hahahaha, so, you want a radical case, how about one shaped like that?
but seriously, i think that they should stick to the normal, rectangularish shapes, but just keep making sure that their boxes are easily distinguishable from others'.
....Prosumer G5...be it slim or what ever, should contain 3 PCI-X slots, support for Dual Processors, same ol' 2:1 Proc: Bus ratio, ceiling for RAM @ 4 or 8GB. support for 2 internal Hard drives, and 2 optical drives. Again, SATA (150), IDE ATA/100 respectively. Also, having the word "sumer"in the word probably needs to have some sort of bundling option, price breaks on monitors should happen if there is to be a pile of happy customers...
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
(I'LL DITTO YOU...heh..)
Oh ya, the end of this year's prosumer should be today's powermac, with faster proc's in them. I was commenting on that I think that the new powermac should have today's pro-like features, but a slimmer case.
With the smaller processes to 90 nm, a smaller case would do, and therefore be more 'pro-sumer'; cramming today's G5 into a smaller case. Smaller prices could be had, and then enter the Pro Mac line.
Note: It could be that Apple feels that the Pro line wouldn't be as profitable, but it would give Apple a faster name, with higher pro-like capacities in every field. This could spawn advertising on it's own, a good idea on their part.
The Xserve is hot (awesome), but you've always been able to put upto 4 3.5" hard drives in the 1U, the older G4 towers had capacities like these. Now what I think Apple needs to do is to take the ideas from the G5 tower in air control/noise and meld them with the G4's drive ceiling (of 6 total drives, two 5.25", four 3.5") amung other options. This would back the Pro-tower in my mind.
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
I probably should have written this one first, but it's now, now.
The idea behind the quote that propagated you to write, is that the hardware today will be pseudo-out of date. While still faster than any i-or-e-anything, the machine would boast sought-after speeds. Hoping that prices still fall as all of the processes in the factory become cheaper, today's current PowerMac G5, will be cheaper than it is today.
So based on that idea, we could produce a "cheaper" G5 and then one that's more feature-rich. At least I think the idea is interesting.
Looks "leak" the G5 revision will be dual 2, 2.2, 2.4 Ghz of pure heart-pounding muscle. IF this is true, then that's a total of 4, 4.2, 4.4 Ghz of power under the hood.
Looks "leak" the G5 revision will be dual 2, 2.2, 2.4 Ghz of pure heart-pounding muscle. IF this is true, then that's a total of 4, 4.2, 4.4 Ghz of power under the hood.
Some of you people can get as stupid as stupid comes. The G6 coming out in 2004. Dude the G5 just came out. IBM is not a miracle worker. You people who think the powerbook G5 is not coming out this year are 100% apple haters. Well, your just powerbook haters. The ipod could actully have different colors maybe not this year but in the future.
Some of you people can get as stupid as stupid comes.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Quote:
The G6 coming out in 2004. Dude the G5 just came out.
In December of 04, the G5 will be about 15+ months old. As fast as IBM is improving their fab, we just don't know what they will call a G6.
Quote:
IBM is not a miracle worker.
And...? Seems they have not done a bad job thus far.
Quote:
You people who think the powerbook G5 is not coming out this year are 100% apple haters.
Yep. We are all Apple-haters. After all, this is an Apple-user related board. I checked and 93.223% of registered users on this board have access to a Mac. Great place to find people who hate the platform and company. Nonsense. BTW- OPINION does not equal HATE.
In December of 04, the G5 will be about 15+ months old. As fast as IBM is improving their fab, we just don't know what they will call a G6.
And...? Seems they have not done a bad job thus far.
Yep. We are all Apple-haters. After all, this is an Apple-user related board. I checked and 93.223% of registered users on this board have access to a Mac. Great place to find people who hate the platform and company. Nonsense. BTW- OPINION does not equal HATE.
Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not. The tech may be around for the G6 but there the heat issues and design. Your finding ways just to bullshit people who you hate. I have a friend who is a mac user but thinks there piece of shit and he is registered to another mac site just to piss us off. You are just like him. The G6 will probably come out in 2007-2009. 10.4 may come out in dec 2004. if you do know how long the g5 took to come out please reply. Where do people get the info from. They get it from apple hot news and say what needs to be improved.
Your finding ways just to bullshit people who you hate. I have a friend who is a mac user but thinks there piece of shit and he is registered to another mac site just to piss us off. You are just like him.
Um... I never said I hated anyone. If you donned the blacks and went to work with me for a day... well.. nevvvver mind. Just be happily oblivious.
Do the math 4 years the G5 came out. Plus that statement Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not was directed at Jubelum
Umm... this is probably hopeless, but:
Are you talking about the time from intro of G4 to intro of G5 as four years? I am really trying to understand you, between my alleged hating of Steve and everything Apple.
