If IBM were to fab a G3 that would work in the PPC970's bus architecture and Altivec unit, Apple would have a great (read: Motorola-free) solution on their consumer and portable level until the 970 gets cheap enough/low power enough to spread across the line.
Hell, I bet a currently-shipping 1 Ghz G3 in the new 970 arch (RapidIO/Hypertransport/whatever) would outrun any of Motorola's current offerings, with or without Altivec. *ASSUMING that the CPU has a 64-bit mode or the arch has a 32-bit mode*.
Apple could call it a G4+, a G5LC, or something creative. Most home users wouldn't notice the difference, and Apple could cut out Motorola as soon as possible, which is really what they need to do.
Being Motorola free isn't exactly a guarantee of future CPU development/performance. Untill the 970 ships in a machine from Apple/IBM, Motorola will have done more over the past 4 years to produce faster PPC's than IBM. Moto has been a dog, but IBM has aswell, moreso than mot -- no altivec, weaker FPU, and slower overall clockspeeds. There might have been many reasons, but IBM certainly didn't do better by the PPC than Mot.
And in 5-6 years time Apple may find itself in the same position again. Remember IBM has been content to sell it's customers 604 based workstations at truly obscene prices (moreso even than Apple prices). They can afford to forget about the PPC if it doesn't go their way, just as they chose to forget about it for the past 4 years. They can continue selling Power4/5 based machines and easily switch to Intel based linux solutions.
IBM is no great guarantee because unlike Apple they can afford to let the PPC stagnate. I don't think they will, but if they might, it won't hurt them, just like it didn't hurt them last time around either.
Just checked the NMR thing, very interesting----but why not the G3 until now? I thought the IBM reps were bitching that they had 1Ghz G3s a year ago that apple had undr wraps because of the sloooooow speed of the G$.
<strong>The problem with that is that most of the salesmen are PC Geeks who dont know enough about Macs to effectively sell them. They do however, have a tendency to talk people out of them in favor of a computer that they do know enough about to sound intelligent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't a problem with the AIO form factor, however, its just a problem for Macs in general. It is probably the single biggest reason Apple started opening AppleStores.
<strong>The AIO is the model that will eventually be squeezed out. A laptop is an AIO and over the next 5 years they will get fast enough and cheap enough to sway more consumers than any AIO. When that day comes a desktop can only really be something that expands/upgrades easily, otherwise, what's the point? People want to choose their own displays and drives, and they want a measure of security in being able to easily upgrade to meet new connectivity standards, optical drive formats, and add INTERNAL storage capacity. Not to mention the significant number of people who do upgrade thei CPU's and GPU's (white box builders are upto 30% of the market in some areas, most of their customers like to upgrade these components, that's a big pool of customers)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, lots of overgeneralizations about what people want. Many many many people just want to go into the store, buy a complete solution, take it home, plug it in, and never move it. They want it to be comfortable to use (i.e. not a laptop!), and stylish. They'll never think about upgradeability and if it breaks they will just take it into the shop to get it fixed. They do it for their cars, why not their computers?
Matsu, you do fall into my geek definition... you're here and you care about what's in your computer. I personally agree with you, but there are a huge number of people out there who aren't like that and its for those people (or at least the reasonably affluent ones) that Apple builds it AIO machines.
On the thread's subject (processors): why are some so obsessed with completely cutting Motorola out of the loop? They still build decent chips, they just aren't high-end desktop chips. Not all the chips Apple needs are high-end desktop chips. The best arrangement for Apple is to have both IBM and Motorola providing PowerPC solutions for them, and if that includes system level compatibility (e.g. RapidIO) then so much the better. IBM is likely going to have some G3/G4 class processors in the future, and so is Motorola -- Apple will no doubt evaluate and choose the one they think is more appropriate to their needs. They could even use both in different products. The high-end will use the 970 (and its descendants) because Motorola has shown no signs of wanting to compete at that level.
