When XBox starts using 3 dual core chips per machine in the 4th Quarter of this year will Apple get all the chips that they want?
Actually the xjunk 359 is using a single processor with a triple core. So it would not have any effect on Apple. It's more likely that IBM embarrassed Steve is looking for a higher profit margin. Well that is right before apple computer makes the jump to a wintel box builder, or just closes it's doors. Either way the short term effects are not going to be good.
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
I hope that means a better video card. That's about the only thing stopping me from getting one right now.
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
Perhaps this is related to the new 10.4.2 retail boxes? In general, if they want all macs shipping with 10.4.2, then nows a good time to update the boxen.
Won't happen. There is for sure a contract obligating them to produce chips until certain date. Believe me Steve is aware IBM is not happy now, so he would not take any chances.
Ah, but they don't have to produce any new chips. Say goodbye to the 970MP or to anything faster than 2.7GHz.
(edit) As others have said, the new PPC products are probably just the Freescale 7448 generation machines.
not necessarily. My feeling is that we finally might see the famous 3ghz chip on the PowerMac probably by middle of next year. It might be the last PPC upgrade before the move into Intel.
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
Yeah, a six-month refresh of the Mac Mini would be appropriate. I also note with some interest that the single G5 powermac ships in 7-10 business days. Maybe Apple will update it to where it is a better value? Of course, I haven't been watching its ship times, but you never know.
why hide the computer behind the screen when you can hide it behind the family portrait on your desk...?
or maybe the traditional/geeky built-into-your-keyboard solution...?
well, most people i know that have switched choosed between the ibook, imac and mini. some chose the ibook, some the mini, almost non the imac.
why no imac? mostly the same old story with monitor being 'stuck' with the cpu and no way to 'save' the monitor upgrade day come we've all heard a thousand times before, but an other reason i was somewhat suprised to hear was being able to have your the computer right next to you making changing discs in the optical drive really easy with no need to 'mess with the screen'...
i know for sure the mini is the best mac for my needs, and from what i've experienced, most others needs too.
im not very conviced the imac will survive the intel jump.
im not very conviced the imac will survive the intel jump.
IMO, the iMac G5 is really at the center of the Mac product line these days, having been one of Apple's most popular sellers for the last several quarters. If you believe the Apple Store's "top sellers" list, you'll find the iMac G5 on it, while the mac mini is absent (the iMac G5 is actually the only Mac on the page). Having perused some of the folklore.org stories about Steve Jobs last night, one can really see how much Steve loves the "all-in-one" form factor, which is the pinnacle of Apple's "it just works" mantra. I think there's no hidden agenda with the mac mini: it's really targeted towards switchers who don't to put in a huge investment to buy a Mac.
That's not to say Apple's strategy won't change if iMac sales start lagging, or Mac Mini sales outpace them considerably. But as of yet, reports seem to indicate that the iMac is the best-selling mac out there, leading me to believe Apple will move even more towards simplistic designs that are primarily designed to "get the job done" and little more.
We have to get to intel first. What if IBM says forget it, we're making any more chips for you?
Steve said "OS X has been leading a secret double life..." What if some of the mac line have also had double lives? Could there be IntelMacs ready to go into production at a moments notice? Possible insurance against IBM throwing a wobbly or the market refusing to buy PowerPCMacs because something new is on the horizon (think this is called the Osbourne Effect (or reverse Osbourne effect)).
If there are... what could they run out of the box? the iApps? Safari? third party stuff via Rosetta. Would this be enough to keep sales moving / customers happy?
What if some of the mac line have also had double lives? Could there be IntelMacs ready to go into production at a moments notice? Possible insurance against IBM throwing a wobbly
First of all, I think IBM is under contract. I don't think they can just tell Apple to fuck off without getting their asses sued to oblivion.
I don't think that Apple's product line has been leading a double life, like OS X and Apple's apps have been. While I think the x86 OS & apps are pretty far along, I think Apple literally has just started designing Intel Macs.
They had to design make-shift x86 boxes for developers in Power Mac G5 enclosures. That probably was covertly done closer to the keynote. If you read between the lines, this sound like it was tentative until weeks before WWDC. I could be wrong.
First, I think it is very likely that a 3GHz G5 will ship. Long term, people don't remember all the details. IBM doesn't want to be remembered as the company that never made 3GHz, even 2 years after Apple switched to Intel. They want to show people that they could do it no problem, and Jobs is just crazy.
I think both iBooks and powerbooks will be first to switch at the same time at MWSF. What do you guys think about the Mac Mini. It has to stay low cost and could get a good G4 update when the laptops switch to Intel.
iMacs will switch depending upon performance, heat, and cost of current Intel vs IBM chips. Also will be affected by IBM/Apple relationship. iMacs still have room to grow on the G5, if apple wants and people are still buying them.
