I haven't mentioned anything about the drawbacks of dual-cores. They have been the future for a long time coming. I've only tried to correct the impression that Freescale has a dual-core G4 available now. It's still a year away. In fact, the odds are pretty good that IBM will have a dual-core 970 way before Freescale will.
I think there is a small chance of the next Power Mac having a dual-core 970. Small chance. If not next rev, then the one after that.
Sorry, I thought it was you. it must have been someone else.
I like the poll idea. I'd bet improved graphics would be in the top 2 in two out of three of those user groups.
The memory is still a bit expensive (PC2-4200 runs about double the cost of PC-3200 currently), but with the newer P4 boards taking DDR-2, and Apple coming forward with it in their machine in however long, I think the price will be closer to 3200 prices.
Why bother with PCI-X slots...they were just a transition technology and add unnecessary expense and complexity to a system with all PCI-Express.
Why bother with PCI-X slots...they were just a transition technology and add unnecessary expense and complexity to a system with all PCI-Express.
Because if I have a $$$$ PCI card, I want it to work in my new system, and it will with PCI-X, but not with PCI-e. PCI-e may one day completely take over a lineup, but it will be a while before there are no PCI-X slots left on the motherboard.
Because if I have a $$$$ PCI card, I want it to work in my new system, and it will with PCI-X, but not with PCI-e. PCI-e may one day completely take over a lineup, but it will be a while before there are no PCI-X slots left on the motherboard.
At some point manufacturers have to stop worrying about backwards compatibility when it interferes with moving the platform forward. I do not know what $$$$ PCI card you are considering, but the performance of the PCI-Express replacements will far outstrip the older PCI card and slot. Servers are the primary place for PCI-X slots at the present time for the very reason you mention...companies can pop their PCI cards in there and keep going until they either need to move to the PCI-Express replacements or whatever.
At some point manufacturers have to stop worrying about backwards compatibility when it interferes with moving the platform forward. I do not know what $$$$ PCI card you are considering, but the performance of the PCI-Express replacements will far outstrip the older PCI card and slot. Servers are the primary place for PCI-X slots at the present time for the very reason you mention...companies can pop their PCI cards in there and keep going until they either need to move to the PCI-Express replacements or whatever.
Cheers
It is not a card I am considering purchasing, it is a card I could potentially already have. There are many people with high end machines, where a single PCI card could cost as much (if not more) than the entire machine did. And you want me to just throw it out?
How does this "interfere with moving a platform forward"? PCI-X is the evolution of PCI. It makes sense to have as it will allow faster/better cards, plus backwards compatibility. PCI-e and PCI-x can both exist on the same motherboard, so why limit your self?
At some point manufacturers have to stop worrying about backwards compatibility when it interferes with moving the platform forward. I do not know what $$$$ PCI card you are considering, but the performance of the PCI-Express replacements will far outstrip the older PCI card and slot. ...
So someone ought to ask, what PCI cards are used in Macs? Besides the usual USB and ATA cards, there are a large number of users of multichannel audio input cards. These cards are not being redesigned to PCI-E or, AFAIK, even to PCI-X. Plain old PCI is plenty fast for them. In fact, some have said these cards don't work in today's PM G5s. The computer manufacturer has some responsibility to its user community to support cards they have, doesn't it?
The only PCI-E cards I know of are graphics cards, and these are replacements for AGP cards. I do not see why "moving the platform forward" should be at the expense of the user community. Needlessly increasing the expenses of users is a good way to make them not want to upgrade, to alienate them, to lose market share...
There's no reason why a modern G5 should not accept legacy PCI cards... except arrogance.
If you really want to game you shouldn't buy a Mac.
I doubt I'll get any flack for saying that either.
nah, you're pretty much right. but i just want a laptop thats capable of what pc laptops do performance wise and the current lineup seems about middle class to me. i don't care that much about the number of games or about having to wait until i can get the mac version. even if i did, i can't stand using windows.
nah, you're pretty much right. but i just want a laptop thats capable of what pc laptops do performance wise and the current lineup seems about middle class to me. i don't care that much about the number of games or about having to wait until i can get the mac version. even if i did, i can't stand using windows.