<strong>Many many many people just want to go into the store, buy a complete solution, take it home, plug it in, and never move it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most PCs are not AIO, which means when you are going after a newer machine, you are not throwing a year-old monitor out of the window. What does Apple offer to these people? Either throw away your display or pay $1700 for a PowerMac.
The question is, why not sell them an iMac-class machine without a monitor?
Most PCs are not AIO, which means when you are going after a newer machine, you are not throwing a year-old monitor out of the window.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That might be what the customer is thinking when they walk in to the store, but the odds are that they'll end up walking out with a complete system anyway.
For one thing, the store will push it. Most PC retailers sell "bundles" that are cheaper than buying the components separately - but also better for the store, which is why they'll push it. For another, monitors and printers get better over time as well.
Heck, in the Staples near my house there are big boxes with complete HP systems - tower, monitor, printer. All in one box, for one price. Never forget that the minitower is used for the manufacturer's benefit, not the consumer's. Its universality reflects its appeal to box makers, not to end users (who buy towers because that's what there is to buy). The exceptions are basically individual box makers. Design wise, the average PC is hilariously overcomplicated considering its mission, and this is a real and continual source of frustration for non-geeks like my poor father (who, alas, still hasn't listened to me and bought a Mac).
I wouldn't be surprised if a significant reason for the appeal of laptops is that they're AIOs, actually. You pull them out of the box, turn them on, and they work.
<strong>That might be what the customer is thinking when they walk in to the store, but the odds are that they'll end up walking out with a complete system anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, of course. Not to count those for whom $200 decide which computer to buy.
I wouldn't be surprised if a significant reason for the appeal of laptops is that they're AIOs, actually. You pull them out of the box, turn them on, and they work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a valid observation. Corporate PC users have comment for some time that they find laptops a simpler more trouble free proposition.
I don't think the tower is the best solution, but a desktop will require a good deal of component modularity if it is ever to penetrate further than the current iMac already reaches. A little cube, something like a home console or stereo component maybe, but the AIo conspet has reached it's limit, the laptop is a better evolution of "lifestyle" computing, it can be where you want/need it, when you want it. On the other end, something more component like is also a better evolution of "lifestyle" computing, you can display at your choice of display, and your choice of internal components and upgrade it to meet specific needs down the line.
Personally, I feel that even the tower will begin fall by the way side once we get affordable HDTV. When your TV can do 1080P, there will be a lot more home computers that are something of a cross between a console and a TiVO. Sure you might hook up even better monitors for Work purposes, but a fast refresh 1920x1080 progressive scan display that's 40+ inches wide will look good whether you're playing games, playing with iLife, or just surfing the web/writing a report.
Laptops plus a modular component "desktop/shelftop" are the future. AIO's will not survive the decade unless they get extremely cheap, basically disposable, like clock radios.
<strong>When your TV can do 1080P, there will be a lot more home computers that are something of a cross between a console and a TiVO. Sure you might hook up even better monitors for Work purposes, but a fast refresh 1920x1080 progressive scan display that's 40+ inches wide will look good whether you're playing games, playing with iLife, or just surfing the web/writing a report.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a 65" Mitsubishi HDTV in my basement that I have hooked my Powerbook to. It is ok. But way too slow of a refresh and too large to sit in front of, unless you are a mile away.
<strong> [quote]Laptops plus a modular component "desktop/shelftop" are the future. AIO's will not survive the decade unless they get extremely cheap, basically disposable, like clock radios.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I wouldn't go that far. Sure it would be ideal to sit in the living room and use your TV as a monitor, but what about those who actually want to watch TV on it. Or a DVD...
And what about rendering video in iMovie or burning in iDVD. Those take some time. What about stuff you need to do from work, when you want to work in peace and quiet and not in the middle of the family room, with Jr spilling juice all over your laptop? I am not sure enough people will buy into the laptop, because they think, no matter how wrongly, that a laptop is brittle and don't really need a computer to travel with them. No, I don't think they're doomed quite yet. They are nice for people who just need a computer to get work done, and aren't of the mindset to piss around with trying to hook their computer up to their TV, IMO.
