at 1.3 GHz is way faster than a 1.42.
OK, what about the G5? Well, at 1.2 GHz, it dissipates 19W but the power can step down, depending on use. A 7457 at 1.3 GHz might dissipate 13W. If you rework the ventilation and the fan in the iMac, I'm sure it can handle an extra 6 watts without waiting another upgrade cycle or so for a .09µ chip.
Mot does have the 7457 about ready to go and has stepped up production. Since an Apple official said something nice about Moto when the G5 was announced, I assume that means that Apple will continue to use their chips in everything but the PM at least into the first half of 2004. Maybe production costs are too high to do anything else and maybe Apple's waiting for the .09µ process.
Even so, as far as I'm concerned, the faster Apple incorporates G5 chips, the better for the company's bottom line and the stock. As a consolation, the faster 7457 and the faster Panther might make up the difference in user experience.
At least we're having this discussion--"There's a speed gap within Apple's line-up." Thank frickin' God.
I know! Not only is there suddenly a gulf between the PowerMac and everything else, but we can actually debate which CPU would be a more appropriate upgrade for the iMac!
I can see why Apple employees couldn't wait for WWDC. It's like a sea change. The hardware takes a leap forward at just about the time that the operating system takes a leap forward. Damn.
The 970 quickly moving to .90nm. The current race now is who gets there first. Intel will probably edge IBM by a few months. I belive Prescott is due late 2003-early 2004. I think we see 90nm 970s shortly after that.
Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible. The current 970s at 130nm are fine but fabbing 300mm Wafers at 90nm increases yields and lowers CPU dissipation. I couod see something like
PM 1.8 at $1899
PM 2.2 Dual at $2399
PM 2.6 Dual at $2999
within 6 months.
Once Apple gets the whole PM lineup as Dual Procs. They can migrate the G5 single into an iMac. And use 130nm G4s for the eMac and iBook.
I differ to beg. The eMac exist because edu couldn't AFFORD iMacs anymore, not because they weren't sturdy enough. I see lotsa schools getting LCD's, it's no biggie. For ergonomic/health reasons, a couple of Toronto boards now recommend LCD's over CRT's, even in grade schools -- where they can afford them. Can they afford to get them from Apple? Nope, but they can afford to get them from DELL, and they do.
If you look at the line-up, there are easily three models ahead of the iMac in the G5 pecking order. The Xserve, the 17" PB, and the 15" PB. If Apple sticks to the "Headless machine--affordable tower" statements they have made, then that makes four models which queue up to a nice shiny new G5 before the iMac does.
Those expecting the iMac to sprout a G5 any time in '03 are deluded. Those expecting it in '04, Might, maybe have reason to be optimistic towards the end of that year, but a whole raft of G5 product will be announced BEFORE G5 iMacs.
If for the next 18 months, Apple can get the speeds up over 1.33 with a simple drop in upgrade to an older machine, and chop a BIG part of the price out, many people will be happy. iMacs are like iBooks, they don't NEED big speed, they need "WOW! that's a deal!" prices. iBooks continue to sell well despite sporting a G3, why? PRICE! (don't make me dance ) If Apple could chop 300-500 out of the various iMac prices, that is a much more important upgrade over the next 12-18 months, than the inclusion of a G5. After that... then it's time for something new.
they need "WOW! that's a deal!" prices. iBooks continue to sell well despite sporting a G3, why? PRICE! (don't make me dance ) If Apple could chop 300-500 out of the various iMac prices,
I DO agree with that.
It's clear Apple's line is going to go through a major transition in the next 12 months. G4s at 1.3 gig(?) may pad out the consumer line for the next 6 months and even the Powerbook for the time being...
I feel that Apple have got to finally face down their old foe. 'Critical Mass'.
I half agree with you (for the short-term, least ways...I'm not sure Apple have much option anyway...not until the 0.09 970 hits). If the low end iMac2 had a 1 gig G4 and was priced to move with onboard graphics for say, £695 inc VAT...then a its cpu/performance would be a moot point. It would walk into colleges, schools and consumer land and business and switchers and...