My feeling on that is that the fancier parts you put in, it only ends up making the battery life situation worse. You get to the point where, yeah you got uber framerate and effects on-the-go, but you'll be lucky to play that game for longer than 1/2 hr before the battery tells you to piss-off. So your only practical option is to keep it plugged in when you play games. Then you have to wonder if this is still really a mobile laptop (if you want to use it on-the-go the way you wish). Supposedly, what you really are looking for then is a portable workstation, not a mobile laptop. I'd think that is another kind of product- not saying an unnecessary product, just not what an iBook or Powerbook product is.
true, it's just that apple doesn't offer any other product that comes close to this portable workstation except powerbooks.
btw. i never intended to play cpu intensive games while not plugged in. i've seen many screens of p4 laptops turn dark during my cs classes.
but i'm willing to sacrifice some battery life for cpu power. imho the powerbook should (to some degree) be the equivalent of the powermac, even if that means less battery life.
i've seen many screens of p4 laptops turn dark during my cs classes.
but i'm willing to sacrifice some battery life for cpu power.
The thing is, we are already there, imo. If you want an uber gaming card and highest-clocked CPU to give you that "portable workstation" functionality, you will likely be looking at a considerably heavy/costly unit (to accomodate an ultra-capacity battery) or the standard battery that gets bleeds out in less than an hour. Add to that how uncomfortable one of these "laptops going nuclear" will be working on for extended periods. Those are some considerable drawbacks to accomodate. I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm not saying there won't be somebody who will be interested in such a product. I won't even say that it wouldn't be an interesting product just to make a technology statement. I am simply saying that high-performance laptops are already riding the edge, and going even further in the same direction will likely take them into the impracticality regime, and thus become less marketable (as far as a monetarily successful product).
Quote:
imho the powerbook should (to some degree) be the equivalent of the powermac, even if that means less battery life.
For 2D production work (and the prosumer, to which this is targeted to first and foremost), I'm sure it comes quite close (close enough). For heavy 3D work or gameplaying, there is just no getting around that a full-on workstation will be the most practical (even if you have to lug it around). There you can ensure the access to unlimited electrical power and not worry about this thing becoming molten plastic on your lap and roasting your hands. One could even argue that you might as well just stick with a Wintel product for something like that just to get the most bang for your buck if you are really intent on accomodating the cost, weight, and heat issues.
It's just my 2 cts, so don't get all bent out of shape.
Perhaps the best thing Apple can do right now is to review their target markets and develop the computers that work in those markets. Stop with all the fancy upgrades that do nothing for the average user. Continue to make the high end units available, but concentrate on the average user. That's the way to get more PC users to convert. Also, don't concentrate on the iPod so much...that bubble will soon burst. The number of possible iPod killers is increasing. Apple has been bringing new iPods to market quickley and not concentrating on their primary market as they should. Apple is a COMPUTER company, not just a music provider. I wish Apple well in the future. It is going to be a rough and long journey.
Well, the only thing I think will work with PC converts is plain ole price. We can have kewler features, slicker looking OS, imminent freedom from viruses, and the uber geek saavy of OS underpinnings (UNIX), but they will always reason that it is not a choice that could work for them because of price. I don't even know if it is possible for Apple, but they need to somehow come up with a "starter model" that is not only cheap by our standards, but a price that not even a PC user could resist. The configuration need not even be balanced by "Apple standards", but be a box with the right combination and degree of geek-tech specs to get them interested and curious. Hell, make it play the hell out of some fps games somehow. On the corporate end, it has to be able to run some version of MS Office seamlessly (I say "some version" because it is not my impression that what is out there does do it) with MS Office for Windows. It also should have full Active Directory support (or no IT outfit will ever let such a blasphemous proposal get approved). That alone will not be any small undertaking, from what I understand. Hmmm, that's all I can think of for now...
dual core, pcie but more importantly the software needs to be optimized for the hardware.
i use some epson software that runs like a dog on my dual g5.
it's ashame because i know what this machine can do i.e. fcp, motion and dvdsp.
so it isn't the hardware that's slowing down the machine it's non optimized software.
how do we change that? increase marketshare. everyone says marketshare is not important but i beg to differ.
i love my mac but non apple software can run faster and the only think i can think of is due to low marketshare, developers have even less incentive to port, optimize their software for the our wonderful hardware.
Softwar opimation!!! this point cannot be stressed enough. I think Apple sould take som initiatives to straiten out some of the most critical problems.
FlashPlayer fo example, it runs appaulingly bad on the mac. You need a dual G5 to get comparible frame rate to a shitty PC. This crutial to make the avarge conumer to presive the mac as fast platform. This and the most popoular games should be optmized by Apple it self. I do think this issue should improved when the mac platform when it goes all G5. Then the true potential of the IBM G5 compiler will be harnesssed.
My opinion is the next step for the PowerMac will be new motherboard design. I think they realize to make the most of Tiger they need a system that is fully optimized to take advantage of all Tigers new features so these features are not just sitting their not being put to good use. Hey need to be exploited to their fullest to make a serious impact while the name Apple is on a hot streak.
