I know what Moto said, I was commenting to the poster above who said MacUser was spot on. If they were why would they be writing about that we already know and not themselves know Apple wouldn't release a 800mhz G5 but they (MU) would say that the G5 would be released in autumn?
Make sence?</strong><hr></blockquote>
KidRed, you're referring to a paragraph in their article that talks about Motorola's processor road map as is, independently of what Apple will do with the product. Apple won't be using 800 G5s in desktops next autumn.
<strong>El Presidente knows his programming, but sometimes shows definite streaks of ego. I doubt he has any more insight as to reality than one of his brethren shareware programmers--Hamrick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*ahem*
Hey, that's fine, I'm perfectly willing to be judged after the fact by what ends up being released at MacWorld/SF. If you see a G5 PowerMac there, I will gladly eat significant amounts of humble pie.
However, it isn't going to happen. No developers I know inside or outside of Apple, nor engineers I know at MOT put any credence at all into the G5 appearing until late in 2002 in desktop Macs.
<strong> Alot of people are abondoning the Apple platform.That is for sure...no Rumor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While that may be true, clearly they then must also be gaining new customers, because their marketshare has been quite steady over the last few years.... which is significantly better than the drain that was happening none too long ago.
We have both Macs and PCs in our office -- we picked up a nice new 1.6ghz Sony Pentium IV box running XP. It isn't significantly faster than a ~800mhz G4 for day to day usage, I don't see what the big deal is. Even the Athlon is having to deal with the MHz disparity issue nowadays.
[quote]We have both Macs and PCs in our office -- we picked up a nice new 1.6ghz Sony Pentium IV box running XP. It isn't significantly faster than a ~800mhz G4 for day to day usage, I don't see what the big deal is. Even the Athlon is having to deal with the MHz disparity issue nowadays.<hr></blockquote>
As a vehicle guy, I'm sure you can appreciate the value of max torque vs. the value of max horsepower.
I'm hoping we get a lot more torque...expressed as faster busses, RAM, etc.
Motorola has to work its butt off, do you know why? Because it has to, otherwise they are done for. Motorola nearly got dumped by Apple because of the appaling clock rates of the G4 (500Mhz).
So if motorola is to keep on supplying their chips to Apple, then they have to produce the goods, i.e a Powermac G5. The G5 will definitely be out in the first half of 2002. The G5 architecture is good enough so that high clock rates that match the Pentium 4 can be acheived. Apparentely, they successfully tested a G5 at 2.8ghz, but not with good enough yields for introduction to the consumer market (!yet!). However it doesn't mean that the G5 won't reach clock speeds of just above 3Ghz. I say this because the G5's rivals aren't the Pentium 4, or Athlon XP, its rivals are the Intel Itanium, and the Athlon Hammer chip, (the Hammer Chip has supposed to have reached 3.4Ghz, but they are playing the Mhz game now, when Intel have gone the other way, i.e fewer pipelines).
The G5 has to be released, or motorola will be dumped, and Apple will start failing.
Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
The G5 better come out. it's been in development for 3 or 4 years or so. Motorola needs to make up for producing the horrible G4 (not really horrible but flawed).
and Apple should be pouring money into the G5 making sure it gets done quick and early. they have 4 billion dollars in cash. pour it into the G5. they need change not a 1 Ghz G4
<strong> I say this because the G5's rivals aren't the Pentium 4, or Athlon XP, its rivals are the Intel Itanium, and the Athlon Hammer chip, (the Hammer Chip has supposed to have reached 3.4Ghz, but they are playing the Mhz game now, when Intel have gone the other way, i.e fewer pipelines).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Hammer chips as competitors, certainly, they are AMD's next generation of the x86 anyway, although they are 64 bit, and some are clearly server oriented. The Itanium, however, is a different kettle of fish, it is decidedly a server chip, big and hot and expensive, not a competitor on the desktop in the foreseable future (even if it had decent performance, which it does'nt, has'nt even got up to the clock speeds of the G4.)
Hate to say this, but Moki is pretty damn convincing, and he is in a position to know. However, it's still possible that the secret is to tightly kept for even Moki to hear about it. We'll see soon enough.