You are right, of course. Not to count those for whom $200 decide which computer to buy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless $200 decides which system to buy.
The component-at-a-time market is neither sizeable nor (more importantly) profitable for either the manufacturer or any retailer. If they were, there wouldn't be all these bottom-line-conscious retailers flogging complete systems. Not just retailers either, as the aforementioned AIOB (all-in-one-box) HP illustrates. Profit lies in value adds, always.
Now, for Matsu: If you accept the argument that laptops are increasing in appeal because they are AIOs, then you accept that people are willing to pay more to get an AIO as opposed to a tower - as long as it doesn't suck. The sad thing is that PC notebooks are nothing to write home about, either, which really says something about their desktops.
As for the idea that components appeal to the low end: How many low end stereos are components? People do buy components occasionally, for some things like VCRs and DVD players, but it's not the rule. Complexity as much as cost is an issue here. There's a lot to be said for something that you can buy, plug in, and use, especially if the price is within impulse-buying range.
Interesting, a new G3 with MP in it's name? Dual G3s sounds like Moto's days are numbered. So Gobi first quarter of 2003 for the iBook I guess. It starts at 1.6ghz which is faster then the G4. So does Apple drop the G4 and replace it with a G3 that clocks higher? The next gen G3 MojaveMP sounds like it will support duals, definately sounds like the G4 is done.
The 970 was suppose to clock up to 1.8ghz, but the 970+ goes up to 2.5ghz to be released after a year or so of the 970. So that would be 800mhz increase in a year? Wow, Apple will be getting up their a LOT faster then with the G4 of recent history.
1. The Cube failed because it was too god damn expensive.
2. Sub $1000 is just $999, a headless eMac with an AGP and PCI slot is doable, oh, and another 100 mhz. An 800 G4 isn't too much to ask for, is it?
Make it $1299 for a Ghz G4 and I'm sold.
[code]
$2,499.00
Dual 1GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 1MB L3 cache/processor
167MHz System Bus
256MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro
56K internal modem
</pre><hr></blockquote>
Take out the Superdrive, DDR, a 40GB... a $1299 box as I described above would be a very low margin product. Which is why I think it should be based on an eMac mobo and not the current PMac mobo.
The formatting of this page seems to be fooked, so I'll respond generally.
To the HDTV guy, you likely have a 1080i display, or worse something lower that merely simulates 1080i. When we get 1080P panels it's going to be a different game.
Amorph, the laptop is interesting as an AIO, acceptable even at a higher price, because it travels, iMacs don't. I'm not saying that consumer computer fixations make sense, but they are what they are and if you want to sell people computers eventually you must sell them what they want.
DELL, of all companies, yes don't jump down my throat, has a nearly perfect desktop form-factor. One of my universities just put in a lab full of them, each topped off with a nice 15" LCD. It's bigger than a phonebook, like a nice fat art book, iDunno which model it is, but some of you must know what I'm talking about. The same lab has eMacs and the Dells have the smaller footprint, very nice and compact. That box form factor is perfect. It couls stand up as a slim tower, stow away under a CRT or LCD (not Apple's stoopid tripod stand LCD's though). Tweaked to fit a full size video card, 2 HDD's and one optical, it's just really nice and compact yet perfect for expansion.
About home A/V. They don't expand, but they don't need too because they remain static for years. Your VHS and TV and CD player have remained static for 20 years now. DVD's will give at least a decade before they're obsoleted. You're computer will struggle with new games after 2 years, and new programs after 3, sometimes not running them at all. Interconnectivity and all sorts of end user experiences will begin to show the age of the machine in a way that a VCR or stereo doesn't. Sure, better perfroming stuff comes out but you can still use the device without losing quality. A computer is not the same.
If this cycle slows down, then things might be different, but untill computer reach a point where they run new software flawlessly for at least a decade, we haven't reached a point where hermetically sealing the computer is not a wise move.
The cube failed not because it was "god-damned expensive", but because it didn't have a target market.
All you people who say you would have bought a cube if it was cheaper are GOD DAMNED LIERS!