There's a reason why the iMac2 is not selling in the huge numbers the original did. The original is still doing its job! The original was much cheaper over the same period of time! The original offered a great choice of options over many price tiers. It got people on the ladder with a cheaper machine... It was obviously cheaper to produce?
It would be an ideal 'growth' machine in my mind if it was priced to move...but Apple obviously can't or won't get the price down.
I still don't see a compelling box for compelling money (short of the dual G5 2 gigger, the 12 incher Powerbook, the iPod or the entry iBook.) But even those could be made MORE compelling.
The UK iBook entry = £799 inc VAT. If they could lop another hundred off that...they'd be getting there. It's no coincidence why the iBook is selling. It aint for its state of the art G3. You get a nice notebook for yer money. It's fairly cheap for an Apple laptop. They've worked really hard on bringing its price down. In fact, I'm surprised the iMac2 has kept pace with the iBook's price reductions.
I still think Apple need a bare-bones iCube with 1 gig G4 , integrated graphics, stick of 256 ram... iapps galore and 'Move 2 Mac' and a free 'Apple support' package to get the switcher started.
Price it at £495 inc VAT, let people choose their own display. Looks white enamel gorgeous ibook style...
Walks out Apple store!
Steve Jobs was obviously cryptic when he said it was only the first six months of the year that Apple was innovating. There was still 6 months to do. Hint?
iMac2 refreshes? 1 more digital device? Refresh of monitors with an even bigger wow monitor? Powerbook refresh. Panther. X-serve refresh? And...and a cheap headless Mac?
This time last year there was constraints on both the high end _and_ the low end. The "power"Macs were under powered to be "nice top-of-the-line boxes".
And the iMacs needed a certain level of minimum grunt to manage OS X. Everything sold in 2002 can probably run OS X pretty reasonably - but there wasn't too much 'fat' to cut out to lower the price. Not and have a reasonable 'full featured' computer.
But now, around 1.0 GHz (Either G3 or G4) with 'Quartz Extreme' capable cards... there's a chance for the same machines to go down in price but remain capable of running OS X.
So the iMac might just march slooowly up in speed, but have FW800 added. Or USB2. Other little things that shouldn't jack the price. And hopefully lowers it. Lots.
I am posting here because on more then one Apple site, I see people list the FX5200 as a "high end" option on future iMacs, ect.... I don't know where you people are coming from because the FX5200 just plain $ucks. It's the bottom barrel of Nvidia's lineup, and doesn't even compare to a current ATI7500. Video is a big thing for me, and I wouldn't want an FX 5200 any more then I'd want the current, equally crappy Geforce 4 MX. Put in at least an FX5600, or even better, an ATI 9600, and give eMacs the 64mb DDR ATI Raedon 9000..now that's an upgrade.....but an FX 5200??? I hope not for Apple's sake.
P.S. I can't imagine an FX5200 card in anything other then a low end system.
The 7457 is a stop gap at best. 200 MHz frontside bus? Big deal. 300 MHz increase in clock speed? Yawn. The "problem" is that the G5 raises the bar so high not only over PCs, but over the rest of the Mac lineup.
Apple can and will get away with one more lame-o G4 speedbump to the iMac line this year, but only because they'll be making so much money off pent up Power Mac demand that the iMac can afford to flounder for another six months.
In 2004 however, Apple's going to have to make a long term decision regarding its mid-range offerings. If the iMac is going to stay as the $1,299 - $1,799 solution then it MUST get a G5. Don't forget the Power Macs will be at dual 2.5 GHz G5s by then. A 1.4 GHz G4 ain't gonna cut it in a $1800 machine.
As Matsu says, the only other option is to dump the iMac all together and bring out a G5 based micro-tower/shuttle/Cube thing in various configurations from $999 to $1,599. But that's a whole 'nother thread...
That post is in the money.