If you think that AAPL is going to take another four years for the next generation of PowerPC, then you must think that IBM is going to screw things up and get stuck like Moto did. No? It took the alleged four years because of the Moto flustercluck. IBM runs a *little* differently.
Do the math 4 years the G5 came out. Plus that statement Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not was directed at Jubelum
Ugh!
First my comment about being the lead designer on the GPUL team was a JOKE... You see GPUL was the working name used by IBM to identify what we now know as the G5... You have NO idea how long it took for the G5 'to come out' in fact it would be very hard to give a REAL answer even if WE knew...
Here is a little history that will help explain why that answer is almost impossible to answer...
IBM Power 4 - code name GP - aka GigaProcessor
PPC 970 - code name GPUL - aka Giga Processor Ultra Lite
The PPC 970 (aka G5) was 'born from' core designs that were used in the Power 4 CPU from IBM - additions were made (adding AltiVec at the request of Apple - stripping it down from dual to single core - stripping of gobs of on CPU cache and I'm sure lots of other stuff)
Do you count the time it took to design the Power 4 to the time it took to release the PPC 970? Since you couldn't have the G5 without the Power 4 - maybe so... do you include the time it took to add altivec to the CPU? Yes?? No?? If yes then why?? Now that the works been done it won't need to be done again right? Oh but wait maybe there gonna add (insert some other cool feature) so that should take just as much time to add as altivec did wouldn't it?
What I'm trying to get at is you can't predict the release of CPU-Y by looking at how long it took to release CPU-X - it just doesn't work that way. So just give up that ghost - you'll be a better person for it.
I was using a VERY BAD pun...but..us humans have moods, i was hopped up on Coke (ah cola classic) I just had a lot of suga. Replace with "like."
Dave, I would agree with your statement that the Power4 plays a major portion in the role of the G5 developement.
However going beyond that to say every other IBM processor before it lead to it's creation wouldn't be very feasible, although some people might say that. The Power4 is a significant contributor because of the fact they didn't start completely from scratch. Because of Apple's request though, they did create a different processor.
Wouldn't a black Alu G5 be pretty guhamazing ? Some doog has that as their avatar, and...not a bad idea. glowing grean indicator lights inside, or blue ones fo that matter...would get me off. That's how it is.
Dave, I would agree with your statement that the Power4 plays a major portion in the role of the G5 developement.
However going beyond that to say every other IBM processor before it lead to it's creation wouldn't be very feasible, although some people might say that. The Power4 is a significant contributor because of the fact they didn't start completely from scratch. Because of Apple's request though, they did create a different processor.
Agreed.. but I was just using that as an example to make my main point quagmire.... Something I've now learned just doesn't work... He is one thick headed person.
Looking at the 601 didn't help us predict when the 603 was going to arrive.
Looking at the 603 didn't help us predict when the 604 was going to arrive.
Looking at the 604 didn't help us predict when the G3 was going to arrive.
Looking at the G3 didn't help us predict when the G4 was going to arrive.
Looking at the G4 didn't help us predict when the G5 was going to arrive.
**AND**
Looking at the G5 will NOT help us predict when the G5+ or the G6 is going to arrive.
edit: Those should have read "Looking at the time it took to develop/introduce the [insert CPU] would have helped up predict how long [insert other cpu] would take to be developed/introduced.
Here is a little history that will help explain why that answer is almost impossible to answer...
IBM Power 4 - code name GP - aka GigaProcessor
PPC 970 - code name GPUL - aka Giga Processor Ultra Lite
<snip>
What I'm trying to get at is you can't predict the release of CPU-Y by looking at how long it took to release CPU-X - it just doesn't work that way. So just give up that ghost - you'll be a better person for it.
Dave
Very true Dave
FYI, the "GPUL" was also known as "GUL" within IBM circles.
And yes, I do have a very good idea when Apple first approached IBM, if my evidence is correct, with the request to come up with the GUL. I can at least nail it to the month and year.
Too many unknowns to come up with when the G6 will arrive, but I bet IBM and Apple already has a prototype
Take Care All! We get it when we get it. I'm hoping for the next round to be 3 GHz +.
Comments
http://members.aol.com/dodecahdrn/Dodecahedron.html
hahahaha, so, you want a radical case, how about one shaped like that?
but seriously, i think that they should stick to the normal, rectangularish shapes, but just keep making sure that their boxes are easily distinguishable from others'.