Comments
Originally posted by THT
I haven't mentioned anything about the drawbacks of dual-cores. They have been the future for a long time coming. I've only tried to correct the impression that Freescale has a dual-core G4 available now. It's still a year away. In fact, the odds are pretty good that IBM will have a dual-core 970 way before Freescale will.
I think there is a small chance of the next Power Mac having a dual-core 970. Small chance. If not next rev, then the one after that.
Sorry, I thought it was you. it must have been someone else.
I like the poll idea. I'd bet improved graphics would be in the top 2 in two out of three of those user groups.
Originally posted by kupan787
2x2.8 GHz G5 (dual core??)
1.4 GHz FSB
8 total DDR2 PC2-4200 or PC2-5400 slots
1 16xPCI Express slot (maybe 2...)
3 PCI-X slots
4 total SATA-2 connectors
16xDVD-R drive
The memory is still a bit expensive (PC2-4200 runs about double the cost of PC-3200 currently), but with the newer P4 boards taking DDR-2, and Apple coming forward with it in their machine in however long, I think the price will be closer to 3200 prices.
Why bother with PCI-X slots...they were just a transition technology and add unnecessary expense and complexity to a system with all PCI-Express.
[i]Originally posted by THT
Powerbook G5
1.6 and 1.8 GHz 970fx
533 and 600 MHz FSB
512 MB PC3200
128 MB ATI 9700 mobility or better
i guess i'd buy with these specs, though i'd hope for a x600 as bto. i really want an apple gaming laptop.
Originally posted by RBR
Why bother with PCI-X slots...they were just a transition technology and add unnecessary expense and complexity to a system with all PCI-Express.
Because if I have a $$$$ PCI card, I want it to work in my new system, and it will with PCI-X, but not with PCI-e. PCI-e may one day completely take over a lineup, but it will be a while before there are no PCI-X slots left on the motherboard.
Originally posted by r3dx0r
i guess i'd buy with these specs, though i'd hope for a x600 as bto. i really want an apple gaming laptop.
If you really want to game you shouldn't buy a Mac.
I doubt I'll get any flack for saying that either.
Originally posted by onlooker
If you really want to game you shouldn't buy a Mac.
I doubt I'll get any flack for saying that either.
There are hundreds of games that you can play fine on a Mac. It's only a tiny 2% of the games that won't run well.
That said, I agree that if you want to run those 2%, the Mac's not for you.
Originally posted by kupan787
Because if I have a $$$$ PCI card, I want it to work in my new system, and it will with PCI-X, but not with PCI-e. PCI-e may one day completely take over a lineup, but it will be a while before there are no PCI-X slots left on the motherboard.
At some point manufacturers have to stop worrying about backwards compatibility when it interferes with moving the platform forward. I do not know what $$$$ PCI card you are considering, but the performance of the PCI-Express replacements will far outstrip the older PCI card and slot. Servers are the primary place for PCI-X slots at the present time for the very reason you mention...companies can pop their PCI cards in there and keep going until they either need to move to the PCI-Express replacements or whatever.
Cheers
Originally posted by RBR
At some point manufacturers have to stop worrying about backwards compatibility when it interferes with moving the platform forward. I do not know what $$$$ PCI card you are considering, but the performance of the PCI-Express replacements will far outstrip the older PCI card and slot. Servers are the primary place for PCI-X slots at the present time for the very reason you mention...companies can pop their PCI cards in there and keep going until they either need to move to the PCI-Express replacements or whatever.
Cheers
It is not a card I am considering purchasing, it is a card I could potentially already have. There are many people with high end machines, where a single PCI card could cost as much (if not more) than the entire machine did. And you want me to just throw it out?
How does this "interfere with moving a platform forward"? PCI-X is the evolution of PCI. It makes sense to have as it will allow faster/better cards, plus backwards compatibility. PCI-e and PCI-x can both exist on the same motherboard, so why limit your self?
Originally posted by RBR
At some point manufacturers have to stop worrying about backwards compatibility when it interferes with moving the platform forward. I do not know what $$$$ PCI card you are considering, but the performance of the PCI-Express replacements will far outstrip the older PCI card and slot. ...
So someone ought to ask, what PCI cards are used in Macs? Besides the usual USB and ATA cards, there are a large number of users of multichannel audio input cards. These cards are not being redesigned to PCI-E or, AFAIK, even to PCI-X. Plain old PCI is plenty fast for them. In fact, some have said these cards don't work in today's PM G5s. The computer manufacturer has some responsibility to its user community to support cards they have, doesn't it?
The only PCI-E cards I know of are graphics cards, and these are replacements for AGP cards. I do not see why "moving the platform forward" should be at the expense of the user community. Needlessly increasing the expenses of users is a good way to make them not want to upgrade, to alienate them, to lose market share...