My guess is the following:
Powermac G4:
867 MHz
1000 MHz
Dual 933 MHz
That's it. But Jobs will make an ass out of himself by hyping the 1 GHz mark.
While that may be true, clearly they then must also be gaining new customers, because their marketshare has been quite steady over the last few years.... which is significantly better than the drain that was happening none too long ago.
We have both Macs and PCs in our office -- we picked up a nice new 1.6ghz Sony Pentium IV box running XP. It isn't significantly faster than a ~800mhz G4 for day to day usage, I don't see what the big deal is. Even the Athlon is having to deal with the MHz disparity issue nowadays.</strong><hr></blockquote>
day to day use
big deal. my Performa is "just as fast" as my G4 in "day to day use" too.
Moto is bleeding red ink and laying people off like crazy. I don't think they are worrying to much about Apple. I don't expect them or Apple to suddenly do much better and have the G5s for Monday.
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
I would be happy with yours. It makes sense to include AppleWorks and Quicken to entice the non-Mac user to switch. However, I'm still predicting G4's in iMacs!
big deal. my Performa is "just as fast" as my G4 in "day to day use" too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can tell you that I am horribly underwhelmed after 4 months of using a DP800 with a GeForce 3. I cannot agree with the day-to-day use statement, as I use NT machines at work that are older, but still repond to everything much faster.
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
Had a look, nicely put together, but I would make a few points:
There is no indication that a 1GHz G3 is near volume availability. 512KB L2 indicates the 750FX, which will not be available for some months yet.
1GB of L2 memory on chip would require about 50 million transistors by itself, and dissipate a lot of heat. Also if you have 1MB full speed L2, adding 2MB of (relatively slow about 1/3 speed)L3 would give you very little benefit, at considerable cost.
Maximum memory of 2GB from 4 DIMMs, is silly, 1GB DIMMs are already available and bigger ones will be soon. I expect at least 8GB, probably 16GB limit on the new PowerMacs.
802.11a airport links should be available, why settle for the 802.11b?
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
Doesn't look that bad, quite realistic, if underwhelming to me.
I agree on keeping one crt iMac (for education and the like), but not at 799. Make that 599. Lower the others by 100/200/300 dollars accordingly, and offer discounts on systems + monitors and systems + iPods.
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
Overall, I think your specs are well thought out. There seems to be adequate differentiation between and within the lines, which in my opinion is the major failing of most other sets of MW predictions.
A few things:
iMac Flat processors: It's been rumored that the new LCD iMacs will all have the same processor. This seems likely - it's worked for the iBook, and it makes production cheaper for Apple (especially if it uses Sahara G3's, which apparently aren't going to be super-expensive).
RAM: The amounts of RAM you specify are reasonable, but I doubt that Apple would use two sticks in situations where it could use one. It's cheaper to buy one 512 DIMM than two 256 DIMMS. The obvious exception is with 1GB on your high-end G5. This would almost certainly be two 512 DIMMS.
Flat iMac FSB: I think all the new iMacs will have the same basic motherboard configuration. If I had to bet, I'd go with your line-up for the high-end model (133MHz).
iMac Hard Drives: The current iMac lineup uses 20-40-60. I don't think Apple would downgrade their line to 20-30-40. The solution? Change your iMac line to 20-40-60, and your PM line to 60-80-80-100-100.
iMac Flat Video Card: I might be wrong, but I think they'll have the same card. The low end will definately still have a POS like the Rage Ultra, though.
USB 2.0: I think the only way we'll see this is if we get Firewire 2.0. Maybe not even then. USB 2.0 competes with Firwire 1.0 in terms of speed.
I'd flip the prices for your low-end PM and your high-end iMac. Unless a Superdrive is somehow involved (unlikely with a G3, IMO) I don't think Apple will raise the iMac's price above the low-end PM. I think 1499 for the iMac, 1599 for the PM.
Things I really like about your lineup:
Well, G5's, of course.
2 large drive bays on PM's.
AppleWorks 7. About damn time. And on PM's, too, thank God.