Sure, you would have bought a cube if it was less than $1000 and had specs like a Power Mac, but you arn't going to be getting something for nothing anytime soon.
In terms of a sub-$1000 cube, it would be low-end and un-expandable. Upgradeable, but not expandable.
And everyone who claims they would buy such a product are liers, as if you really want a shitty tower you'd be using a PC by now!
And if you are using a PC, I can assure you that Apple will not be offering a beautiful Power Mac in your price range.
<strong>The formatting of this page seems to be fooked, so I'll respond generally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I can't figure out what's borked it, but it's annoying.
[quote]<strong>Amorph, the laptop is interesting as an AIO, acceptable even at a higher price, because it travels, iMacs don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do have that advantage, although some so-called portables are hardly more luggable than the iMac is.
However, there is also the matter that they aren't great big things that take over any space they're in, and require all kinds of plugging and arranging just so you can check email.
[quote]<strong>I'm not saying that consumer computer fixations make sense, but they are what they are and if you want to sell people computers eventually you must sell them what they want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why Steve pronounced the "Year of the Portable," in fact.
Also, I am not at all convinced that towers are what people want just because they're out there. They make far more sense for the maker than for the consumer.
[quote]<strong>DELL, of all companies, yes don't jump down my throat, has a nearly perfect desktop form-factor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't have to sell me on the pizza box. It's my preferred form for a low-cost headless desktop.
[quote]<strong>About home A/V. They don't expand, but they don't need too because they remain static for years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My roommate would be fascinated to hear that: He's had to replace his amplifier several times in the last five years just to keep up with new and improving tech.
If all you want is stereo, sure, you can keep your old tech. But that industry's undergoing a rapid series of changes. Just wait'll it goes to FireWire, for instance.
[quote]<strong>You're computer will struggle with new games after 2 years, and new programs after 3, sometimes not running them at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's assuming that you run new programs. Most people use what came with the machine, or what they bought with the machine. For the record, I got almost 10 years of use out of an LC II, and my mom got 10 out of a PowerBook 145b. She's still be using it if it hadn't finally started to get flaky in its old age. Her grape iMac runs Jaguar, Safari, and company just fine.
Games? Most Mac users hardly ever play games. I'm sure UT2003 would run like hell on my Cube, but since I'll never buy it I could care less. The stuff I want to run runs very well.
[quote]<strong>Interconnectivity and all sorts of end user experiences will begin to show the age of the machine in a way that a VCR or stereo doesn't. Sure, better perfroming stuff comes out but you can still use the device without losing quality. A computer is not the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends on what you're trying to do. My own experience is that people get years of use out of computers. Two of my friends have original iMacs, and they're still primary machines, unupgraded, doing what they were purchased to do. Another friend of mine has my old PowerMac 8600/200, which still runs like a champ.
[quote]<strong>If this cycle slows down, then things might be different, but untill computer reach a point where they run new software flawlessly for at least a decade, we haven't reached a point where hermetically sealing the computer is not a wise move.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So much else changes that upgrading is a dubious proposition anyway. Sure, you can put a G4 in my old 8600, but the bus is still a 50MHz 60x bus, the RAM is still slow and costly, the PCI bus bandwidth is crap, the primary drive interface is so-called Fast SCSI, and there's no AGP (which, by the way, is about to go by the wayside itself - at this point, an AGP slot isn't going to futureproof you much). There's no way to upgrade any of these things on any of the machines you're enamored of without swapping the board out altogether (basically, replacing the machine). All of the machines that I'm aware of that have run for a decade have done so by running the same software for years. Almost all of the machines I've seen upgraded have gained maybe another year or so of use. But at a certain point, you simply have to get another machine.
I don't see that changing in my lifetime. I remember people calling the Apple //c decadent for shipping with a whopping 128k of RAM - surely a marketing ploy, because who actually needs that much?
I fully expect that revolutions are ahead that will require a completely different approach to developing software on hardware that scarcely resembles what we have now. What we have now is, um, well... primitive. Adequate to the tasks currently demanded of it, but nothing more than that.
