There will never be a better G4 from Motorola. It will come from Freescale.
It does look like they are working on it, however. First of all they have teamed up with a couple of companies that having working fabs at the 130 nm, 90 nm, and soon (well ~1 year anyhow) 65 nm nodes using 300mm wafers. Last year they were also discussing G4 plans involving dual core, on-die memory controller, RapidIO bus, and 2 GHz speeds. All at low power levels. No timelines given, but such a part would be 90 nm and personally I wouldn't expect it before 2005.
I imagine one more G4 revision for the iMac. The next PowerBook will be G5. Motorola would have to come out the the 7447-RM for the G4 to be used in another revision. If all the gods of the universe bless motorola with all their power and some how moto manage to create this mystical processor, well then I would say a few more G4 revisions are in order. However, something keeps telling me not to put much faith in any future G4s. The next iMac will be 1.5Ghz with better graphics cards. The Next powerbook will come out in 6-9 months and be a G5. Maybe MWSF... who knows...
A little process of elimination will tell us that the next iMac most certainly will be G5-based. If the next iMac was going to be a 1.5Ghz G4 or less, they would have been refreshed alongside the eMac the other week, just like the iBooks and PowerBooks were refreshed together. The fact that the eMac carries an 8x Superdrive shows us that new Powermacs and iMacs were supposed to be out the door already. We know the G5 XServes have been delayed due to some issues with the 90nm G5 chip, and thusly the iMac and PowerMac revisions have been delayed until things get sorted out with the G5. Apple planned on announcing them in March, but couldn't, so they restocked the old stuff and started all these promos they're currently running. Again, if the next iMac was going to be a G4 again, we would already have a revised iMac.
Tada!
At this point, the only way we'll see another G4-based iMac is if IBM continues to have difficulties suppying 90 nm G5 chips. Then, Apple will make an unintentional emergency G4 iMac update.
On the topic of people not needing more CPU power than what the current consumer Apple products offer, that's absolutely absurd. There's a reason why Apple's iApps all seem sluggish. While Motorola was holding back Apple's hardware performance, Apple software developers did not hold back on CPU-intensive features in their products. Look at Final Cut Pro - the amount of real-time effects and tracks you have access to is limited only by your CPU performance. The faster a machine you have, the more real-time work you can accomplish. Look at Apple's new Motion application, with it's "Dual 2Ghz Powermac Recommended" specs. By this time next year, I suspect that none of Apple's pro applications will run on a system with less than a 1Ghz processor. The requirements of new software and Operating Systems alone will demand faster and faster machines. Also take into consideration that cross-platform 3rd party software is being written for up to 3.4Ghz Pentium 4's in mind, and being ported over to our no-more-than 2Ghz Macs. Regardless of what you do with your computer, more software capabilities means higher CPU requirements.
Lastly, iMac sales. You know the last time Apple had a computer that sold tremendously well was also the last time Apple made a television ad that included a Price Tag for the system they were advertising (the original iMac, $1,299). When people see my flat panel iMac, their first impression is, "Whoa! How much did that cost!?!" Apple systems look expensive, and Apple has a habit of advertising their products without a sticker price, which causes most people immediately assume it's nothing they could possibly afford. Show people a system that looks like a million bucks, then give them the "starting at $999" price, and it'll be as successful as the original iMac. It won't matter that every other televised computer system from other manufacturers advertises for $499 - people used to pay $2,000 for a computer system - they can swallow $999 no problem, because when they see it, they'll be anticipating a price tag of $3,000.
Lastly, iMac sales. You know the last time Apple had a computer that sold tremendously well was also the last time Apple made a television ad that included a Price Tag for the system they were advertising (the original iMac, $1,299). When people see my flat panel iMac, their first impression is, "Whoa! How much did that cost!?!" Apple systems look expensive, and Apple has a habit of advertising their products without a sticker price, which causes most people immediately assume it's nothing they could possibly afford. Show people a system that looks like a million bucks, then give them the "starting at $999" price, and it'll be as successful as the original iMac. It won't matter that every other televised computer system from other manufacturers advertises for $499 - people used to pay $2,000 for a computer system - they can swallow $999 no problem, because when they see it, they'll be anticipating a price tag of $3,000.