Powermacs? When the chips they need are there, whatever that means.
It seems to me that the "bottom up" switchover makes no sense from a marketing point. Unless Apple is able to deliver a quad-core PowerMac until next summer, PowerBooks running a dual-core Pentium M might slap the towers around in some benchmarks (not too many, but it will be painful enough). Selling towers for another half year or year would make them look very lackluster. Apple would not do this on their free will.
Therefore, I believe they are bound by contractural obligations to sell computers with IBM chips for something like two years if they cancel the contract early (or the contract was four years, running from 2003 til 2007).
Contracts with FreeScale would have a shorter cancellation time, I belive since FreeScale has not lately developed any special CPUs for Apple. If this is the case, Apple has to sell towers, XServes and maybe iMacs until 2007, but could switch all currently G4-based systems to intel at once.
I believe we could see a last gen G4 line based on the 7448 this fall/winter and the rapid introduction of PowerBooks, iBooks, minis and maybe eMacs running on intel next summer. The towers would get a faster 970 some weeks before this to make some late sales before the line goes into maintenance mode for 8 month or so along with the other G5-bases systems.
Given that the iMac is a best seller (check Apple's list and also Amazon's), I'm not convinced that you and your friends are a representative sample.
maybe that's true. i might be a case of only seeing one side of the 'elephant', after all most of them are what to be considered geek^H^H^H^H 'computer aware'...
Quote:
Also given your post count, just realize that this issue has been discussed over and over and over.
actually i've been reading this forum for quite some time but i rarely post, and when i do i always have forgotten my login.
i still remeber the buzz around here at the b/w g3 roll out with chocolate chip cookies and whatnot, and that really crappy drawn sketch just before the keynote.
I couldn't find this posted elsewhere and thought here might be appropriate.
Apple no longer lists the single 1.8GHz tower. Will they fill the gap? Does Apple even think there is a gap now? Will they just intro a single 2.0GHz tower and call it a day? Or will they actually intro a SFF computer based on a 2.0GHz chip in the $1000 range?
I couldn't find this posted elsewhere and thought here might be appropriate.
Apple no longer lists the single 1.8GHz tower. Will they fill the gap? Does Apple even think there is a gap now? Will they just intro a single 2.0GHz tower and call it a day? Or will they actually intro a SFF computer based on a 2.0GHz chip in the $1000 range?
More imprortantly does anyone care at this point?
I think lots of people still care -- it is going to be well into 2007 before no more PPC-based PowerMacs aren't being sold, and 2008 before you can say with confidence that an Intel-based Mac will do better than a PPC-based Mac in all cases. Transitions are bumpy and a big deal, so getting the last of the pre-transition machines is often a good move.
As for whether a single processor machine is still interesting, I don't know. There is a price gap there which Apple should fill, but it does need to be something stronger than the 1.8 single.
We're fairly sure that the 970MP is real and has been developed. IBM is not going to drop it after designing it, and it is in their best interest to sell as many as they can to Apple before Apple moves on. Apple needs something to hold up the high end of the Mac lineup until Intel can begin filling the role in 2007, and that is a whole year and half (minimum). A bump to 3 GHz alone isn't going to do it. Going to a single 970MP might do it, but since they have all the tech for dual 970MPs (depending on the thermal issues) it would be silly not to proceed. Intel will be in a position to deliver dual duals with better per-core performance by 2007 (if not even more cores). The real question (to me) is are we going to see a 65nm shrink of the 970 core, or is that part of the reason Apple is switching now.
Apple no longer lists the single 1.8GHz tower. Will they fill the gap? Does Apple even think there is a gap now? Will they just intro a single 2.0GHz tower and call it a day? Or will they actually intro a SFF computer based on a 2.0GHz chip in the $1000 range?
Yeah, I noticed that too and I find it not surprising. The single 1.8 GHz was way overpriced and despite its expandability, it compared badly to the iMac G5 price- and feature-wise.
We're fairly sure that the 970MP is real and has been developed. IBM is not going to drop it after designing it, and it is in their best interest to sell as many as they can to Apple before Apple moves on. Apple needs something to hold up the high end of the Mac lineup until Intel can begin filling the role in 2007, and that is a whole year and half (minimum). A bump to 3 GHz alone isn't going to do it. Going to a single 970MP might do it, but since they have all the tech for dual 970MPs (depending on the thermal issues) it would be silly not to proceed. Intel will be in a position to deliver dual duals with better per-core performance by 2007 (if not even more cores). The real question (to me) is are we going to see a 65nm shrink of the 970 core, or is that part of the reason Apple is switching now.
I know nothing! But I still speculate that the final straw was no 970MP and no 970GX. Remember Motorolla's G5, and Dolphin saying it's coming? History repeats itself.
Comments
Originally posted by vinney57
Wrong.
Completely and utterly.