An insightful post above about the cooling of the Towers. The G5 towers are twice as quiet as the current G4 towers. 9 fans aren't needed. BUT! They made a quiet as a Cube tower? Gosh! Over-engineering indeed. People assume an iMac2 or a single 970 will need 9 fans. It's obvious it won't! A 0.09 shrinko and it's there. The mobo is prob' pricey...and aint the 970 board 'long'. That seems to put it out of the iMac2 design hemisphere.
The G5 has an impact on people waiting. We know the G5 is here and its coming to the rest of the lines eventually. Would I buy an iMac 2 now? Nope. For an extra five hundred quid over the entry iMac 2, I get a machine that is four times as fast, at least. Over four times the bandwidth and a better graphics card and a superdrive and better memory, a bigger hard drive, bigger ram limit, a cool new case with perforations thrown in for free. The entry iMac 2 is a comparative rip-off! Each of the two iMac 2s need a three to five hundred pound inc VAT price cut. The top end iMac should be hovering at around £999 inc VAT. The entry iMac at £695 inc VAT. They may see decent sales then...
1.3 gig G4 iMac2 prices aint going to cut it vs a low end G5 Tower. Deep price cuts pending. Steep specs pending. The iMac2 needs a damn good sorting. And I don't see how a 1.42 G4 is going to go in the iMac 2 when its not even in the renewed G4 tower line. And then there's the heat issue of a 1.42 vs a 1.4 G5.
The G5 has created a desktop chasm in Apple's line between the haves and the have nots.
Comments
The only thing I'll say (by way of justifying my purchase) is that the iMac is STILL a great deal...
I priced out a Dual G4 PowerMac, and Single G5 PowerMac as other alternatives before making my purchase...Here's the way it broke down for what I wanted (Superdrive, 30GB iPod)
PowerMac G4, Dual
512 MB RAM
Superdrive
Cinema display (widescreen)
TOTAL: Over $3700
PowerMac G5, similarly equipped: $4,100
iMac 17"
768MB RAM
30GB iPod
Applecare
Canon i850 printer
TOTAL: $2700
There is still value in the iMac line, though I do agree that a lower price point would've made my decision a no-brainer, instead of the 4-day stress-inducing face-off it turned out to be.
I would have looked at a Single 1.25Ghz G4 (w 1MB L3) and a third party 17" LCD for roughly the same price as the iMac. In a year you'll be able to add the 4X superdrive for 150USD.
As others have pointed out, the solution to this mess comes in 2004 with the .09 G5. Assuming that this chip at 1.6-2.0 GHz is low power, low heat and low cost, it can be Apple's low-end chip. Put it in iMacs, eMacs and even iBooks. Save the 2.5 and 3.0 chips for the Power Macs of course, especially as duals, but the whole line must go G5 as soon as possible.
One chip in all Macs. Consumer machines differentiated from pro machines how they always should have been; not by the type of processor, but by clock speed, multi-processing, I/O, upgradeability and expandability.
This time next year:
1.6 GHz G5 Combo Drive eMac $999
1.6 GHz G5 Combo Drive 17" iMac $1,399
1.8 GHz G5 Superdrive 17" iMac $1,799
Single 2.0 GHz G5 Superdrive Power Mac $1,799
Dual 2.5 GHz G5 Superdrive Power Mac $2,399
Dual 3.0 GHz G5 Superdrive Power Mac $2,999
G5 eMacs and iMacs for consumers, small business, education and switchers; Power Macs for pros with no cannibalization in either direction. Everybody wins.
Something like that. Yes. That's it.
Ensign Pulver, thou speaketh sense.
Lemon Bon Bon
Yeah, the res for the 19 was a touch low, but it had exceptional brightness contrast and viewing angle, and you could VERY comfortably sit back fromthe display and work, nice.
The eMac will keep a G4 and become a commodity computer or Apple will kill it. By mid 2005 NOBODY will buy a CRT based machine, 15" LCD's will be had for under 150 USD RETAIL. eMac will die before the G5 sees the insides of it.
I also expect a CHEAPER G5 based system, something in the 1299 range, but such a machine will be a "HEADLESS" machine (where the PMG4 sits) and frankly it makes more sense than an iMac. Apple may finally be staring into the cold hard reality that consumers want headless machines, expect the G5's to be distributed accordingly.
