I hope Apple gets more aggressive now that they have the PPC 970.
It's only logical that a PPC 970 dissipates more heat, but that is only because of the high frequency. A G4 at that clock rate would dissipate just as much heat.
So the whole heat discussion is going nowhere. The G4 and 970 are just about as energy efficient.
It's up to Apples will to decide which processor to take.
And lets hope IBM gets out a lot more energy efficient 0.09 micron PPC 970 soon.
I see the major headaches in designing the motherboard for the PPC 970.
That's why we will probably see the drop in 7457 in the next iMac and PB.
A system based around a PPC 970 can easily be cheaper than a 7457 because you need pricey L3 cache to get acceptable performance out of that sucker.
About the issue of cannibalizing sales.
Apple needs to get more market share. They can achieve more market share with aggressive advertising (such as the switch campaign) demystifying the Mac and showing its elegance, simplicity and power. They need to show consumers that they can be productive and creative at a reasonable price point.
That's how they get the average Joe to *consider* a Mac.
Then they need to have a competitive offer and a matching product. They need to have a product a customer really wants. Apple can't expect the customer to compromise. Because than another WinTel product will get bought.
The most obvious gap in the product line is a small minitower with limited expandability. These would sell to business and the consumer.
Apple also needs to build a wow machine. Something like an xStation with 8 dualcore PPC 970. This jewel would shine on the whole product line. Every Apple customer would have bragging rights and could state: "Martix 3 was created on a Mac. Wanna see the movie of our last garden party?"
Apple should not care about the competition between the lines. Although they need a clear distinction in performance and functionality between lines. What counts in the end is how strong the platform is as a whole. This question is almost interchangeable with the question of how big Apples' userbase is.
I think the only way to attract more customers is to get more aggressive on pricing, performance, advertising, customizability and diversity.
Of course all of it makes only sense if you have a G5 in *every* product.
Make the distinction based on clock speed and number of processors. This would have the added benefit of having only one chipset across all lines! Slower clocked PPC 970 are very cheap, just because there is no market for them right now. IBM throws them in the trash right now. Imagine a 1GHz 12' iBook G5 at $999. That would sell. And it would still be about 4 times slower than the top of the line at $3000. So there is enough distinction. The G4 days (in that respect) are over.
Apple is above the competition with their constant innovation, their OS and now the G5.
I hope they keep the pace and I wish that by this time next year we will only see the 0.09 micron PPC 970 and PPC 980 being used.
I think the only way to attract more customers is to get more aggressive on pricing, performance, advertising, customizability and diversity.
Y'know, Cocoa Tree, I could have written that post myself.
It gave me a cosy glow all over. And I think Apple will follow what you say roughly over the next 12 months. This is their opportunity to kick Wintel in the b*lls.
You're right. Apple does need to get that G5 into everything else, at least into everything over 1K as soon as possible. And once they do...they need to blitz the advertising! They need to be everywhere.
Microsoft: 'Where do you want to go today?'
Apple: 'Where do you want to be TOMORROW?'
Personally, I do expect the G5 to penetrate maybe the X-serves at a slightly lower clock, say 1.4 and dual 1.4? Nobody has brought up the subject of where all those 1.4 970s went/are going? Maybe they could sneak in an iMac2 at 1.4 gig? Maybe into a 17 inch Powerbook come San Fran' 04?
The 970 will become more pervasive in Apple's product line after the 0.09 die shrink.
That can leave the G4 for the sub-1K market. A headless G4 iCube-Mac for £495 to £795 inc VAT. CHEAP. CHEAP. CHEAP.
I'm expecting loads more software from Apple and maybe one more DLD. But what?
Excellent post. Look forward to seeing some more from you.
Cheers,
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I wouldn't rule Apple out of producing an 'Uber-Workstation' for the Matrix elite! Sure Pixar would like them! A quad processor Mac? Maybe. But perhaps a dual core dual processor 'Quad' Mac when the 980 comes along?
Look at the dual 2 gig 970 and THAT bandwidth. And IBM and Apple haven't even broken a sweat!
