Apple walks a tightrope trying to balance marketing, engineering and financial concerns while trying to satisfy its somewhat fanatical customer base (me included). It does not 'take the piss'.
Apple will release the fastest possible processor that is reliable and that they have in sufficient quantity to meet projected demand. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous
Well 970 or no 970, 2.5ghx or no 2.5ghz, Apple has mostly always had their top end become the lowend. So I expect the orginal predicted speeds 1.4ghz, 1.6ghz and 1.8ghz. Even that is hoping a bit much because it's a 400mhz difference between top and bottom and Apple has never had that much of a gap. Granted Apple NEVER had a CHOICE about the gap, but still, 1.4-1.8ghz is wishful thinking. If we get anything higher then it's a bonus.
Even if we got higher then 1.8, if it isn't dual, people will whine. So, expect what you want to (me, a top 1.8ghz single) and hope for the best.
IBM is going to be putting these in servers and perhaps Linux desktops and workstations. Guess what? If IBM is selling these machines with dual 2.5 GHz Power PC 970s and Apple's top of the line Mac is a single 1.8 GHz Power PC 970, we're going to be able to buy IBM's, run Mac on Linux, and have an unbelievably fast machine.
Apple can't afford to *not* use IBM's fastest chip because IBM is going to use their fastest chip. It's an interesting position for Apple to be in. Remember that IBM has alreay announced 970 based servers. If the Xserve isn't up to that speed, why would you buy one, especially if you could boot Mac OS X server on the IBM machine with MOL?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
99% of Mac users won't know or care that IBM is using the same CPU in their servers. IBM servers won't run Mac OS X, and they will cost AT LEAST twice as much as an Apple machine. Probably closer to 5 times.
You could run MOL on a f**cking Power4 now and get the "fastest Mac ever." Do you want to drop $40,000 to run OS X in an emulated, feature-crippled, speed-reduced, unstable environment?
You would NEVER, EVER run an emulated OS on a production server. That's complete nonsense.
Perhaps once Mac OS X is a bit more mature, Apple will allow IBM to license it. But until then, nobody's gonna run OS X Server on an IBM box, except Mac addicts rich enough to light their cigars with $100 bills.
<strong>Well 970 or no 970, 2.5ghx or no 2.5ghz, Apple has mostly always had their top end become the lowend. So I expect the orginal predicted speeds 1.4ghz, 1.6ghz and 1.8ghz. Even that is hoping a bit much because it's a 400mhz difference between top and bottom and Apple has never had that much of a gap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bottom end: 1GHz. Top end: 1.42GHz. Difference: 420MHz, not counting that the top end is a dualie.
[quote]<strong>Granted Apple NEVER had a CHOICE about the gap, but still, 1.4-1.8ghz is wishful thinking. If we get anything higher then it's a bonus. </strong><hr></blockquote>
With the exception of the great 500MHz stall, it's more helpful to think of CPU clock improvements in terms of percent, since that's how they actually improve. 1GHz -> 1.42GHz is a 42% difference in clock speed, so by that standard you could have a 1.4GHz low end and a 2.5GHz high end.
[quote]<strong>Even if we got higher then 1.8, if it isn't dual, people will whine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if it is dual, people will whine. So cross your fingers and buy what you need.
<strong>When were they at those price levels? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it's historically been $1700/$2500/$3500, my mistake. Most revisions of the PowerMac G4 were those prices, from the Sawtooths to the first revision of the Quicksilvers. The second Quicksilver generation was cheaper, $1600/$2300/$3000. The MDD PowerMacs were $1700/$2500/$3300, and now they're $1500/$2000/$2700. I don't think Apple will raise prices by $200-$800, but they might go up to the $1600/$2300/$3000 level just because of the increased demand.
I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with a 1.8 GHz 970 or really any 970 at all. Apple might go with a lower clock speed than is available at first, just because they want to have the ability to bump the speed later. Hopefully they'll make the 970 available in lower priced computers, and in laptops, within a year.