Originally posted by Silverdog
When XBox starts using 3 dual core chips per machine in the 4th Quarter of this year will Apple get all the chips that they want?
Actually the xjunk 359 is using a single processor with a triple core. So it would not have any effect on Apple. It's more likely that IBM embarrassed Steve is looking for a higher profit margin. Well that is right before apple computer makes the jump to a wintel box builder, or just closes it's doors. Either way the short term effects are not going to be good.
Originally posted by jwdawso
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
I hope that means a better video card. That's about the only thing stopping me from getting one right now.
Originally posted by jwdawso
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
Perhaps this is related to the new 10.4.2 retail boxes? In general, if they want all macs shipping with 10.4.2, then nows a good time to update the boxen.
Originally posted by gugy
Won't happen. There is for sure a contract obligating them to produce chips until certain date. Believe me Steve is aware IBM is not happy now, so he would not take any chances.
Ah, but they don't have to produce any new chips. Say goodbye to the 970MP or to anything faster than 2.7GHz.
(edit) As others have said, the new PPC products are probably just the Freescale 7448 generation machines.
Originally posted by jwdawso
One "great" PowerPC product about to be refreshed is the Mac Mini. The shipping time just went from same day to 6-8 days. This is NOT a **CONFIRMED**, but darn close.
Yeah, a six-month refresh of the Mac Mini would be appropriate. I also note with some interest that the single G5 powermac ships in 7-10 business days. Maybe Apple will update it to where it is a better value? Of course, I haven't been watching its ship times, but you never know.
Originally posted by vinney57
Wrong.
why hide the computer behind the screen when you can hide it behind the family portrait on your desk...?
or maybe the traditional/geeky built-into-your-keyboard solution...?
well, most people i know that have switched choosed between the ibook, imac and mini. some chose the ibook, some the mini, almost non the imac.
why no imac? mostly the same old story with monitor being 'stuck' with the cpu and no way to 'save' the monitor upgrade day come we've all heard a thousand times before, but an other reason i was somewhat suprised to hear was being able to have your the computer right next to you making changing discs in the optical drive really easy with no need to 'mess with the screen'...
i know for sure the mini is the best mac for my needs, and from what i've experienced, most others needs too.
im not very conviced the imac will survive the intel jump.
Originally posted by tubgirl
im not very conviced the imac will survive the intel jump.
IMO, the iMac G5 is really at the center of the Mac product line these days, having been one of Apple's most popular sellers for the last several quarters. If you believe the Apple Store's "top sellers" list, you'll find the iMac G5 on it, while the mac mini is absent (the iMac G5 is actually the only Mac on the page). Having perused some of the folklore.org stories about Steve Jobs last night, one can really see how much Steve loves the "all-in-one" form factor, which is the pinnacle of Apple's "it just works" mantra. I think there's no hidden agenda with the mac mini: it's really targeted towards switchers who don't to put in a huge investment to buy a Mac.
That's not to say Apple's strategy won't change if iMac sales start lagging, or Mac Mini sales outpace them considerably. But as of yet, reports seem to indicate that the iMac is the best-selling mac out there, leading me to believe Apple will move even more towards simplistic designs that are primarily designed to "get the job done" and little more.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
We have to get to intel first. What if IBM says forget it, we're making any more chips for you?
Steve said "OS X has been leading a secret double life..." What if some of the mac line have also had double lives? Could there be IntelMacs ready to go into production at a moments notice? Possible insurance against IBM throwing a wobbly or the market refusing to buy PowerPCMacs because something new is on the horizon (think this is called the Osbourne Effect (or reverse Osbourne effect)).
If there are... what could they run out of the box? the iApps? Safari? third party stuff via Rosetta. Would this be enough to keep sales moving / customers happy?
Originally posted by tubgirl
why hide the computer behind the screen when you can hide it behind the family portrait on your desk...?
...
im not very conviced the imac will survive the intel jump.
Given that the iMac is a best seller (check Apple's list and also Amazon's), I'm not convinced that you and your friends are a representative sample.
Also given your post count, just realize that this issue has been discussed over and over and over.
It sounds like the Mac Mini was made for you, so enjoy!
Originally posted by onyx-pb
What if some of the mac line have also had double lives? Could there be IntelMacs ready to go into production at a moments notice? Possible insurance against IBM throwing a wobbly
First of all, I think IBM is under contract. I don't think they can just tell Apple to fuck off without getting their asses sued to oblivion.
I don't think that Apple's product line has been leading a double life, like OS X and Apple's apps have been. While I think the x86 OS & apps are pretty far along, I think Apple literally has just started designing Intel Macs.
They had to design make-shift x86 boxes for developers in Power Mac G5 enclosures. That probably was covertly done closer to the keynote. If you read between the lines, this sound like it was tentative until weeks before WWDC. I could be wrong.