I wouldn't mind a dual 1 Ghz G4 iMac personally. If the 7457 is cool enough for a superthin laptop then they can put two of them in an iMac don't you think?
There are right now too many models available. It should be like:
eMac G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $799
iMac 17" G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $1299
iMac 17" G5 1.xGHz with Super Drive $1799
PowerMac G4 dual
PowerMac G5 3 different models
iBook 12.1" new G3 with Combo Drive $999
PowerBook 12.1" & 15.1" & 17.1" G5
Xserve
Ugh, I don't think so. Apple gives people some of the fewest options of anyone currently.... if anything they need to add the number of options and make every system configurable. For starters, give people a choice of video cards for systems like the iMac and eMac (Make the internal connector between card and monitor detachable) .....not everyone wants a Powermac you know.
And FFS people, stop screwing the eMac, not everyone wants a TFT Flat screen either.
But Apple has a choice right now...a drop in replacement for the 7455 (the 7457) or engineering a brand spanking new low end mobo to take advantage of the 970.
My money is on a speed-bumped 7457, followed by a g5 machine in 2004.
Why?
-the 1.25 ghz 7455 cost about $475. (from the Register) The 970 is rumoured to be 25-35% cheaper.(for what speed, I don't know) That would put it around $300. But a 1 ghz 7457 will set you back $189. So right off the top, you're going to save more than $100 bucks on your machine. Next, figure in the cost of more expensive memory, etc... The Result, a 970 means a more expensive iMac.
-The 7457s 1.3 ghz Maximum is about as solid as the the 7455s current max of 1 ghz. "Extrapolating from Motorola's own figures, the 7457 should consume 30W as 1.4GHz and around 33W at 1.6GHz, based on a 1.6V core voltage." (the Register) Apple currently runs the 7455 at up to 1.85V. So I wouldn't be surprised at all see a 1.8 ghz 7457.
-A 200 mhz MPX bus will allow ddr sdram. And because the iMac is a single cpu...it won't be nearly as hamstrung as the dual g4s were. In any event, the slow bus is partially compensated for in the 7457 with increases in both L2 and L3 cache.
Now... will this make for a dream iMac? No. And I started off by saying that the future, eventually, is the 970. But the 7457 will be a solid performance improvement AND should allow a price cut, all while allowing Apple to stave off the cost engineering a whole new iMac.
1.25 G4 upgrad cards are now selling for $449-$469 range at OWC, so I would imagine that the upgrade manufacturers are getting them for at least 30% ($314-$328, the ballance of the price going to profit margin, R&D expenses, and the daughter cards themselves) less than that and Apple even less per chip in volume purchases. A 50% savings on the 7455's would bring us down to $157-$164 per chip price for the 7457's. The quoted prices of the 7455 and 7457 equil a 60% savings for the 7457's, which by my calculations would put the 7457's down around $125 by my estimates.
There are two lines of 7455, you know. The XPC which costs more, and the MPC which costs a LOT less, in the 100USD range, both with similar speeds. I don't know how, but I suspet that Moto takes the best stuff to mark XPC, that can switch at lower voltages or run at higher speeds. The 7457, with it's process shrink would eliminate this distinction and should offer better than XPC performance at MPC or lower prices. If Apple sticks to G4's in consumer lines (and they will) it will because they won't pay more than 100-125 bucks for them, and will reuse a much cheaper motherboard.
Not a bad plan so long as they pass the savings on to me.
There are two lines of 7455, you know. The XPC which costs more, and the MPC which costs a LOT less, in the 100USD range, both with similar speeds. I don't know how, but I suspet that Moto takes the best stuff to mark XPC, that can switch at lower voltages or run at higher speeds. The 7457, with it's process shrink would eliminate this distinction and should offer better than XPC performance at MPC or lower prices. If Apple sticks to G4's in consumer lines (and they will) it will because they won't pay more than 100-125 bucks for them, and will reuse a much cheaper motherboard.
Not a bad plan so long as they pass the savings on to me.