Bottom end: 1GHz. Top end: 1.42GHz. Difference: 420MHz, not counting that the top end is a dualie.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant much more then 400ghz gap in updates. Meaning from top to top hasn't been a huge gap in speed. We went from 1ghz top to 1.25ghz top to 1.4ghz top. So to go from 1.4ghz top to 1.8ghz jump in 1 update is the biggest we've had mhz wise. So for those wishing to get a 2.5 as the top coming from a 1.4ghz is wilding dreaming. That's why I believe would be lucky to get 1.8ghz with the 970's first intro even if Apple has access to 2.0ghz+ chips.
I meant much more then 400ghz gap in updates. Meaning from top to top hasn't been a huge gap in speed. We went from 1ghz top to 1.25ghz top to 1.4ghz top. So to go from 1.4ghz top to 1.8ghz jump in 1 update is the biggest we've had mhz wise. So for those wishing to get a 2.5 as the top coming from a 1.4ghz is wilding dreaming. That's why I believe would be lucky to get 1.8ghz with the 970's first intro even if Apple has access to 2.0ghz+ chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah, but apple has had no choice but too give us such shitty bumps. Just because the past (and present, I supose) sucked doesn't mean the future will. The past is there to learn from, you don't have to repeat it
It seems to me apple HAS been putting out the fastest thing it can, it just so happens that their best is a little on the mediocre side.
yeah, but apple has had no choice but too give us such shitty bumps. Just because the past (and present, I supose) sucked doesn't mean the future will. The past is there to learn from, you don't have to repeat it
It seems to me apple HAS been putting out the fastest thing it can, it just so happens that their best is a little on the mediocre side.
Yea, but just being a 1.4ghz 970 will kill any G4 out there, by a good deal from early opinions. So, I don't think there's a need to jump over certain speed bumps. Even if IBM has 2.0ghz chips, I'm not sure we'd see them the first time out. I still think 1.4ghz-1.8ghz is what we'd get and I'll be happy taking the 1.8ghz
I think Apple needs to make a splash. And I'm not talking 'look at that big laptop' kind of splash. I'm talking 'Chris Farley, John Goodman, Queen Latifa jump in the pool together' kind of splash.
The bake-off can't be: 'Look, we're faster than a 3ghz P4.' It needs to be 'Why on God's green Earth would you use anything but a new PowerMac?'
That's why, if they have them, Apple needs to use 2.5 ghz instead of 1.8 ghz in their top end. It needs to be so outrageous people will feel like idiots for buying anything else.
That will get you market share. Smaller incremental climbing, like what we've been facing for years, will get them nowhere.
<strong> I'll be happy taking the 1.8ghz </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't disagree with you there
I just think that if they do have acess to 2Ghz or maybe more then they wouldn't intentionally not go with it. However, whether or not 2Ghz + is available is rather unclear
I'll take any 970 at this point. My upgraded G3 (G4) is getting really slow. It's fine for everyday stuff (surfing, email, Word, Excel) But when it comes to iMovie or anything else more complicated it sucks...exporting movies in Quicktime takes forever...
I need a new machine soon, but I will wait for something significant like a 970. I would buy the second revision, not the first...Apple always messes up the first one.
[quote]You could run MOL on a f**cking Power4 now and get the "fastest Mac ever." Do you want to drop $40,000 to run OS X in an emulated, feature-crippled, speed-reduced, unstable environment?
You would NEVER, EVER run an emulated OS on a production server. That's complete nonsense.<hr></blockquote>
Note that I said Desktops and Workstations, not just servers.
Also, I don't believe you can run MOL on a Power4 now since the Mac OS doesn't run on the Power4. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
But if Mac OS X can run on a Power PC 970, then it will most certainly run on IBM's machines with MOL.
<strong>Apple walks a tightrope trying to balance marketing, engineering and financial concerns while trying to satisfy its somewhat fanatical customer base (me included). It does not 'take the piss'.
Apple will release the fastest possible processor that is reliable and that they have in sufficient quantity to meet projected demand. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous</strong><hr></blockquote>
I couldn't agree more. To me it is very troll like behavior to suggest that Apple would hold back the fastest processor they can offer. Do that many people really buy a new machine after every price bump? I find it hard to believe that would make anymore money holding back.
Sidenote: Mac's have always had a good resale value. If the 970's have the speed increase we are expecting, a lot of G4's are going to be worth as much as yesterdays Pentium.