Very good point. People will easily go out and pay 999 for a system if its worth it. The difference between 499 and 999 isn't a whole lot when you are talking about quality for purchase. Pay 499 for a pc system... see what it gets you. It may have a high clock and some cool things. But usually its onboard graphics, xp home, 256k l2 cache...etc etc. These systems usually get f'd up quickly.
Pay 1k for a nice mac. I would bet my life savings that the mac would out run the pc as far as stability. Thats a quality purchase and a nice justification for the price difference. 500 more for less headaches... seems worth it to me.
A little process of elimination will tell us that the next iMac most certainly will be G5-based. If the next iMac was going to be a 1.5Ghz G4 or less, they would have been refreshed alongside the eMac the other week, just like the iBooks and PowerBooks were refreshed together.
This makes a lot of sense, but I think they still have one last Tuesday to squeeze out a 1.5 GHz G4 iMac. If we don't get that bump in two days, then I agree we'll see a G5 iMac sometime in May.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
You know the last time Apple had a computer that sold tremendously well was also the last time Apple made a television ad that included a Price Tag for the system they were advertising (the original iMac, $1,299).
The Flat Panel iMac had a version of the "Window" ad that featured the revised $1,399 price point.
Hypothetically speaking of course, if Apple could legally market a $1299 17" iMac as 3GHz machine, even if it were just on paper and the internals and real world performance were unchanged, then and only then would it sell.
Exactly. If you don't fool your customers, you have none. Apple engineers should simply glue a P4 @ 3GHz inside without even powering it. Such a machine can be advertized as a 3GHz quakeplaystation and that alone will double its sales.
^^ I'm so glad somebody else gets this simple fact. As sad as this situation is, it's completely true.
The iMac 2 has never had the same effect on people as the original. I think this makes Steve mad. It's only true failure is pricing. Some of you might say the spec's, but in the end it comes down to pricing for those specs.
as a former and current powermac owner i think the imac offers a enhanced computing environment via its superior ergonomics.
to put it simply.........I WANT THAT FLAT SCREEN!
yeah the powerbooks and ibooks are amazing but the imac is THE best computer the apple makes!
period!
many of you will disagree but your wrong.
i do agree with steve jobs that all in ones are the way to go.
if apple came out with a g5 for the imac i would be happy.
the products that seduce me the most are the imac and the powerbook.
now if apple came out with a mini book...........?
But the pricing is out of range of too many people, making it a niche product for the afluant. That is not what an iMac is to a lot of people who bought the original style.
A little process of elimination will tell us that the next iMac most certainly will be G5-based. If the next iMac was going to be a 1.5Ghz G4 or less, they would have been refreshed alongside the eMac the other week, just like the iBooks and PowerBooks were refreshed together. The fact that the eMac carries an 8x Superdrive shows us that new Powermacs and iMacs were supposed to be out the door already. We know the G5 XServes have been delayed due to some issues with the 90nm G5 chip, and thusly the iMac and PowerMac revisions have been delayed until things get sorted out with the G5. Apple planned on announcing them in March, but couldn't, so they restocked the old stuff and started all these promos they're currently running. Again, if the next iMac was going to be a G4 again, we would already have a revised iMac.
<snip>
That's interesting. What do people think (I'm asking as a soonish-iMac buyer)? I figure that the absence of an announcement could suggest a G5 lineup, but there are all manner of reasons why the releases might be staggered - higher eMac margins, production issues, stock-run downs etc.
I want to agree with you; I'm just not sure it's as clear cut as you make.
That's interesting. What do people think (I'm asking as a soonish-iMac buyer)? I figure that the absence of an announcement could suggest a G5 lineup, but there are all manner of reasons why the releases might be staggered - higher eMac margins, production issues, stock-run downs etc.
I want to agree with you; I'm just not sure it's as clear cut as you make.
J.
PS. Ensign: why a Tuesday release day?
How awhile Apple was in the habbit of new releases on Tuesday.
So a lot of people flock to Apple's web site on Tuesdays.