And they get the speed that they need to compete. A Porsche would not compete in its market with a Yugo's engine. Apples looks and software and the megahertz myth will make up for only so much in the face of lower cost computers with double or more the speed of the fastest iMacs.
Well, lets assume that moto can crank up the .13u G4 speeds. The .13u parts are ready, but so far moto hasn't announced very high speeds or even faster FSB, that's no need to worry, unless they actually have nothing. They've never listed the 1.25-1.42Ghz parts on their public site, but they've existed for a long time, same with the 167Mhz bus, but we know it's there. So, for my part I believe that a 7457 will have AT LEAST a 167Mhz bus and more than likely a 200Mhz bus to go along witht he expanded L2, while consuming roughly half the power of 7455 at the same clock speeds. We know that a .18u to .13u process shrink is good for (conservatively) an immediate 30% boost in clock speeds. That take the G4 comfortable between 1.33 and 1.67, and slightly hotter parts into the 1.8-2Ghz range.
We also know that the big FSB of cheaper pentium boards doesn't offer nearly the performance boost it's numbers might suggest, and MANY cheaper PC's still stick to cheaper DDR implementations.
SO, IF Apple can drop the price of various iMacs by 250-500USD, then I expect them to stick with a G4.
THE iMAC NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER BEFORE IT GETS ANY FASTER. At 1799 the superdrive 17 is a HORRIBLE deal, and even if it got a G5, it'd still look bad when for 200 more you'd get a much better motherboard and GPU, and a faster CPU. Everyone admits that even now the only G5 with a remote chance of fitting the iMac is a 1.2. Hmmm. 1799 1.2Ghz G5 iMac versus, 1999 1.6ghz G5 PMac with at far superior graphics and more expansion and display flexibility AND a 33% faster CPU. Anyone who already has a decent monitor is buying the PM, period. And there are lotsa people with good monitors to spare.
But, since the iMac is supposed to be a full featured CONSUMER AIO machine. Taking the superdrive 17 down to 1299 turns it into a VERY nice deal, and believe it or not a 200Mhz FSB G4 in the 1.5Ghz range will still be competitive with consumer X86 systems. They might sport better specs for less money, but their mobo and integration lets them down. Keeping the G4 lets Apple put nicer OPTIONS into the standard config, things like bigger HDD's, MORE RAM, a better GPU and faster Superdrive, while SIMULTANEOUSLY DROPPING THE PRICE by a significant margin. Ultimately, these extras AND PRICE are more important to consumers (especially AIO consumers) than is outright CPU performance.
Taking the superdrive 17 down to 1299 turns it into a VERY nice deal
If Apple is going in this direction, I hope you're right.
But, me personally, I very much doubt Apple could sell the 17" iMac w/ a superdrive for $1299. If the MPC 7457 is a drop in replacement, and is only a couple of hundred $ cheaper, I don't see where the $500 price drop comes in.
But @ $1299 Apple probably could spur some additional sales.
It's there if you get a cheaper G4 platform, Optical and Hard-drives and HUGE LCD price drops will give the rest. I'd be surprised if that 17" panel wasn't fully 50% cheaper for Apple now than when they first introduced it.
1. Where did you get 30 watts at 1.2GHz? I can find a reference for 97 watts, but 30 is new to me.
2. I thought the 97 watt figure had been dismissed as the eeTimes' writer confusing the total consumption for both processors for the consumption for a single processor. Does it really make sense that the PPC 970 would consume just 3 watts shy of the POWER 4's 100 watts, considering the POWER 4 has two execution units, 32MB of L3 cache on chip, and all the groovy larger-than-normal-process-element-for-the-sake-of-reliability stuff that the 970 lacks?
3. Do you really think IBM, considering their track record for being conservative in giving estimated statistics for processors before being shipped, would be off by 50% on the low end, and more than 100% on the high end? It doesn't really make sense...
I thought the 97 watt figure had been dismissed as the eeTimes' writer confusing the total consumption for both processors for the consumption for a single processor.