Comments
If IBM were to fab a G3 that would work in the PPC970's bus architecture and Altivec unit, Apple would have a great (read: Motorola-free) solution on their consumer and portable level until the 970 gets cheap enough/low power enough to spread across the line.
Hell, I bet a currently-shipping 1 Ghz G3 in the new 970 arch (RapidIO/Hypertransport/whatever) would outrun any of Motorola's current offerings, with or without Altivec. *ASSUMING that the CPU has a 64-bit mode or the arch has a 32-bit mode*.
Apple could call it a G4+, a G5LC, or something creative. Most home users wouldn't notice the difference, and Apple could cut out Motorola as soon as possible, which is really what they need to do.
<a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20030122.php"; target="_blank">http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20030122.php</a>;
And in 5-6 years time Apple may find itself in the same position again. Remember IBM has been content to sell it's customers 604 based workstations at truly obscene prices (moreso even than Apple prices). They can afford to forget about the PPC if it doesn't go their way, just as they chose to forget about it for the past 4 years. They can continue selling Power4/5 based machines and easily switch to Intel based linux solutions.
IBM is no great guarantee because unlike Apple they can afford to let the PPC stagnate. I don't think they will, but if they might, it won't hurt them, just like it didn't hurt them last time around either.
very wierd
<strong>The problem with that is that most of the salesmen are PC Geeks who dont know enough about Macs to effectively sell them. They do however, have a tendency to talk people out of them in favor of a computer that they do know enough about to sound intelligent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This isn't a problem with the AIO form factor, however, its just a problem for Macs in general. It is probably the single biggest reason Apple started opening AppleStores.
<strong>The AIO is the model that will eventually be squeezed out. A laptop is an AIO and over the next 5 years they will get fast enough and cheap enough to sway more consumers than any AIO. When that day comes a desktop can only really be something that expands/upgrades easily, otherwise, what's the point? People want to choose their own displays and drives, and they want a measure of security in being able to easily upgrade to meet new connectivity standards, optical drive formats, and add INTERNAL storage capacity. Not to mention the significant number of people who do upgrade thei CPU's and GPU's (white box builders are upto 30% of the market in some areas, most of their customers like to upgrade these components, that's a big pool of customers)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, lots of overgeneralizations about what people want. Many many many people just want to go into the store, buy a complete solution, take it home, plug it in, and never move it. They want it to be comfortable to use (i.e. not a laptop!), and stylish. They'll never think about upgradeability and if it breaks they will just take it into the shop to get it fixed. They do it for their cars, why not their computers?
Matsu, you do fall into my geek definition... you're here and you care about what's in your computer. I personally agree with you, but there are a huge number of people out there who aren't like that and its for those people (or at least the reasonably affluent ones) that Apple builds it AIO machines.
On the thread's subject (processors): why are some so obsessed with completely cutting Motorola out of the loop? They still build decent chips, they just aren't high-end desktop chips. Not all the chips Apple needs are high-end desktop chips. The best arrangement for Apple is to have both IBM and Motorola providing PowerPC solutions for them, and if that includes system level compatibility (e.g. RapidIO) then so much the better. IBM is likely going to have some G3/G4 class processors in the future, and so is Motorola -- Apple will no doubt evaluate and choose the one they think is more appropriate to their needs. They could even use both in different products. The high-end will use the 970 (and its descendants) because Motorola has shown no signs of wanting to compete at that level.
<strong>Many many many people just want to go into the store, buy a complete solution, take it home, plug it in, and never move it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most PCs are not AIO, which means when you are going after a newer machine, you are not throwing a year-old monitor out of the window. What does Apple offer to these people? Either throw away your display or pay $1700 for a PowerMac.
The question is, why not sell them an iMac-class machine without a monitor?
<strong>
Most PCs are not AIO, which means when you are going after a newer machine, you are not throwing a year-old monitor out of the window.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That might be what the customer is thinking when they walk in to the store, but the odds are that they'll end up walking out with a complete system anyway.