There's no reason why a modern G5 should not accept legacy PCI cards... except arrogance.
Originally posted by onlooker
If you really want to game you shouldn't buy a Mac.
I doubt I'll get any flack for saying that either.
nah, you're pretty much right. but i just want a laptop thats capable of what pc laptops do performance wise and the current lineup seems about middle class to me. i don't care that much about the number of games or about having to wait until i can get the mac version. even if i did, i can't stand using windows.
Originally posted by r3dx0r
nah, you're pretty much right. but i just want a laptop thats capable of what pc laptops do performance wise and the current lineup seems about middle class to me. i don't care that much about the number of games or about having to wait until i can get the mac version. even if i did, i can't stand using windows.
My feeling on that is that the fancier parts you put in, it only ends up making the battery life situation worse. You get to the point where, yeah you got uber framerate and effects on-the-go, but you'll be lucky to play that game for longer than 1/2 hr before the battery tells you to piss-off. So your only practical option is to keep it plugged in when you play games. Then you have to wonder if this is still really a mobile laptop (if you want to use it on-the-go the way you wish). Supposedly, what you really are looking for then is a portable workstation, not a mobile laptop. I'd think that is another kind of product- not saying an unnecessary product, just not what an iBook or Powerbook product is.
btw. i never intended to play cpu intensive games while not plugged in. i've seen many screens of p4 laptops turn dark during my cs classes.
but i'm willing to sacrifice some battery life for cpu power. imho the powerbook should (to some degree) be the equivalent of the powermac, even if that means less battery life.
Originally posted by iDave
There are hundreds of games that you can play fine on a Mac. It's only a tiny 2% of the games that won't run well.
That said, I agree that if you want to run those 2%, the Mac's not for you.
My point was 95%+ of games are not available on the Mac ever, and never will be.
I wasn't referring to the ones that do make it to the Mac but, do not run well.
Originally posted by r3dx0r
i've seen many screens of p4 laptops turn dark during my cs classes.
but i'm willing to sacrifice some battery life for cpu power.
The thing is, we are already there, imo. If you want an uber gaming card and highest-clocked CPU to give you that "portable workstation" functionality, you will likely be looking at a considerably heavy/costly unit (to accomodate an ultra-capacity battery) or the standard battery that gets bleeds out in less than an hour. Add to that how uncomfortable one of these "laptops going nuclear" will be working on for extended periods. Those are some considerable drawbacks to accomodate. I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm not saying there won't be somebody who will be interested in such a product. I won't even say that it wouldn't be an interesting product just to make a technology statement. I am simply saying that high-performance laptops are already riding the edge, and going even further in the same direction will likely take them into the impracticality regime, and thus become less marketable (as far as a monetarily successful product).
Quote:
imho the powerbook should (to some degree) be the equivalent of the powermac, even if that means less battery life.
For 2D production work (and the prosumer, to which this is targeted to first and foremost), I'm sure it comes quite close (close enough). For heavy 3D work or gameplaying, there is just no getting around that a full-on workstation will be the most practical (even if you have to lug it around). There you can ensure the access to unlimited electrical power and not worry about this thing becoming molten plastic on your lap and roasting your hands. One could even argue that you might as well just stick with a Wintel product for something like that just to get the most bang for your buck if you are really intent on accomodating the cost, weight, and heat issues.
It's just my 2 cts, so don't get all bent out of shape.
dual core, pcie but more importantly the software needs to be optimized for the hardware.
i use some epson software that runs like a dog on my dual g5.
it's ashame because i know what this machine can do i.e. fcp, motion and dvdsp.
so it isn't the hardware that's slowing down the machine it's non optimized software.
how do we change that? increase marketshare. everyone says marketshare is not important but i beg to differ.
i love my mac but non apple software can run faster and the only think i can think of is due to low marketshare, developers have even less incentive to port, optimize their software for the our wonderful hardware.
chung lee
FlashPlayer fo example, it runs appaulingly bad on the mac. You need a dual G5 to get comparible frame rate to a shitty PC. This crutial to make the avarge conumer to presive the mac as fast platform. This and the most popoular games should be optmized by Apple it self. I do think this issue should improved when the mac platform when it goes all G5. Then the true potential of the IBM G5 compiler will be harnesssed.
Viktor
Squeeze another drive bay inside for 3(min for RAID 5)
Make'em even quieter.
Add a 2U server for those that pine for Powermacs but want rack optimized setups.
Apple should OEM some networking products as well like Fibre Channel switches and maybe even an Apple Backup solution.