I think it's very possible to be far off at the high-end. Heat tends to grow exponentially versus speed, so that a 50% faster part can often be much more than 50% hotter. As for the bottom end, iDunno, just something I picked up out of the other thread, and mebbe we should talk about it there, The new PB G5 thing, folrget the real title, but it's a long thread, shouldn't be hard to spot.
Getting back to the feasibility of a 1299 Superdrive 17" iMac.
I was in the local store today an I noted 3 models, from 1899, 1999, and 2399 CANADIAN. ALL OF THEM FEATURED 1280x1024 LCD displays (with good contrast and color as far as I could tell) and 64MB or better graphics.
The first was an HP with a CDRW and DVDrom, 2.66P4, 533FSB.
The latter two were Gateways with 2.8 and 3.06HT P4's on 533 and 800Mhz FSB respectively.
They had 80-160GB HDD's.
The 1999 and 2399 models both featured DVD BURNING DRIVES!
1999 Canadian is awfully close to 1299USD, so I don't think I'm too far off the mark, considering the same display size, two opticals in each machine, and bigger HDD's and faster grafics in each of the PC models.
iMac SIMPLY MUST come down to this price IMMEDIATELY. It's far from cheap and it buys a well spec'd tower INCLUDING a 17" LCD on the PC side.
I'd say we'd need to give the "Apple" Markup. So a good pricepoint to look at would be.
iMac 17"
1.25Ghz G4
80GB HD
Superdrive
256MB
$1499
Next year Apple needs to refocus on offer a better Mobo solution with integrated components. Design a nice lowcost Mobo with decent graphics integrated. Apple needs to take a queue from Intel. Consumers aren't focused on Hardware but rather clock speed. Apple needs to ratchet the clock speed up quickly in the consumer lineup and integrate as much as they can to save costs.
THE iMAC NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER BEFORE IT GETS ANY FASTER.
This is really the whole crux of the argument and the whole point of this thread.
Apple needs to make up their mind. From here on out is the iMac going to be a true consumer machine priced aggressively to increase market share, or is it to be a fast prosumer machine able to justify its $1800 price tag?
Right now it's neither, and I (unfortunately) don't expect that to change with the next ho-hum speed bump. By MWSF 2004 however, Steve's going to have to pick a role for the iMac and go with it.
I think it will get a G5 in that time frame and be positioned where the Cube + 15" Studio Display was two years ago: a powerful, small footprint, quiet prosumer desktop with lots of bang for the buck.
This would of course require Apple addressing the true low end in a meaningful way. If the iMac is not to be "the computer for the rest of us", then what the hell is?
The 1Ghz eMac right now smokes any 15" LCD iMac, and any 2 year old G4 Tower or cube out there! The eMac kicks @$$, stop bashing the eMac people!!!!!!!
P.S. If not for the LCD iMac, the eMac would have been an incredible next generation "Crt iMac"....and don't forget, it was that G3 Crt iMac that saved Apple in the first place!!!!!!!
The 1Ghz eMac right now smokes any 15" LCD iMac, and any 2 year old G4 Tower or cube out there! The eMac kicks @$$, stop bashing the eMac people!!!!!!!
Comments
I hope Apple gets more aggressive now that they have the PPC 970.
It's only logical that a PPC 970 dissipates more heat, but that is only because of the high frequency. A G4 at that clock rate would dissipate just as much heat.
So the whole heat discussion is going nowhere. The G4 and 970 are just about as energy efficient.
It's up to Apples will to decide which processor to take.
And lets hope IBM gets out a lot more energy efficient 0.09 micron PPC 970 soon.
I see the major headaches in designing the motherboard for the PPC 970.
That's why we will probably see the drop in 7457 in the next iMac and PB.
A system based around a PPC 970 can easily be cheaper than a 7457 because you need pricey L3 cache to get acceptable performance out of that sucker.
About the issue of cannibalizing sales.
Apple needs to get more market share. They can achieve more market share with aggressive advertising (such as the switch campaign) demystifying the Mac and showing its elegance, simplicity and power. They need to show consumers that they can be productive and creative at a reasonable price point.
That's how they get the average Joe to *consider* a Mac.