I think both iBooks and powerbooks will be first to switch at the same time at MWSF. What do you guys think about the Mac Mini. It has to stay low cost and could get a good G4 update when the laptops switch to Intel.
iMacs will switch depending upon performance, heat, and cost of current Intel vs IBM chips. Also will be affected by IBM/Apple relationship. iMacs still have room to grow on the G5, if apple wants and people are still buying them.
Powermacs? When the chips they need are there, whatever that means.
Therefore, I believe they are bound by contractural obligations to sell computers with IBM chips for something like two years if they cancel the contract early (or the contract was four years, running from 2003 til 2007).
Contracts with FreeScale would have a shorter cancellation time, I belive since FreeScale has not lately developed any special CPUs for Apple. If this is the case, Apple has to sell towers, XServes and maybe iMacs until 2007, but could switch all currently G4-based systems to intel at once.
I believe we could see a last gen G4 line based on the 7448 this fall/winter and the rapid introduction of PowerBooks, iBooks, minis and maybe eMacs running on intel next summer. The towers would get a faster 970 some weeks before this to make some late sales before the line goes into maintenance mode for 8 month or so along with the other G5-bases systems.
Originally posted by jwdawso
Given that the iMac is a best seller (check Apple's list and also Amazon's), I'm not convinced that you and your friends are a representative sample.
maybe that's true. i might be a case of only seeing one side of the 'elephant', after all most of them are what to be considered geek^H^H^H^H 'computer aware'...
Also given your post count, just realize that this issue has been discussed over and over and over.
actually i've been reading this forum for quite some time but i rarely post, and when i do i always have forgotten my login.
i still remeber the buzz around here at the b/w g3 roll out with chocolate chip cookies and whatnot, and that really crappy drawn sketch just before the keynote.
Apple no longer lists the single 1.8GHz tower. Will they fill the gap? Does Apple even think there is a gap now? Will they just intro a single 2.0GHz tower and call it a day? Or will they actually intro a SFF computer based on a 2.0GHz chip in the $1000 range?
More imprortantly does anyone care at this point?
Originally posted by rickag
I couldn't find this posted elsewhere and thought here might be appropriate.
Apple no longer lists the single 1.8GHz tower. Will they fill the gap? Does Apple even think there is a gap now? Will they just intro a single 2.0GHz tower and call it a day? Or will they actually intro a SFF computer based on a 2.0GHz chip in the $1000 range?
More imprortantly does anyone care at this point?
I think lots of people still care -- it is going to be well into 2007 before no more PPC-based PowerMacs aren't being sold, and 2008 before you can say with confidence that an Intel-based Mac will do better than a PPC-based Mac in all cases. Transitions are bumpy and a big deal, so getting the last of the pre-transition machines is often a good move.
As for whether a single processor machine is still interesting, I don't know. There is a price gap there which Apple should fill, but it does need to be something stronger than the 1.8 single.
We're fairly sure that the 970MP is real and has been developed. IBM is not going to drop it after designing it, and it is in their best interest to sell as many as they can to Apple before Apple moves on. Apple needs something to hold up the high end of the Mac lineup until Intel can begin filling the role in 2007, and that is a whole year and half (minimum). A bump to 3 GHz alone isn't going to do it. Going to a single 970MP might do it, but since they have all the tech for dual 970MPs (depending on the thermal issues) it would be silly not to proceed. Intel will be in a position to deliver dual duals with better per-core performance by 2007 (if not even more cores). The real question (to me) is are we going to see a 65nm shrink of the 970 core, or is that part of the reason Apple is switching now.
Originally posted by rickag
Apple no longer lists the single 1.8GHz tower. Will they fill the gap? Does Apple even think there is a gap now? Will they just intro a single 2.0GHz tower and call it a day? Or will they actually intro a SFF computer based on a 2.0GHz chip in the $1000 range?
Yeah, I noticed that too and I find it not surprising. The single 1.8 GHz was way overpriced and despite its expandability, it compared badly to the iMac G5 price- and feature-wise.
More imprortantly does anyone care at this point?
That's a good question.
Originally posted by Programmer
...
We're fairly sure that the 970MP is real and has been developed. IBM is not going to drop it after designing it, and it is in their best interest to sell as many as they can to Apple before Apple moves on. Apple needs something to hold up the high end of the Mac lineup until Intel can begin filling the role in 2007, and that is a whole year and half (minimum). A bump to 3 GHz alone isn't going to do it. Going to a single 970MP might do it, but since they have all the tech for dual 970MPs (depending on the thermal issues) it would be silly not to proceed. Intel will be in a position to deliver dual duals with better per-core performance by 2007 (if not even more cores). The real question (to me) is are we going to see a 65nm shrink of the 970 core, or is that part of the reason Apple is switching now.
I know nothing!