Originally posted by Matsu
All this is predicated on a .09u G5, and that WILL change things, but we haven't got one yet, and in any case, the Powerbook will get one BEFORE the iMac. And also, the new "headless" tier currently occupied by the PMG4 will also get a G5 before the iMac.
None of us knows what Moto will bring, but I do not think that they will be let out. They are testing .09u on their 200mm fab, and an older design, and if they have such a profound die shrink ready, it will come with other improvements whenthey move it to a new fab. The .13u part is already done, it will be in the next PB revs, it cuts G4 power consumption in half, at .09u savings will be even greater. You may laugh, but I think you may even see a "G5" class chip from moto within 2 years. Probably not an IBM level CPU, but some hybrid of the 64 bit 8xxx's FSB and memory adress space and the G4's low power consumption, think G5 light.
I think IBM stated a quick migration to .09u for the G5, and the plant that it is bieng manufactured at was designed for .09u. I get the idea from what I have read from IBM that they plan to have the 970 on .09u by the end of the year.
Since they are reprotedly "ahead of scheduel" with the 970 as it is, and getting better than expected yields at "speed" I wouldnt be supprised if they migrate to the new process sooner so that their blade processors are cooler and less costly, which will make the servers more competative and open the 970 to a larger portion of Apples product line (ie, more sales to Apple).
IBM wants this chip to succeed. Right now IBM and Apple are the only anounced customers for these chips. Based on IBM's past desires for the PowerPC, I would be willing to bet that they have their eyes set on taking on the Intel platform again. To do this they need to get the chip and motherboard down to a price that can compete with systems using AMD/Intel. The smaller process makes this closer to a reality, so all that will be left is to find 3rd party linex box makers to build computers based off of IBM hardware desings (CHRP II so to say). I dont think that the this would be a run-away success right now, but given a year of good benchmarks and real world performance tests on both IBM and Apple computers and IBM might start getting that interest from 3rd party vendors, which would bring in even more return on IBM's investment in the 970, and help pay for a 980 (or whatever).
One thing for sure, IBM has a vested interest in Apples success with the G5.
Originally posted by Locomotive
When a G5 is wedged into the half-dome iMac enclosure, won't the shape/size have to be changed to accommodate the 9 fans?
No. Powermacs are designed with 9 fans because they must dissipate up to 200 watts in Dual 2Ghz Powermacs. By the time the iMac would get a single 970 it would be at 90nm making it a smaller and cooler running chip. Probably between 20-30 watts which is similiar to the current 1Ghz 180nm G4s being used.
The thing is to get the Mobo costs down. Apple may need to design yet a third Motherboard. Stripping some features to reduce costs. I'd guess that the current G5 Dual Motherboard is at LEAST $350. Way too expensive for iMacs.
eMacs/iBooks can utilize 130nm G4s at up to 1.1Ghz. That would be just fine for anyone looking for $1k machines.
Optimistic predictions:
15" iMac
> 1.25 GHz G4
> 167 MHz bus
> 256 MB DDR333 memory
> 80 GB ATA133 hard drive
> Combo drive
> 64 MB GeForce 4 MX video
> AirPort Extreme ready
> Bluetooth ready
> $1299
17" iMac
> 1.42 GHz G4
> 167 MHz bus
> 256 MB DDR333 memory
> 120 GB ATA133 hard drive
> Superdrive
> 64 MB GeForce FX 5200 video
> AirPort Extreme ready
> Bluetooth ready
> $1799
Originally posted by Commodus
I don't see Apple scrambling to put the G5 in an iMac as soon as they can. I do see them using it as an excuse to finally put decent G4s in the lineup. 7457 G4s? Why not - it seems as though they're ready, or will be soon.
The 7457 is a stop gap at best. 200 MHz frontside bus? Big deal. 300 MHz increase in clock speed? Yawn. The "problem" is that the G5 raises the bar so high not only over PCs, but over the rest of the Mac lineup.