For one thing, the store will push it. Most PC retailers sell "bundles" that are cheaper than buying the components separately - but also better for the store, which is why they'll push it. For another, monitors and printers get better over time as well.
Heck, in the Staples near my house there are big boxes with complete HP systems - tower, monitor, printer. All in one box, for one price. Never forget that the minitower is used for the manufacturer's benefit, not the consumer's. Its universality reflects its appeal to box makers, not to end users (who buy towers because that's what there is to buy). The exceptions are basically individual box makers.
I wouldn't be surprised if a significant reason for the appeal of laptops is that they're AIOs, actually. You pull them out of the box, turn them on, and they work.
<strong>That might be what the customer is thinking when they walk in to the store, but the odds are that they'll end up walking out with a complete system anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, of course. Not to count those for whom $200 decide which computer to buy.
<strong>
I wouldn't be surprised if a significant reason for the appeal of laptops is that they're AIOs, actually. You pull them out of the box, turn them on, and they work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a valid observation. Corporate PC users have comment for some time that they find laptops a simpler more trouble free proposition.
I don't think the tower is the best solution, but a desktop will require a good deal of component modularity if it is ever to penetrate further than the current iMac already reaches. A little cube, something like a home console or stereo component maybe, but the AIo conspet has reached it's limit, the laptop is a better evolution of "lifestyle" computing, it can be where you want/need it, when you want it. On the other end, something more component like is also a better evolution of "lifestyle" computing, you can display at your choice of display, and your choice of internal components and upgrade it to meet specific needs down the line.
Personally, I feel that even the tower will begin fall by the way side once we get affordable HDTV. When your TV can do 1080P, there will be a lot more home computers that are something of a cross between a console and a TiVO. Sure you might hook up even better monitors for Work purposes, but a fast refresh 1920x1080 progressive scan display that's 40+ inches wide will look good whether you're playing games, playing with iLife, or just surfing the web/writing a report.
Laptops plus a modular component "desktop/shelftop" are the future. AIO's will not survive the decade unless they get extremely cheap, basically disposable, like clock radios.
<strong>When your TV can do 1080P, there will be a lot more home computers that are something of a cross between a console and a TiVO. Sure you might hook up even better monitors for Work purposes, but a fast refresh 1920x1080 progressive scan display that's 40+ inches wide will look good whether you're playing games, playing with iLife, or just surfing the web/writing a report.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have a 65" Mitsubishi HDTV in my basement that I have hooked my Powerbook to. It is ok. But way too slow of a refresh and too large to sit in front of, unless you are a mile away.
<strong> [quote]Laptops plus a modular component "desktop/shelftop" are the future. AIO's will not survive the decade unless they get extremely cheap, basically disposable, like clock radios.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I wouldn't go that far. Sure it would be ideal to sit in the living room and use your TV as a monitor, but what about those who actually want to watch TV on it. Or a DVD...
And what about rendering video in iMovie or burning in iDVD. Those take some time. What about stuff you need to do from work, when you want to work in peace and quiet and not in the middle of the family room, with Jr spilling juice all over your laptop? I am not sure enough people will buy into the laptop, because they think, no matter how wrongly, that a laptop is brittle and don't really need a computer to travel with them. No, I don't think they're doomed quite yet. They are nice for people who just need a computer to get work done, and aren't of the mindset to piss around with trying to hook their computer up to their TV, IMO.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
<strong>
You are right, of course. Not to count those for whom $200 decide which computer to buy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless $200 decides which system to buy.
The component-at-a-time market is neither sizeable nor (more importantly) profitable for either the manufacturer or any retailer. If they were, there wouldn't be all these bottom-line-conscious retailers flogging complete systems. Not just retailers either, as the aforementioned AIOB (all-in-one-box) HP illustrates. Profit lies in value adds, always.
Now, for Matsu: If you accept the argument that laptops are increasing in appeal because they are AIOs, then you accept that people are willing to pay more to get an AIO as opposed to a tower - as long as it doesn't suck. The sad thing is that PC notebooks are nothing to write home about, either, which really says something about their desktops.