What do people think (I'm asking as a soonish-iMac buyer)?
I would strongly recommend against buying the current iMac, unless you *really* like the design. The eMac and iBook are far better values (as is the 1.6 G5 on the high end), and circumstantial evidence points to an update in the next few months.
I would strongly recommend against buying the current iMac, unless you *really* like the design. The eMac and iBook are far better values (as is the 1.6 G5 on the high end), and circumstantial evidence points to an update in the next few months.
Wouldn't we all. But if they're waiting on sufficient supplies of the 970FX, I doubt it.
Well if the 975 is on the way to be 3.0Ghz, and Apple is going to announce that at WWDC, then they should in the next couple of weeks announce a 970fx based iMac or replacement there of.
What you can do, and how quickly you can do it has almost nothing to do with CPU speed these days for 90%+ of people. Why doesn't anyone here seem to "get it"? Especially in a mac crowd! The problem is not - IS NOT - CPU speed, DDR "trueness", or any other spec that's "lacking" on the mac. The problem is that most people are stupid, and have yet to understand the reality of computing - Getting things done, in a simple and effective manner, and with the freedom to do as you will, is the ultimate power of computing. Macs offer that with much more abundance than any other platform out there, for most people, they just don't know it yet.
You are totally wrong (and that was the nicest way I could say it). I get things done a lot faster on my 800 MHz G4 then I did on my 300MHz G3. And when using a faster computer I can get even more things done in a day.
Anyone who corrects and prints photos taken with their digital camera, plays games, or edits a home movie with their computer, to just name three uses, will truly benefit from more computing power.
The idiots who say people don't need faster computers are like some of the fools at IBM in the 70s who thought that individuals would never need computers at all. They just don't get it.
The truth of the mater is that, at this point in time, no company makes a computer that is fast enough for the average user. We all make do with what we can get, but computers are nowhere near as powerful as we want them to be. That's why people keep upgrading every few years.
Comments
Originally posted by Algol
Any word on a better G4 from moto?
Not really, but you can read this thread (look for the posts of Mr. MacPhisto).
Originally posted by Algol
Any word on a better G4 from moto?
There will never be a better G4 from Motorola. It will come from Freescale.
It does look like they are working on it, however. First of all they have teamed up with a couple of companies that having working fabs at the 130 nm, 90 nm, and soon (well ~1 year anyhow) 65 nm nodes using 300mm wafers. Last year they were also discussing G4 plans involving dual core, on-die memory controller, RapidIO bus, and 2 GHz speeds. All at low power levels. No timelines given, but such a part would be 90 nm and personally I wouldn't expect it before 2005.
Originally posted by Programmer
No timelines given, but such a part would be 90 nm and personally I wouldn't expect it before 2005.
In time nevertheless for the next Powerbook, and perhaps iMac, update, if it is beginning 2005.
Tada!
At this point, the only way we'll see another G4-based iMac is if IBM continues to have difficulties suppying 90 nm G5 chips. Then, Apple will make an unintentional emergency G4 iMac update.
On the topic of people not needing more CPU power than what the current consumer Apple products offer, that's absolutely absurd. There's a reason why Apple's iApps all seem sluggish. While Motorola was holding back Apple's hardware performance, Apple software developers did not hold back on CPU-intensive features in their products. Look at Final Cut Pro - the amount of real-time effects and tracks you have access to is limited only by your CPU performance. The faster a machine you have, the more real-time work you can accomplish. Look at Apple's new Motion application, with it's "Dual 2Ghz Powermac Recommended" specs. By this time next year, I suspect that none of Apple's pro applications will run on a system with less than a 1Ghz processor. The requirements of new software and Operating Systems alone will demand faster and faster machines. Also take into consideration that cross-platform 3rd party software is being written for up to 3.4Ghz Pentium 4's in mind, and being ported over to our no-more-than 2Ghz Macs. Regardless of what you do with your computer, more software capabilities means higher CPU requirements.