GeForce2 MX on iMacs (finally), and GF3's standard on PM G5's.
A two-button scroll wheel mouse - but wouldn't it be on all models?
All in all, your predictions are reasonable & well thought out, though they clearly reside on the optimistic end of the spectrum. However, AI seems to have a positive buzz lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right come Jan 7.
<strong>What a major disappointment...Apple has the technology and the money.Apple trying to milk the
G-3's and G-4's.Blame Motorola when they have engineers at Apple working on the G-5.So, no G-5 until the Fourth Quarter: Oct.-Nov.-Dec..One complete year away???Holy Mackeral....Maybe for the best... since O/S-X is not complete.Too many patches.I guess we will have 10.5 by then.Not as many head-aches.I wanted a G-5 new case,HyperTransport,Rapid IO,DDR Ram,MPEG-4 on the motherboard,Raycer chip for the O/S,DVD-R,100 Gig HD,N-Vidia 32 Megs VRAM,built-in broad band, etc...Also Dual G-5's at 1.6 GHz Now that is hype.To blow WinDos out of the water.Run circles
around the WinTel platform.But, look at what we will probably get.....alot of hype and the minimum in technology.Apple makes it seem like the year 2000.So... depressing.So many hard-core Mac Aficionados believed
in Apple Computer,Inc...Perhaps...2003, 1st Quarter???Sounds about right.Alot of people are abondoning the Apple platform.That is for sure...no Rumor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Renan - so you're saying that Apple is the bad guy and is to blame for no G5s. Apple could do it, but Apple is greedy and doesn't want to. THAT MAKES NO SENSE! Who is making out because of this greed? If Apple was making so much money using that strategy, why haven't they bought Microsoft yet? Why is the stock stuck at $20? Don't you think Apple would sell more Macs and make more money if they stuck in a G5?
Earth to Renan - G4's have been stuck and the G5 hasn't appeared yet because they are built by MEN (or WOMEN), not Gods. It's not greed, it's the technical challenge!
Now as far as your unsubstantiated claims - "too many patches" and "abandoning Mac's" - BACK IT UP!
But I'm with you on wanting G5s and DDR. I want G4's in iMacs too! But greed is not the issue.
Comments
Even with the problems encountered with Motorola are not the only explanation of the Ghz gap, I think that Apple is responsible as well.
Come on guys, the MOBO for example is a piece of history!!
Even the entry level PC have a better motherboard architecture.
Oh another thing, did you know that the entry level of CPU of Intel now reaches 1.3ghz and use a 0.13 micron process?
even the latest CPU from motorola, the Appolo that is not out on the market yet, still uses a 0.18 micron process
Shame shame shame.....
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]</p>
<strong>
I know what Moto said, I was commenting to the poster above who said MacUser was spot on. If they were why would they be writing about that we already know and not themselves know Apple wouldn't release a 800mhz G5 but they (MU) would say that the G5 would be released in autumn?
Make sence?</strong><hr></blockquote>
KidRed, you're referring to a paragraph in their article that talks about Motorola's processor road map as is, independently of what Apple will do with the product. Apple won't be using 800 G5s in desktops next autumn.
<strong>El Presidente knows his programming, but sometimes shows definite streaks of ego. I doubt he has any more insight as to reality than one of his brethren shareware programmers--Hamrick.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*ahem*
Hey, that's fine, I'm perfectly willing to be judged after the fact by what ends up being released at MacWorld/SF. If you see a G5 PowerMac there, I will gladly eat significant amounts of humble pie.
However, it isn't going to happen. No developers I know inside or outside of Apple, nor engineers I know at MOT put any credence at all into the G5 appearing until late in 2002 in desktop Macs.
Yes, it is possible they are in the dark too, or are being good and not sharing what information they have. But hey, at least it can't be as bad as <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001019021516/http://www.themacjunkie.com/archives/7.18.00.cube.html"; target="_blank">this guy's predictions</a>
<strong> Alot of people are abondoning the Apple platform.That is for sure...no Rumor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While that may be true, clearly they then must also be gaining new customers, because their marketshare has been quite steady over the last few years.... which is significantly better than the drain that was happening none too long ago.