Then they need to have a competitive offer and a matching product. They need to have a product a customer really wants. Apple can't expect the customer to compromise. Because than another WinTel product will get bought.
The most obvious gap in the product line is a small minitower with limited expandability. These would sell to business and the consumer.
Apple also needs to build a wow machine. Something like an xStation with 8 dualcore PPC 970. This jewel would shine on the whole product line. Every Apple customer would have bragging rights and could state: "Martix 3 was created on a Mac. Wanna see the movie of our last garden party?"
Apple should not care about the competition between the lines. Although they need a clear distinction in performance and functionality between lines. What counts in the end is how strong the platform is as a whole. This question is almost interchangeable with the question of how big Apples' userbase is.
I think the only way to attract more customers is to get more aggressive on pricing, performance, advertising, customizability and diversity.
Of course all of it makes only sense if you have a G5 in *every* product.
Make the distinction based on clock speed and number of processors. This would have the added benefit of having only one chipset across all lines! Slower clocked PPC 970 are very cheap, just because there is no market for them right now. IBM throws them in the trash right now. Imagine a 1GHz 12' iBook G5 at $999. That would sell. And it would still be about 4 times slower than the top of the line at $3000. So there is enough distinction. The G4 days (in that respect) are over.
Apple is above the competition with their constant innovation, their OS and now the G5.
I hope they keep the pace and I wish that by this time next year we will only see the 0.09 micron PPC 970 and PPC 980 being used.
BTW the PPC 980 and POWER 5 are expected 01H/04!
Cheerio
cocoa tree
I think the only way to attract more customers is to get more aggressive on pricing, performance, advertising, customizability and diversity.
Y'know, Cocoa Tree, I could have written that post myself.
It gave me a cosy glow all over. And I think Apple will follow what you say roughly over the next 12 months. This is their opportunity to kick Wintel in the b*lls.
You're right. Apple does need to get that G5 into everything else, at least into everything over 1K as soon as possible. And once they do...they need to blitz the advertising! They need to be everywhere.
Microsoft: 'Where do you want to go today?'
Apple: 'Where do you want to be TOMORROW?'
Personally, I do expect the G5 to penetrate maybe the X-serves at a slightly lower clock, say 1.4 and dual 1.4? Nobody has brought up the subject of where all those 1.4 970s went/are going? Maybe they could sneak in an iMac2 at 1.4 gig? Maybe into a 17 inch Powerbook come San Fran' 04?
The 970 will become more pervasive in Apple's product line after the 0.09 die shrink.
That can leave the G4 for the sub-1K market. A headless G4 iCube-Mac for £495 to £795 inc VAT. CHEAP. CHEAP. CHEAP.
I'm expecting loads more software from Apple and maybe one more DLD. But what?
Excellent post. Look forward to seeing some more from you.
Cheers,
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I wouldn't rule Apple out of producing an 'Uber-Workstation' for the Matrix elite! Sure Pixar would like them! A quad processor Mac? Maybe. But perhaps a dual core dual processor 'Quad' Mac when the 980 comes along?
Look at the dual 2 gig 970 and THAT bandwidth. And IBM and Apple haven't even broken a sweat!
eMac G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $799
iMac 17" G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $1299
iMac 17" G5 1.xGHz with Super Drive $1799
PowerMac G4 dual
PowerMac G5 3 different models
iBook 12.1" new G3 with Combo Drive $999
PowerBook 12.1" & 15.1" & 17.1" G5
Xserve
Originally posted by Stratosfear
There are right now too many models available. It should be like:
eMac G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $799
iMac 17" G4 1.xGHz with Combo Drive $1299
iMac 17" G5 1.xGHz with Super Drive $1799
PowerMac G4 dual
PowerMac G5 3 different models
iBook 12.1" new G3 with Combo Drive $999
PowerBook 12.1" & 15.1" & 17.1" G5
Xserve
Ugh, I don't think so. Apple gives people some of the fewest options of anyone currently.... if anything they need to add the number of options and make every system configurable. For starters, give people a choice of video cards for systems like the iMac and eMac (Make the internal connector between card and monitor detachable) .....not everyone wants a Powermac you know.