As for the idea that components appeal to the low end: How many low end stereos are components? People do buy components occasionally, for some things like VCRs and DVD players, but it's not the rule. Complexity as much as cost is an issue here. There's a lot to be said for something that you can buy, plug in, and use, especially if the price is within impulse-buying range.
<strong>Some more info...
<a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20030122.php"; target="_blank">http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20030122.php</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Interesting, a new G3 with MP in it's name? Dual G3s sounds like Moto's days are numbered. So Gobi first quarter of 2003 for the iBook I guess. It starts at 1.6ghz which is faster then the G4. So does Apple drop the G4 and replace it with a G3 that clocks higher? The next gen G3 MojaveMP sounds like it will support duals, definately sounds like the G4 is done.
The 970 was suppose to clock up to 1.8ghz, but the 970+ goes up to 2.5ghz to be released after a year or so of the 970. So that would be 800mhz increase in a year? Wow, Apple will be getting up their a LOT faster then with the G4 of recent history.
Sounds good.
<strong>Because it didn't work the first time.
Lusers bought iMacs because they were/are simple.
Power users bough Power Macs because they wanted the expandibility.
Prosumer is a myth.
Barto
PS it seems that what people want is something for nothing, ei a sub $1000 Power Mac
[ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. The Cube failed because it was too god damn expensive.
2. Sub $1000 is just $999, a headless eMac with an AGP and PCI slot is doable, oh, and another 100 mhz. An 800 G4 isn't too much to ask for, is it?
Make it $1299 for a Ghz G4 and I'm sold.
[code]
$2,499.00
Dual 1GHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 cache
& 1MB L3 cache/processor
167MHz System Bus
256MB PC2700 DDR SDRAM
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon 9000 Pro
56K internal modem
</pre><hr></blockquote>
Take out the Superdrive, DDR, a 40GB... a $1299 box as I described above would be a very low margin product. Which is why I think it should be based on an eMac mobo and not the current PMac mobo.
1.25 Ghz G4 256 k L2
256 133 PC Memory, up to 1.5 GB
ATIRadeon 8500
40 GB HD
CDR-RW
10/100BASE-T Ethernet
56K internal modem
Target price of $999
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: JCG ]</p>
To the HDTV guy, you likely have a 1080i display, or worse something lower that merely simulates 1080i. When we get 1080P panels it's going to be a different game.
Amorph, the laptop is interesting as an AIO, acceptable even at a higher price, because it travels, iMacs don't. I'm not saying that consumer computer fixations make sense, but they are what they are and if you want to sell people computers eventually you must sell them what they want.
DELL, of all companies, yes don't jump down my throat, has a nearly perfect desktop form-factor. One of my universities just put in a lab full of them, each topped off with a nice 15" LCD. It's bigger than a phonebook, like a nice fat art book, iDunno which model it is, but some of you must know what I'm talking about. The same lab has eMacs and the Dells have the smaller footprint, very nice and compact. That box form factor is perfect. It couls stand up as a slim tower, stow away under a CRT or LCD (not Apple's stoopid tripod stand LCD's though). Tweaked to fit a full size video card, 2 HDD's and one optical, it's just really nice and compact yet perfect for expansion.
About home A/V. They don't expand, but they don't need too because they remain static for years. Your VHS and TV and CD player have remained static for 20 years now. DVD's will give at least a decade before they're obsoleted. You're computer will struggle with new games after 2 years, and new programs after 3, sometimes not running them at all. Interconnectivity and all sorts of end user experiences will begin to show the age of the machine in a way that a VCR or stereo doesn't. Sure, better perfroming stuff comes out but you can still use the device without losing quality. A computer is not the same.
If this cycle slows down, then things might be different, but untill computer reach a point where they run new software flawlessly for at least a decade, we haven't reached a point where hermetically sealing the computer is not a wise move.
All you people who say you would have bought a cube if it was cheaper are GOD DAMNED LIERS!