[quote]This is the last chance Apple will see to make any serious inroads in their market-share -- which absolutely MUST INCREASE if Apple wants to remain a viable platform for another decade -- with the wintelon world's 64 bit path far from clear, and easily 18-24 months from offering the kind of reach a PPC970 might offer, this is the time to strike <hr></blockquote>
Wow ! Matsu and I completely agree on something! :eek:
Comments
Apple will release the fastest possible processor that is reliable and that they have in sufficient quantity to meet projected demand. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous
Even if we got higher then 1.8, if it isn't dual, people will whine. So, expect what you want to (me, a top 1.8ghz single) and hope for the best.
<strong>
IBM is going to be putting these in servers and perhaps Linux desktops and workstations. Guess what? If IBM is selling these machines with dual 2.5 GHz Power PC 970s and Apple's top of the line Mac is a single 1.8 GHz Power PC 970, we're going to be able to buy IBM's, run Mac on Linux, and have an unbelievably fast machine.
Apple can't afford to *not* use IBM's fastest chip because IBM is going to use their fastest chip. It's an interesting position for Apple to be in. Remember that IBM has alreay announced 970 based servers. If the Xserve isn't up to that speed, why would you buy one, especially if you could boot Mac OS X server on the IBM machine with MOL?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
99% of Mac users won't know or care that IBM is using the same CPU in their servers. IBM servers won't run Mac OS X, and they will cost AT LEAST twice as much as an Apple machine. Probably closer to 5 times.
You could run MOL on a f**cking Power4 now and get the "fastest Mac ever." Do you want to drop $40,000 to run OS X in an emulated, feature-crippled, speed-reduced, unstable environment?
You would NEVER, EVER run an emulated OS on a production server. That's complete nonsense.
Perhaps once Mac OS X is a bit more mature, Apple will allow IBM to license it. But until then, nobody's gonna run OS X Server on an IBM box, except Mac addicts rich enough to light their cigars with $100 bills.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Gizzmonic ]</p>
<strong>Well 970 or no 970, 2.5ghx or no 2.5ghz, Apple has mostly always had their top end become the lowend. So I expect the orginal predicted speeds 1.4ghz, 1.6ghz and 1.8ghz. Even that is hoping a bit much because it's a 400mhz difference between top and bottom and Apple has never had that much of a gap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Bottom end: 1GHz. Top end: 1.42GHz. Difference: 420MHz, not counting that the top end is a dualie.
[quote]<strong>Granted Apple NEVER had a CHOICE about the gap, but still, 1.4-1.8ghz is wishful thinking. If we get anything higher then it's a bonus. </strong><hr></blockquote>
With the exception of the great 500MHz stall, it's more helpful to think of CPU clock improvements in terms of percent, since that's how they actually improve. 1GHz -> 1.42GHz is a 42% difference in clock speed, so by that standard you could have a 1.4GHz low end and a 2.5GHz high end.
[quote]<strong>Even if we got higher then 1.8, if it isn't dual, people will whine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if it is dual, people will whine. So cross your fingers and buy what you need.
<strong>When were they at those price levels? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, it's historically been $1700/$2500/$3500, my mistake. Most revisions of the PowerMac G4 were those prices, from the Sawtooths to the first revision of the Quicksilvers. The second Quicksilver generation was cheaper, $1600/$2300/$3000. The MDD PowerMacs were $1700/$2500/$3300, and now they're $1500/$2000/$2700. I don't think Apple will raise prices by $200-$800, but they might go up to the $1600/$2300/$3000 level just because of the increased demand.
I certainly wouldn't be disappointed with a 1.8 GHz 970 or really any 970 at all. Apple might go with a lower clock speed than is available at first, just because they want to have the ability to bump the speed later. Hopefully they'll make the 970 available in lower priced computers, and in laptops, within a year.
<strong>
Bottom end: 1GHz. Top end: 1.42GHz. Difference: 420MHz, not counting that the top end is a dualie.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant much more then 400ghz gap in updates. Meaning from top to top hasn't been a huge gap in speed. We went from 1ghz top to 1.25ghz top to 1.4ghz top. So to go from 1.4ghz top to 1.8ghz jump in 1 update is the biggest we've had mhz wise. So for those wishing to get a 2.5 as the top coming from a 1.4ghz is wilding dreaming. That's why I believe would be lucky to get 1.8ghz with the 970's first intro even if Apple has access to 2.0ghz+ chips.