And FFS people, stop screwing the eMac, not everyone wants a TFT Flat screen either.
But Apple has a choice right now...a drop in replacement for the 7455 (the 7457) or engineering a brand spanking new low end mobo to take advantage of the 970.
My money is on a speed-bumped 7457, followed by a g5 machine in 2004.
Why?
-the 1.25 ghz 7455 cost about $475. (from the Register) The 970 is rumoured to be 25-35% cheaper.(for what speed, I don't know) That would put it around $300. But a 1 ghz 7457 will set you back $189. So right off the top, you're going to save more than $100 bucks on your machine. Next, figure in the cost of more expensive memory, etc... The Result, a 970 means a more expensive iMac.
-The 7457s 1.3 ghz Maximum is about as solid as the the 7455s current max of 1 ghz. "Extrapolating from Motorola's own figures, the 7457 should consume 30W as 1.4GHz and around 33W at 1.6GHz, based on a 1.6V core voltage." (the Register) Apple currently runs the 7455 at up to 1.85V. So I wouldn't be surprised at all see a 1.8 ghz 7457.
-A 200 mhz MPX bus will allow ddr sdram. And because the iMac is a single cpu...it won't be nearly as hamstrung as the dual g4s were. In any event, the slow bus is partially compensated for in the 7457 with increases in both L2 and L3 cache.
Now... will this make for a dream iMac? No. And I started off by saying that the future, eventually, is the 970. But the 7457 will be a solid performance improvement AND should allow a price cut, all while allowing Apple to stave off the cost engineering a whole new iMac.
Not a bad plan so long as they pass the savings on to me.
Originally posted by Matsu
There are two lines of 7455, you know. The XPC which costs more, and the MPC which costs a LOT less, in the 100USD range, both with similar speeds. I don't know how, but I suspet that Moto takes the best stuff to mark XPC, that can switch at lower voltages or run at higher speeds. The 7457, with it's process shrink would eliminate this distinction and should offer better than XPC performance at MPC or lower prices. If Apple sticks to G4's in consumer lines (and they will) it will because they won't pay more than 100-125 bucks for them, and will reuse a much cheaper motherboard.
Not a bad plan so long as they pass the savings on to me.
And they get the speed that they need to compete. A Porsche would not compete in its market with a Yugo's engine. Apples looks and software and the megahertz myth will make up for only so much in the face of lower cost computers with double or more the speed of the fastest iMacs.
We also know that the big FSB of cheaper pentium boards doesn't offer nearly the performance boost it's numbers might suggest, and MANY cheaper PC's still stick to cheaper DDR implementations.
SO, IF Apple can drop the price of various iMacs by 250-500USD, then I expect them to stick with a G4.
THE iMAC NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER BEFORE IT GETS ANY FASTER. At 1799 the superdrive 17 is a HORRIBLE deal, and even if it got a G5, it'd still look bad when for 200 more you'd get a much better motherboard and GPU, and a faster CPU. Everyone admits that even now the only G5 with a remote chance of fitting the iMac is a 1.2. Hmmm. 1799 1.2Ghz G5 iMac versus, 1999 1.6ghz G5 PMac with at far superior graphics and more expansion and display flexibility AND a 33% faster CPU. Anyone who already has a decent monitor is buying the PM, period. And there are lotsa people with good monitors to spare.
But, since the iMac is supposed to be a full featured CONSUMER AIO machine. Taking the superdrive 17 down to 1299 turns it into a VERY nice deal, and believe it or not a 200Mhz FSB G4 in the 1.5Ghz range will still be competitive with consumer X86 systems. They might sport better specs for less money, but their mobo and integration lets them down. Keeping the G4 lets Apple put nicer OPTIONS into the standard config, things like bigger HDD's, MORE RAM, a better GPU and faster Superdrive, while SIMULTANEOUSLY DROPPING THE PRICE by a significant margin. Ultimately, these extras AND PRICE are more important to consumers (especially AIO consumers) than is outright CPU performance.