Sure, you would have bought a cube if it was less than $1000 and had specs like a Power Mac, but you arn't going to be getting something for nothing anytime soon.
In terms of a sub-$1000 cube, it would be low-end and un-expandable. Upgradeable, but not expandable.
And everyone who claims they would buy such a product are liers, as if you really want a shitty tower you'd be using a PC by now!
And if you are using a PC, I can assure you that Apple will not be offering a beautiful Power Mac in your price range.
Barto
<strong>The formatting of this page seems to be fooked, so I'll respond generally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I can't figure out what's borked it, but it's annoying.
[quote]<strong>Amorph, the laptop is interesting as an AIO, acceptable even at a higher price, because it travels, iMacs don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They do have that advantage, although some so-called portables are hardly more luggable than the iMac is.
However, there is also the matter that they aren't great big things that take over any space they're in, and require all kinds of plugging and arranging just so you can check email.
[quote]<strong>I'm not saying that consumer computer fixations make sense, but they are what they are and if you want to sell people computers eventually you must sell them what they want.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why Steve pronounced the "Year of the Portable," in fact.
Also, I am not at all convinced that towers are what people want just because they're out there. They make far more sense for the maker than for the consumer.
[quote]<strong>DELL, of all companies, yes don't jump down my throat, has a nearly perfect desktop form-factor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't have to sell me on the pizza box. It's my preferred form for a low-cost headless desktop.
[quote]<strong>About home A/V. They don't expand, but they don't need too because they remain static for years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My roommate would be fascinated to hear that: He's had to replace his amplifier several times in the last five years just to keep up with new and improving tech.
If all you want is stereo, sure, you can keep your old tech. But that industry's undergoing a rapid series of changes. Just wait'll it goes to FireWire, for instance.
[quote]<strong>You're computer will struggle with new games after 2 years, and new programs after 3, sometimes not running them at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's assuming that you run new programs. Most people use what came with the machine, or what they bought with the machine. For the record, I got almost 10 years of use out of an LC II, and my mom got 10 out of a PowerBook 145b. She's still be using it if it hadn't finally started to get flaky in its old age. Her grape iMac runs Jaguar, Safari, and company just fine.
Games? Most Mac users hardly ever play games.
[quote]<strong>Interconnectivity and all sorts of end user experiences will begin to show the age of the machine in a way that a VCR or stereo doesn't. Sure, better perfroming stuff comes out but you can still use the device without losing quality. A computer is not the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It depends on what you're trying to do. My own experience is that people get years of use out of computers. Two of my friends have original iMacs, and they're still primary machines, unupgraded, doing what they were purchased to do. Another friend of mine has my old PowerMac 8600/200, which still runs like a champ.
[quote]<strong>If this cycle slows down, then things might be different, but untill computer reach a point where they run new software flawlessly for at least a decade, we haven't reached a point where hermetically sealing the computer is not a wise move.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So much else changes that upgrading is a dubious proposition anyway. Sure, you can put a G4 in my old 8600, but the bus is still a 50MHz 60x bus, the RAM is still slow and costly, the PCI bus bandwidth is crap, the primary drive interface is so-called Fast SCSI, and there's no AGP (which, by the way, is about to go by the wayside itself - at this point, an AGP slot isn't going to futureproof you much). There's no way to upgrade any of these things on any of the machines you're enamored of without swapping the board out altogether (basically, replacing the machine). All of the machines that I'm aware of that have run for a decade have done so by running the same software for years. Almost all of the machines I've seen upgraded have gained maybe another year or so of use. But at a certain point, you simply have to get another machine.
I don't see that changing in my lifetime. I remember people calling the Apple //c decadent for shipping with a whopping 128k of RAM - surely a marketing ploy, because who actually needs that much?
I fully expect that revolutions are ahead that will require a completely different approach to developing software on hardware that scarcely resembles what we have now. What we have now is, um, well... primitive. Adequate to the tasks currently demanded of it, but nothing more than that.
[ 01-23-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>