Apple can and will get away with one more lame-o G4 speedbump to the iMac line this year, but only because they'll be making so much money off pent up Power Mac demand that the iMac can afford to flounder for another six months.
In 2004 however, Apple's going to have to make a long term decision regarding its mid-range offerings. If the iMac is going to stay as the $1,299 - $1,799 solution then it MUST get a G5. Don't forget the Power Macs will be at dual 2.5 GHz G5s by then. A 1.4 GHz G4 ain't gonna cut it in a $1800 machine.
As Matsu says, the only other option is to dump the iMac all together and bring out a G5 based micro-tower/shuttle/Cube thing in various configurations from $999 to $1,599. But that's a whole 'nother thread...
Originally posted by Matsu
It's not like I'm saying it'll never happen, just NOT in 03/04 (mebbe LATE '04, mebbe, just), and not before the Powerbooks, and not to the eMac, whose days are numbered. LCD prices are dropping rapidly every day. Just the other day I had my pick of a VERY nice 1280x1024 19" LCD or a widescreen 17" LCD (1440x900) combination TV/Monitor both just under 1000 CANADIAN, roughly 700 USD !!!
eMacs don't only have a CRT because of cost issues. They're also perceived to be a lot sturdier than LCDs. The fact that they're monolithic is also an advantage, as are the built-in speakers.
Always remember the eMac's target market: K-12. The more abuse the machine can take at the hands of little kids, the better.
On another topic, the G5 doesn't have 9 fans because one 90nm 970 would require them, or even because two 2GHz 130nm 970s require them: They have 9 fans so that the computer will run quietly no matter what you put in it. This, and the G5's insane airflow, are overengineering at its best - and in a beast like this, you want overengineering.
9 large fans running at 1/10 speed (the default for most of the G5's fans) are a lot quieter, and a lot more reliable, than two or three small fans running full tilt. For a single die-shrunk 970 in a carefully cooled and far more controlled space (i.e., no variable number of drives, or PCI cards), the one quiet fan in the iMac should suffice.
Originally posted by Amorph
...snip... For a single die-shrunk 970 in a carefully cooled and far more controlled space (i.e., no variable number of drives, or PCI cards), the one quiet fan in the iMac should suffice.
I'm no engineer, but this is what I think, too. There are hardly any variables in constrast to the tower factor. Perhaps Apple will perforate the iMac's hemisphere (like a collander) or remove the power supply to a brick (like the Cube had). Perhaps Apple needs to do nothing to the current iMac form factor.
I have a feeling that we'll see a G5 chip in the iMac sooner than later--maybe at 1GHz and 1.2Ghz.
At least we're having this discussion--"There's a speed gap within Apple's line-up." Thank frickin' God.
This Mot site page was updated before the G5 was announced but when I first looked at that page some months ago, it did say 200 MHz. Now it says 133 MHz. I have no idea why the change. Of course, what Mot sez and what Apple actually uses may be two different things. For instance, nowhere on Moto's site does it mention a 7455 at 1.42 GHz with a 167 MHz bus. Apple may be skimming the cream off the top of the chip yield.
The big deal with the 7457 is that it's a very cool running chip and has twice the L2 cache of the 7455. I wouldn't expect Apple to put the old 1.42 GHz G4 into the iMac because it runs way too hot and it's expensive compared with the 7457. Besides, I'll bet a 7457 w/133 MHz bus at 1.3 GHz is way faster than a 1.42.
OK, what about the G5? Well, at 1.2 GHz, it dissipates 19W but the power can step down, depending on use. A 7457 at 1.3 GHz might dissipate 13W. If you rework the ventilation and the fan in the iMac, I'm sure it can handle an extra 6 watts without waiting another upgrade cycle or so for a .09µ chip.
Mot does have the 7457 about ready to go and has stepped up production. Since an Apple official said something nice about Moto when the G5 was announced, I assume that means that Apple will continue to use their chips in everything but the PM at least into the first half of 2004. Maybe production costs are too high to do anything else and maybe Apple's waiting for the .09µ process.