<strong>
I meant much more then 400ghz gap in updates. Meaning from top to top hasn't been a huge gap in speed. We went from 1ghz top to 1.25ghz top to 1.4ghz top. So to go from 1.4ghz top to 1.8ghz jump in 1 update is the biggest we've had mhz wise. So for those wishing to get a 2.5 as the top coming from a 1.4ghz is wilding dreaming. That's why I believe would be lucky to get 1.8ghz with the 970's first intro even if Apple has access to 2.0ghz+ chips.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yeah, but apple has had no choice but too give us such shitty bumps. Just because the past (and present, I supose) sucked doesn't mean the future will. The past is there to learn from, you don't have to repeat it
It seems to me apple HAS been putting out the fastest thing it can, it just so happens that their best is a little on the mediocre side.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Flounder ]</p>
<strong>
yeah, but apple has had no choice but too give us such shitty bumps. Just because the past (and present, I supose) sucked doesn't mean the future will. The past is there to learn from, you don't have to repeat it
It seems to me apple HAS been putting out the fastest thing it can, it just so happens that their best is a little on the mediocre side.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: Flounder ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea, but just being a 1.4ghz 970 will kill any G4 out there, by a good deal from early opinions. So, I don't think there's a need to jump over certain speed bumps. Even if IBM has 2.0ghz chips, I'm not sure we'd see them the first time out. I still think 1.4ghz-1.8ghz is what we'd get and I'll be happy taking the 1.8ghz
The bake-off can't be: 'Look, we're faster than a 3ghz P4.' It needs to be 'Why on God's green Earth would you use anything but a new PowerMac?'
That's why, if they have them, Apple needs to use 2.5 ghz instead of 1.8 ghz in their top end. It needs to be so outrageous people will feel like idiots for buying anything else.
That will get you market share. Smaller incremental climbing, like what we've been facing for years, will get them nowhere.
<strong> I'll be happy taking the 1.8ghz
I don't disagree with you there
I just think that if they do have acess to 2Ghz or maybe more then they wouldn't intentionally not go with it. However, whether or not 2Ghz + is available is rather unclear
I need a new machine soon, but I will wait for something significant like a 970. I would buy the second revision, not the first...Apple always messes up the first one.
Just my 2 personal cents.
Everyone is so excited with the chance to finally be competitive on the performance front they are taking rumors as fact. <hr></blockquote>
Finally?? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Mac ALWAYS faster than the PC up until say around the 700 MHz G4?
Someone should trace the Mac vs. PC benchmarks and respective processor technologies over time.
Programmer? Amorph? Anyone?
--
Ed M.
You would NEVER, EVER run an emulated OS on a production server. That's complete nonsense.<hr></blockquote>
Note that I said Desktops and Workstations, not just servers.
Also, I don't believe you can run MOL on a Power4 now since the Mac OS doesn't run on the Power4. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
But if Mac OS X can run on a Power PC 970, then it will most certainly run on IBM's machines with MOL.
<strong>
Finally?? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Mac ALWAYS faster than the PC up until say around the 700 MHz G4?
Someone should trace the Mac vs. PC benchmarks and respective processor technologies over time.
Programmer? Amorph? Anyone?
--
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but I think it was until the 450/500 debacle.
<strong>Apple walks a tightrope trying to balance marketing, engineering and financial concerns while trying to satisfy its somewhat fanatical customer base (me included). It does not 'take the piss'.
Apple will release the fastest possible processor that is reliable and that they have in sufficient quantity to meet projected demand. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous</strong><hr></blockquote>
I couldn't agree more. To me it is very troll like behavior to suggest that Apple would hold back the fastest processor they can offer. Do that many people really buy a new machine after every price bump? I find it hard to believe that would make anymore money holding back.
Sidenote: Mac's have always had a good resale value. If the 970's have the speed increase we are expecting, a lot of G4's are going to be worth as much as yesterdays Pentium.
Wow ! Matsu and I completely agree on something! :eek:
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>