Lastly, iMac sales. You know the last time Apple had a computer that sold tremendously well was also the last time Apple made a television ad that included a Price Tag for the system they were advertising (the original iMac, $1,299). When people see my flat panel iMac, their first impression is, "Whoa! How much did that cost!?!" Apple systems look expensive, and Apple has a habit of advertising their products without a sticker price, which causes most people immediately assume it's nothing they could possibly afford. Show people a system that looks like a million bucks, then give them the "starting at $999" price, and it'll be as successful as the original iMac. It won't matter that every other televised computer system from other manufacturers advertises for $499 - people used to pay $2,000 for a computer system - they can swallow $999 no problem, because when they see it, they'll be anticipating a price tag of $3,000.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Lastly, iMac sales. You know the last time Apple had a computer that sold tremendously well was also the last time Apple made a television ad that included a Price Tag for the system they were advertising (the original iMac, $1,299). When people see my flat panel iMac, their first impression is, "Whoa! How much did that cost!?!" Apple systems look expensive, and Apple has a habit of advertising their products without a sticker price, which causes most people immediately assume it's nothing they could possibly afford. Show people a system that looks like a million bucks, then give them the "starting at $999" price, and it'll be as successful as the original iMac. It won't matter that every other televised computer system from other manufacturers advertises for $499 - people used to pay $2,000 for a computer system - they can swallow $999 no problem, because when they see it, they'll be anticipating a price tag of $3,000.
Very good point. People will easily go out and pay 999 for a system if its worth it. The difference between 499 and 999 isn't a whole lot when you are talking about quality for purchase. Pay 499 for a pc system... see what it gets you. It may have a high clock and some cool things. But usually its onboard graphics, xp home, 256k l2 cache...etc etc. These systems usually get f'd up quickly.
Pay 1k for a nice mac. I would bet my life savings that the mac would out run the pc as far as stability. Thats a quality purchase and a nice justification for the price difference. 500 more for less headaches... seems worth it to me.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
A little process of elimination will tell us that the next iMac most certainly will be G5-based. If the next iMac was going to be a 1.5Ghz G4 or less, they would have been refreshed alongside the eMac the other week, just like the iBooks and PowerBooks were refreshed together.
This makes a lot of sense, but I think they still have one last Tuesday to squeeze out a 1.5 GHz G4 iMac. If we don't get that bump in two days, then I agree we'll see a G5 iMac sometime in May.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
You know the last time Apple had a computer that sold tremendously well was also the last time Apple made a television ad that included a Price Tag for the system they were advertising (the original iMac, $1,299).
The Flat Panel iMac had a version of the "Window" ad that featured the revised $1,399 price point.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Hypothetically speaking of course, if Apple could legally market a $1299 17" iMac as 3GHz machine, even if it were just on paper and the internals and real world performance were unchanged, then and only then would it sell.
Exactly. If you don't fool your customers, you have none. Apple engineers should simply glue a P4 @ 3GHz inside without even powering it. Such a machine can be advertized as a 3GHz quakeplaystation and that alone will double its sales.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
^^ I'm so glad somebody else gets this simple fact. As sad as this situation is, it's completely true.
The iMac 2 has never had the same effect on people as the original. I think this makes Steve mad. It's only true failure is pricing. Some of you might say the spec's, but in the end it comes down to pricing for those specs.
is it worth the extra money?
YES!
as a former and current powermac owner i think the imac offers a enhanced computing environment via its superior ergonomics.
to put it simply.........I WANT THAT FLAT SCREEN!
yeah the powerbooks and ibooks are amazing but the imac is THE best computer the apple makes!
period!
many of you will disagree but your wrong.
i do agree with steve jobs that all in ones are the way to go.
if apple came out with a g5 for the imac i would be happy.
the products that seduce me the most are the imac and the powerbook.
now if apple came out with a mini book...........?
Originally posted by geekmeet
let me enter this debate about the imac.
is it worth the extra money?
YES!
as a former and current powermac owner i think the imac offers a enhanced computing environment via its superior ergonomics.
to put it simply.........I WANT THAT FLAT SCREEN!
yeah the powerbooks and ibooks are amazing but the imac is THE best computer the apple makes!
period!
many of you will disagree but your wrong.
i do agree with steve jobs that all in ones are the way to go.
if apple came out with a g5 for the imac i would be happy.
the products that seduce me the most are the imac and the powerbook.
now if apple came out with a mini book...........?