Even so, as far as I'm concerned, the faster Apple incorporates G5 chips, the better for the company's bottom line and the stock. As a consolation, the faster 7457 and the faster Panther might make up the difference in user experience.
At least we're having this discussion--"There's a speed gap within Apple's line-up." Thank frickin' God.
My sentiments too ScottiB. It's a welcome change.
Originally posted by scottiB
At least we're having this discussion--"There's a speed gap within Apple's line-up." Thank frickin' God.
I know! Not only is there suddenly a gulf between the PowerMac and everything else, but we can actually debate which CPU would be a more appropriate upgrade for the iMac!
I can see why Apple employees couldn't wait for WWDC. It's like a sea change. The hardware takes a leap forward at just about the time that the operating system takes a leap forward. Damn.
nuckinfutz
macrumors regular
Registered: Jul 2002
Location: Middle Earth
What I see is
The 970 quickly moving to .90nm. The current race now is who gets there first. Intel will probably edge IBM by a few months. I belive Prescott is due late 2003-early 2004. I think we see 90nm 970s shortly after that.
Apple needs to make the entire Powermac Line Dual Processor as quickly as possible. The current 970s at 130nm are fine but fabbing 300mm Wafers at 90nm increases yields and lowers CPU dissipation. I couod see something like
PM 1.8 at $1899
PM 2.2 Dual at $2399
PM 2.6 Dual at $2999
within 6 months.
Once Apple gets the whole PM lineup as Dual Procs. They can migrate the G5 single into an iMac. And use 130nm G4s for the eMac and iBook.
If you look at the line-up, there are easily three models ahead of the iMac in the G5 pecking order. The Xserve, the 17" PB, and the 15" PB. If Apple sticks to the "Headless machine--affordable tower" statements they have made, then that makes four models which queue up to a nice shiny new G5 before the iMac does.
Those expecting the iMac to sprout a G5 any time in '03 are deluded. Those expecting it in '04, Might, maybe have reason to be optimistic towards the end of that year, but a whole raft of G5 product will be announced BEFORE G5 iMacs.
If for the next 18 months, Apple can get the speeds up over 1.33 with a simple drop in upgrade to an older machine, and chop a BIG part of the price out, many people will be happy. iMacs are like iBooks, they don't NEED big speed, they need "WOW! that's a deal!" prices. iBooks continue to sell well despite sporting a G3, why? PRICE! (don't make me dance
they need "WOW! that's a deal!" prices. iBooks continue to sell well despite sporting a G3, why? PRICE! (don't make me dance ) If Apple could chop 300-500 out of the various iMac prices,
I DO agree with that.
It's clear Apple's line is going to go through a major transition in the next 12 months. G4s at 1.3 gig(?) may pad out the consumer line for the next 6 months and even the Powerbook for the time being...
I feel that Apple have got to finally face down their old foe. 'Critical Mass'.
I half agree with you (for the short-term, least ways...I'm not sure Apple have much option anyway...not until the 0.09 970 hits). If the low end iMac2 had a 1 gig G4 and was priced to move with onboard graphics for say, £695 inc VAT...then a its cpu/performance would be a moot point. It would walk into colleges, schools and consumer land and business and switchers and...
There's a reason why the iMac2 is not selling in the huge numbers the original did. The original is still doing its job! The original was much cheaper over the same period of time! The original offered a great choice of options over many price tiers. It got people on the ladder with a cheaper machine... It was obviously cheaper to produce?
It would be an ideal 'growth' machine in my mind if it was priced to move...but Apple obviously can't or won't get the price down.
I still don't see a compelling box for compelling money (short of the dual G5 2 gigger, the 12 incher Powerbook, the iPod or the entry iBook.) But even those could be made MORE compelling.
The UK iBook entry = £799 inc VAT. If they could lop another hundred off that...they'd be getting there. It's no coincidence why the iBook is selling. It aint for its state of the art G3. You get a nice notebook for yer money. It's fairly cheap for an Apple laptop. They've worked really hard on bringing its price down. In fact, I'm surprised the iMac2 has kept pace with the iBook's price reductions.