We have both Macs and PCs in our office -- we picked up a nice new 1.6ghz Sony Pentium IV box running XP. It isn't significantly faster than a ~800mhz G4 for day to day usage, I don't see what the big deal is. Even the Athlon is having to deal with the MHz disparity issue nowadays.
As a vehicle guy, I'm sure you can appreciate the value of max torque vs. the value of max horsepower.
I'm hoping we get a lot more torque...expressed as faster busses, RAM, etc.
<strong>
As a vehicle guy, I'm sure you can appreciate the value of max torque vs. the value of max horsepower.
I'm hoping we get a lot more torque...expressed as faster busses, RAM, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Horsepower is King, but Torque is your Friend.
Give me the horsepower (GHz) and I'll figure out what to do with it.
However, I am pessimistic about a G5 before mid-2002, so I'll take any improvements we can get (DDR, brain wave input device, etc.) until then.
Apple is not going to hype a show like this that allows them to appear that they are still lagging.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
So if motorola is to keep on supplying their chips to Apple, then they have to produce the goods, i.e a Powermac G5. The G5 will definitely be out in the first half of 2002. The G5 architecture is good enough so that high clock rates that match the Pentium 4 can be acheived. Apparentely, they successfully tested a G5 at 2.8ghz, but not with good enough yields for introduction to the consumer market (!yet!). However it doesn't mean that the G5 won't reach clock speeds of just above 3Ghz. I say this because the G5's rivals aren't the Pentium 4, or Athlon XP, its rivals are the Intel Itanium, and the Athlon Hammer chip, (the Hammer Chip has supposed to have reached 3.4Ghz, but they are playing the Mhz game now, when Intel have gone the other way, i.e fewer pipelines).
The G5 has to be released, or motorola will be dumped, and Apple will start failing.
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
<a href="http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html"; target="_blank">http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html</a>;
Comments welcome, please try & be kind!
--BlueDjinn
and Apple should be pouring money into the G5 making sure it gets done quick and early. they have 4 billion dollars in cash. pour it into the G5. they need change not a 1 Ghz G4
<strong> I say this because the G5's rivals aren't the Pentium 4, or Athlon XP, its rivals are the Intel Itanium, and the Athlon Hammer chip, (the Hammer Chip has supposed to have reached 3.4Ghz, but they are playing the Mhz game now, when Intel have gone the other way, i.e fewer pipelines).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Hammer chips as competitors, certainly, they are AMD's next generation of the x86 anyway, although they are 64 bit, and some are clearly server oriented. The Itanium, however, is a different kettle of fish, it is decidedly a server chip, big and hot and expensive, not a competitor on the desktop in the foreseable future (even if it had decent performance, which it does'nt, has'nt even got up to the clock speeds of the G4.)
Michael
My guess is the following:
Powermac G4:
867 MHz
1000 MHz
Dual 933 MHz
That's it. But Jobs will make an ass out of himself by hyping the 1 GHz mark.
<strong>
While that may be true, clearly they then must also be gaining new customers, because their marketshare has been quite steady over the last few years.... which is significantly better than the drain that was happening none too long ago.
We have both Macs and PCs in our office -- we picked up a nice new 1.6ghz Sony Pentium IV box running XP. It isn't significantly faster than a ~800mhz G4 for day to day usage, I don't see what the big deal is. Even the Athlon is having to deal with the MHz disparity issue nowadays.</strong><hr></blockquote>
day to day use
big deal. my Performa is "just as fast" as my G4 in "day to day use" too.
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
<a href="http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html"; target="_blank">http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html</a>;
Comments welcome, please try & be kind!
--BlueDjinn</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would be happy with yours. It makes sense to include AppleWorks and Quicken to entice the non-Mac user to switch. However, I'm still predicting G4's in iMacs!
<strong>
day to day use
big deal. my Performa is "just as fast" as my G4 in "day to day use" too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can tell you that I am horribly underwhelmed after 4 months of using a DP800 with a GeForce 3. I cannot agree with the day-to-day use statement, as I use NT machines at work that are older, but still repond to everything much faster.