But the pricing is out of range of too many people, making it a niche product for the afluant. That is not what an iMac is to a lot of people who bought the original style.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
A little process of elimination will tell us that the next iMac most certainly will be G5-based. If the next iMac was going to be a 1.5Ghz G4 or less, they would have been refreshed alongside the eMac the other week, just like the iBooks and PowerBooks were refreshed together. The fact that the eMac carries an 8x Superdrive shows us that new Powermacs and iMacs were supposed to be out the door already. We know the G5 XServes have been delayed due to some issues with the 90nm G5 chip, and thusly the iMac and PowerMac revisions have been delayed until things get sorted out with the G5. Apple planned on announcing them in March, but couldn't, so they restocked the old stuff and started all these promos they're currently running. Again, if the next iMac was going to be a G4 again, we would already have a revised iMac.
<snip>
That's interesting. What do people think (I'm asking as a soonish-iMac buyer)? I figure that the absence of an announcement could suggest a G5 lineup, but there are all manner of reasons why the releases might be staggered - higher eMac margins, production issues, stock-run downs etc.
I want to agree with you; I'm just not sure it's as clear cut as you make.
J.
PS. Ensign: why a Tuesday release day?
Originally posted by James Cocker
That's interesting. What do people think (I'm asking as a soonish-iMac buyer)? I figure that the absence of an announcement could suggest a G5 lineup, but there are all manner of reasons why the releases might be staggered - higher eMac margins, production issues, stock-run downs etc.
I want to agree with you; I'm just not sure it's as clear cut as you make.
J.
PS. Ensign: why a Tuesday release day?
How awhile Apple was in the habbit of new releases on Tuesday.
So a lot of people flock to Apple's web site on Tuesdays.
Originally posted by James Cocker
What do people think (I'm asking as a soonish-iMac buyer)?
I would strongly recommend against buying the current iMac, unless you *really* like the design. The eMac and iBook are far better values (as is the 1.6 G5 on the high end), and circumstantial evidence points to an update in the next few months.
Originally posted by 3.1416
I would strongly recommend against buying the current iMac, unless you *really* like the design. The eMac and iBook are far better values (as is the 1.6 G5 on the high end), and circumstantial evidence points to an update in the next few months.
I would hope that would be the next few Weeks!
Originally posted by oldmacfan
I would hope that would be the next few Weeks!
Wouldn't we all. But if they're waiting on sufficient supplies of the 970FX, I doubt it.
Originally posted by 3.1416
Wouldn't we all. But if they're waiting on sufficient supplies of the 970FX, I doubt it.
Well if the 975 is on the way to be 3.0Ghz, and Apple is going to announce that at WWDC, then they should in the next couple of weeks announce a 970fx based iMac or replacement there of.
Originally posted by concentricity
What you can do, and how quickly you can do it has almost nothing to do with CPU speed these days for 90%+ of people. Why doesn't anyone here seem to "get it"? Especially in a mac crowd! The problem is not - IS NOT - CPU speed, DDR "trueness", or any other spec that's "lacking" on the mac. The problem is that most people are stupid, and have yet to understand the reality of computing - Getting things done, in a simple and effective manner, and with the freedom to do as you will, is the ultimate power of computing. Macs offer that with much more abundance than any other platform out there, for most people, they just don't know it yet.
You are totally wrong (and that was the nicest way I could say it). I get things done a lot faster on my 800 MHz G4 then I did on my 300MHz G3. And when using a faster computer I can get even more things done in a day.
Anyone who corrects and prints photos taken with their digital camera, plays games, or edits a home movie with their computer, to just name three uses, will truly benefit from more computing power.
The idiots who say people don't need faster computers are like some of the fools at IBM in the 70s who thought that individuals would never need computers at all. They just don't get it.
The truth of the mater is that, at this point in time, no company makes a computer that is fast enough for the average user. We all make do with what we can get, but computers are nowhere near as powerful as we want them to be. That's why people keep upgrading every few years.