I still think Apple need a bare-bones iCube with 1 gig G4 , integrated graphics, stick of 256 ram... iapps galore and 'Move 2 Mac' and a free 'Apple support' package to get the switcher started.
Price it at £495 inc VAT, let people choose their own display. Looks white enamel gorgeous ibook style...
Walks out Apple store!
Steve Jobs was obviously cryptic when he said it was only the first six months of the year that Apple was innovating. There was still 6 months to do. Hint?
iMac2 refreshes? 1 more digital device? Refresh of monitors with an even bigger wow monitor? Powerbook refresh. Panther. X-serve refresh? And...and a cheap headless Mac?
?
Lemon Bon Bon
This time last year there was constraints on both the high end _and_ the low end. The "power"Macs were under powered to be "nice top-of-the-line boxes".
And the iMacs needed a certain level of minimum grunt to manage OS X. Everything sold in 2002 can probably run OS X pretty reasonably - but there wasn't too much 'fat' to cut out to lower the price. Not and have a reasonable 'full featured' computer.
But now, around 1.0 GHz (Either G3 or G4) with 'Quartz Extreme' capable cards... there's a chance for the same machines to go down in price but remain capable of running OS X.
So the iMac might just march slooowly up in speed, but have FW800 added. Or USB2. Other little things that shouldn't jack the price. And hopefully lowers it. Lots.
P.S. I can't imagine an FX5200 card in anything other then a low end system.
The 7457 is a stop gap at best. 200 MHz frontside bus? Big deal. 300 MHz increase in clock speed? Yawn. The "problem" is that the G5 raises the bar so high not only over PCs, but over the rest of the Mac lineup.
Apple can and will get away with one more lame-o G4 speedbump to the iMac line this year, but only because they'll be making so much money off pent up Power Mac demand that the iMac can afford to flounder for another six months.
In 2004 however, Apple's going to have to make a long term decision regarding its mid-range offerings. If the iMac is going to stay as the $1,299 - $1,799 solution then it MUST get a G5. Don't forget the Power Macs will be at dual 2.5 GHz G5s by then. A 1.4 GHz G4 ain't gonna cut it in a $1800 machine.
As Matsu says, the only other option is to dump the iMac all together and bring out a G5 based micro-tower/shuttle/Cube thing in various configurations from $999 to $1,599. But that's a whole 'nother thread...
That post is in the money.
An insightful post above about the cooling of the Towers. The G5 towers are twice as quiet as the current G4 towers. 9 fans aren't needed. BUT! They made a quiet as a Cube tower? Gosh! Over-engineering indeed. People assume an iMac2 or a single 970 will need 9 fans. It's obvious it won't! A 0.09 shrinko and it's there. The mobo is prob' pricey...and aint the 970 board 'long'. That seems to put it out of the iMac2 design hemisphere.
The G5 has an impact on people waiting. We know the G5 is here and its coming to the rest of the lines eventually. Would I buy an iMac 2 now? Nope. For an extra five hundred quid over the entry iMac 2, I get a machine that is four times as fast, at least. Over four times the bandwidth and a better graphics card and a superdrive and better memory, a bigger hard drive, bigger ram limit, a cool new case with perforations thrown in for free. The entry iMac 2 is a comparative rip-off! Each of the two iMac 2s need a three to five hundred pound inc VAT price cut. The top end iMac should be hovering at around £999 inc VAT. The entry iMac at £695 inc VAT. They may see decent sales then...
1.3 gig G4 iMac2 prices aint going to cut it vs a low end G5 Tower. Deep price cuts pending. Steep specs pending. The iMac2 needs a damn good sorting. And I don't see how a 1.42 G4 is going to go in the iMac 2 when its not even in the renewed G4 tower line. And then there's the heat issue of a 1.42 vs a 1.4 G5.
The G5 has created a desktop chasm in Apple's line between the haves and the have nots.
That, for now, is a GOOD THING.
Lemon Bon Bon