Originally posted by willywalloo
....Prosumer G5...be it slim or what ever, should contain 3 PCI-X slots, support for Dual Processors, same ol' 2:1 Proc: Bus ratio, ceiling for RAM @ 4 or 8GB. support for 2 internal Hard drives, and 2 optical drives. Again, SATA (150), IDE ATA/100 respectively. Also, having the word "sumer"in the word probably needs to have some sort of bundling option, price breaks on monitors should happen if there is to be a pile of happy customers...
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
Originally posted by JCG
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
Originally posted by JCG
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
(I'LL DITTO YOU...heh..)
Oh ya, the end of this year's prosumer should be today's powermac, with faster proc's in them. I was commenting on that I think that the new powermac should have today's pro-like features, but a slimmer case.
With the smaller processes to 90 nm, a smaller case would do, and therefore be more 'pro-sumer'; cramming today's G5 into a smaller case. Smaller prices could be had, and then enter the Pro Mac line.
Note: It could be that Apple feels that the Pro line wouldn't be as profitable, but it would give Apple a faster name, with higher pro-like capacities in every field. This could spawn advertising on it's own, a good idea on their part.
The Xserve is hot (awesome), but you've always been able to put upto 4 3.5" hard drives in the 1U, the older G4 towers had capacities like these. Now what I think Apple needs to do is to take the ideas from the G5 tower in air control/noise and meld them with the G4's drive ceiling (of 6 total drives, two 5.25", four 3.5") amung other options. This would back the Pro-tower in my mind.
am i f'shizzie da nizzie?
-walloo.
Originally posted by JCG
Isn't that a PowerMac? If you want a lower priced computer that is geared to consumers, pro or otherwise, then you need to sacrofice something.
I probably should have written this one first, but it's now, now.
The idea behind the quote that propagated you to write, is that the hardware today will be pseudo-out of date. While still faster than any i-or-e-anything, the machine would boast sought-after speeds. Hoping that prices still fall as all of the processes in the factory become cheaper, today's current PowerMac G5, will be cheaper than it is today.
So based on that idea, we could produce a "cheaper" G5 and then one that's more feature-rich. At least I think the idea is interesting.
-walloo.
I'm game, and those numbers make me happy.
-walloo.
Originally posted by willywalloo
Looks "leak" the G5 revision will be dual 2, 2.2, 2.4 Ghz of pure heart-pounding muscle. IF this is true, then that's a total of 4, 4.2, 4.4 Ghz of power under the hood.
I'm game, and those numbers make me happy.
-walloo.
forgive my ignorance, but what's "looks leak"????
did i miss something?
Originally posted by quagmire
Some of you people can get as stupid as stupid comes.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The G6 coming out in 2004. Dude the G5 just came out.
In December of 04, the G5 will be about 15+ months old. As fast as IBM is improving their fab, we just don't know what they will call a G6.
IBM is not a miracle worker.
And...? Seems they have not done a bad job thus far.
You people who think the powerbook G5 is not coming out this year are 100% apple haters.
Yep. We are all Apple-haters. After all, this is an Apple-user related board. I checked and 93.223% of registered users on this board have access to a Mac. Great place to find people who hate the platform and company. Nonsense.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Pot. Kettle. Black.
In December of 04, the G5 will be about 15+ months old. As fast as IBM is improving their fab, we just don't know what they will call a G6.
And...? Seems they have not done a bad job thus far.
Yep. We are all Apple-haters. After all, this is an Apple-user related board. I checked and 93.223% of registered users on this board have access to a Mac. Great place to find people who hate the platform and company. Nonsense.
Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not. The tech may be around for the G6 but there the heat issues and design. Your finding ways just to bullshit people who you hate. I have a friend who is a mac user but thinks there piece of shit and he is registered to another mac site just to piss us off. You are just like him. The G6 will probably come out in 2007-2009. 10.4 may come out in dec 2004. if you do know how long the g5 took to come out please reply. Where do people get the info from. They get it from apple hot news and say what needs to be improved.
Originally posted by quagmire
Some of you people can get as stupid as stupid comes. The G6 coming out in 2004. Dude the G5 just came out.
You mean you don't believe the G6 coming out in 04? Clearly you're an Apple hater...
Originally posted by quagmire
Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not.
I'm lead designer on the GPUL team so yes as a matter of fact I do...
Dave
Originally posted by quagmire
Your finding ways just to bullshit people who you hate. I have a friend who is a mac user but thinks there piece of shit and he is registered to another mac site just to piss us off. You are just like him.
Um... I never said I hated anyone. If you donned the blacks and went to work with me for a day... well.. nevvvver mind. Just be happily oblivious.
Originally posted by DaveGee
I'm lead designer on the GPUL team so yes as a matter of fact I do...