Originally posted by Matsu
Taking the superdrive 17 down to 1299 turns it into a VERY nice deal
If Apple is going in this direction, I hope you're right.
But, me personally, I very much doubt Apple could sell the 17" iMac w/ a superdrive for $1299. If the MPC 7457 is a drop in replacement, and is only a couple of hundred $ cheaper, I don't see where the $500 price drop comes in.
But @ $1299 Apple probably could spur some additional sales.
I win! told ya so.
1. Where did you get 30 watts at 1.2GHz? I can find a reference for 97 watts, but 30 is new to me.
2. I thought the 97 watt figure had been dismissed as the eeTimes' writer confusing the total consumption for both processors for the consumption for a single processor. Does it really make sense that the PPC 970 would consume just 3 watts shy of the POWER 4's 100 watts, considering the POWER 4 has two execution units, 32MB of L3 cache on chip, and all the groovy larger-than-normal-process-element-for-the-sake-of-reliability stuff that the 970 lacks?
3. Do you really think IBM, considering their track record for being conservative in giving estimated statistics for processors before being shipped, would be off by 50% on the low end, and more than 100% on the high end? It doesn't really make sense...
Originally posted by Gamblor
I thought the 97 watt figure had been dismissed as the eeTimes' writer confusing the total consumption for both processors for the consumption for a single processor.
This was my understanding also.
Getting back to the feasibility of a 1299 Superdrive 17" iMac.
I was in the local store today an I noted 3 models, from 1899, 1999, and 2399 CANADIAN. ALL OF THEM FEATURED 1280x1024 LCD displays (with good contrast and color as far as I could tell) and 64MB or better graphics.
The first was an HP with a CDRW and DVDrom, 2.66P4, 533FSB.
The latter two were Gateways with 2.8 and 3.06HT P4's on 533 and 800Mhz FSB respectively.
They had 80-160GB HDD's.
The 1999 and 2399 models both featured DVD BURNING DRIVES!
1999 Canadian is awfully close to 1299USD, so I don't think I'm too far off the mark, considering the same display size, two opticals in each machine, and bigger HDD's and faster grafics in each of the PC models.
iMac SIMPLY MUST come down to this price IMMEDIATELY. It's far from cheap and it buys a well spec'd tower INCLUDING a 17" LCD on the PC side.
iMac 17"
1.25Ghz G4
80GB HD
Superdrive
256MB
$1499
Next year Apple needs to refocus on offer a better Mobo solution with integrated components. Design a nice lowcost Mobo with decent graphics integrated. Apple needs to take a queue from Intel. Consumers aren't focused on Hardware but rather clock speed. Apple needs to ratchet the clock speed up quickly in the consumer lineup and integrate as much as they can to save costs.
Originally posted by Matsu
THE iMAC NEEDS TO BE CHEAPER BEFORE IT GETS ANY FASTER.
This is really the whole crux of the argument and the whole point of this thread.
Apple needs to make up their mind. From here on out is the iMac going to be a true consumer machine priced aggressively to increase market share, or is it to be a fast prosumer machine able to justify its $1800 price tag?
Right now it's neither, and I (unfortunately) don't expect that to change with the next ho-hum speed bump. By MWSF 2004 however, Steve's going to have to pick a role for the iMac and go with it.
I think it will get a G5 in that time frame and be positioned where the Cube + 15" Studio Display was two years ago: a powerful, small footprint, quiet prosumer desktop with lots of bang for the buck.
This would of course require Apple addressing the true low end in a meaningful way. If the iMac is not to be "the computer for the rest of us", then what the hell is?
(Hint: it sure ain't the eMac.)
P.S. If not for the LCD iMac, the eMac would have been an incredible next generation "Crt iMac"....and don't forget, it was that G3 Crt iMac that saved Apple in the first place!!!!!!!
Originally posted by 3777
The 1Ghz eMac right now smokes any 15" LCD iMac, and any 2 year old G4 Tower or cube out there! The eMac kicks @$$, stop bashing the eMac people!!!!!!!