Dave
Do the math 4 years the G5 came out. Plus that statement Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not was directed at Jubelum
Originally posted by quagmire
Do the math 4 years the G5 came out. Plus that statement Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not was directed at Jubelum
Umm... this is probably hopeless, but:
Are you talking about the time from intro of G4 to intro of G5 as four years? I am really trying to understand you, between my alleged hating of Steve and everything Apple.
If you think that AAPL is going to take another four years for the next generation of PowerPC, then you must think that IBM is going to screw things up and get stuck like Moto did. No? It took the alleged four years because of the Moto flustercluck. IBM runs a *little* differently.
Originally posted by quagmire
Do the math 4 years the G5 came out. Plus that statement Do you know how long it took for the G5 to come out. Probably not was directed at Jubelum
Ugh!
First my comment about being the lead designer on the GPUL team was a JOKE... You see GPUL was the working name used by IBM to identify what we now know as the G5... You have NO idea how long it took for the G5 'to come out' in fact it would be very hard to give a REAL answer even if WE knew...
Here is a little history that will help explain why that answer is almost impossible to answer...
IBM Power 4 - code name GP - aka GigaProcessor
PPC 970 - code name GPUL - aka Giga Processor Ultra Lite
The PPC 970 (aka G5) was 'born from' core designs that were used in the Power 4 CPU from IBM - additions were made (adding AltiVec at the request of Apple - stripping it down from dual to single core - stripping of gobs of on CPU cache and I'm sure lots of other stuff)
Do you count the time it took to design the Power 4 to the time it took to release the PPC 970? Since you couldn't have the G5 without the Power 4 - maybe so... do you include the time it took to add altivec to the CPU? Yes?? No?? If yes then why?? Now that the works been done it won't need to be done again right? Oh but wait maybe there gonna add (insert some other cool feature) so that should take just as much time to add as altivec did wouldn't it?
What I'm trying to get at is you can't predict the release of CPU-Y by looking at how long it took to release CPU-X - it just doesn't work that way. So just give up that ghost - you'll be a better person for it.
Dave
Originally posted by whoami
forgive my ignorance, but what's "looks leak"????
did i miss something?
I was using a VERY BAD pun...but..us humans have moods, i was hopped up on Coke (ah cola classic) I just had a lot of suga. Replace with "like."
Dave, I would agree with your statement that the Power4 plays a major portion in the role of the G5 developement.
However going beyond that to say every other IBM processor before it lead to it's creation wouldn't be very feasible, although some people might say that. The Power4 is a significant contributor because of the fact they didn't start completely from scratch. Because of Apple's request though, they did create a different processor.
Wouldn't a black Alu G5 be pretty guhamazing ? Some doog has that as their avatar, and...not a bad idea. glowing grean indicator lights inside, or blue ones fo that matter...would get me off. That's how it is.
-walloo.
Originally posted by willywalloo
Dave, I would agree with your statement that the Power4 plays a major portion in the role of the G5 developement.
However going beyond that to say every other IBM processor before it lead to it's creation wouldn't be very feasible, although some people might say that. The Power4 is a significant contributor because of the fact they didn't start completely from scratch. Because of Apple's request though, they did create a different processor.
Agreed.. but I was just using that as an example to make my main point quagmire.... Something I've now learned just doesn't work... He is one thick headed person.
Looking at the 601 didn't help us predict when the 603 was going to arrive.
Looking at the 603 didn't help us predict when the 604 was going to arrive.
Looking at the 604 didn't help us predict when the G3 was going to arrive.
Looking at the G3 didn't help us predict when the G4 was going to arrive.
Looking at the G4 didn't help us predict when the G5 was going to arrive.
**AND**
Looking at the G5 will NOT help us predict when the G5+ or the G6 is going to arrive.
edit: Those should have read "Looking at the time it took to develop/introduce the [insert CPU] would have helped up predict how long [insert other cpu] would take to be developed/introduced.
It just doesn't work that way...
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
Ugh!
<snip>
Here is a little history that will help explain why that answer is almost impossible to answer...
IBM Power 4 - code name GP - aka GigaProcessor
PPC 970 - code name GPUL - aka Giga Processor Ultra Lite
<snip>
What I'm trying to get at is you can't predict the release of CPU-Y by looking at how long it took to release CPU-X - it just doesn't work that way. So just give up that ghost - you'll be a better person for it.
Dave
Very true Dave
FYI, the "GPUL" was also known as "GUL" within IBM circles.
And yes, I do have a very good idea when Apple first approached IBM, if my evidence is correct, with the request to come up with the GUL. I can at least nail it to the month and year.
Too many unknowns to come up with when the G6 will arrive, but I bet IBM and Apple already has a prototype
Take Care All! We get it when we get it. I'm hoping for the next round to be 3 GHz +.