Apple simply cannot underwhelm the crowd again.
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
<a href="http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html"; target="_blank">http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html</a>;
Comments welcome, please try & be kind!
--BlueDjinn</strong><hr></blockquote>
Had a look, nicely put together, but I would make a few points:
There is no indication that a 1GHz G3 is near volume availability. 512KB L2 indicates the 750FX, which will not be available for some months yet.
1GB of L2 memory on chip would require about 50 million transistors by itself, and dissipate a lot of heat. Also if you have 1MB full speed L2, adding 2MB of (relatively slow about 1/3 speed)L3 would give you very little benefit, at considerable cost.
Maximum memory of 2GB from 4 DIMMs, is silly, 1GB DIMMs are already available and bigger ones will be soon. I expect at least 8GB, probably 16GB limit on the new PowerMacs.
802.11a airport links should be available, why settle for the 802.11b?
ps. Why more than one airport antenna?
Michael
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
<a href="http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html"; target="_blank">http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html</a>;
Comments welcome, please try & be kind!
--BlueDjinn</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn't look that bad, quite realistic, if underwhelming to me.
I agree on keeping one crt iMac (for education and the like), but not at 799. Make that 599. Lower the others by 100/200/300 dollars accordingly, and offer discounts on systems + monitors and systems + iPods.
<strong>Not sure if this is the appropriate thread for this, but I've posted my own personal final predictions for the new desktop lineup at MWSF...based on a combination of three factors:
1. Some amount of realistic expectations;
2. Some amount of pure wishful thinking;
3. Bits & pieces of the assorted rumors flying all over the place:
<a href="http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html"; target="_blank">http://www.aapltalk.com/shootouts/mwsf2002_speculation.html</a>;
Comments welcome, please try & be kind!
--BlueDjinn</strong><hr></blockquote>
Overall, I think your specs are well thought out. There seems to be adequate differentiation between and within the lines, which in my opinion is the major failing of most other sets of MW predictions.
A few things:
- iMac Flat processors: It's been rumored that the new LCD iMacs will all have the same processor. This seems likely - it's worked for the iBook, and it makes production cheaper for Apple (especially if it uses Sahara G3's, which apparently aren't going to be super-expensive).
- RAM: The amounts of RAM you specify are reasonable, but I doubt that Apple would use two sticks in situations where it could use one. It's cheaper to buy one 512 DIMM than two 256 DIMMS. The obvious exception is with 1GB on your high-end G5. This would almost certainly be two 512 DIMMS.
- Flat iMac FSB: I think all the new iMacs will have the same basic motherboard configuration. If I had to bet, I'd go with your line-up for the high-end model (133MHz).
- iMac Hard Drives: The current iMac lineup uses 20-40-60. I don't think Apple would downgrade their line to 20-30-40. The solution? Change your iMac line to 20-40-60, and your PM line to 60-80-80-100-100.
- iMac Flat Video Card: I might be wrong, but I think they'll have the same card. The low end will definately still have a POS like the Rage Ultra, though.
- USB 2.0: I think the only way we'll see this is if we get Firewire 2.0. Maybe not even then. USB 2.0 competes with Firwire 1.0 in terms of speed.
- I'd flip the prices for your low-end PM and your high-end iMac. Unless a Superdrive is somehow involved (unlikely with a G3, IMO) I don't think Apple will raise the iMac's price above the low-end PM. I think 1499 for the iMac, 1599 for the PM.
Things I really like about your lineup:- Well, G5's, of course.
- 2 large drive bays on PM's.
- AppleWorks 7. About damn time. And on PM's, too, thank God.
- GeForce2 MX on iMacs (finally), and GF3's standard on PM G5's.
- A two-button scroll wheel mouse - but wouldn't it be on all models?
All in all, your predictions are reasonable & well thought out, though they clearly reside on the optimistic end of the spectrum. However, AI seems to have a positive buzz lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right come Jan 7.cheers.
-mithral
<strong>What a major disappointment...Apple has the technology and the money.Apple trying to milk the
G-3's and G-4's.Blame Motorola when they have engineers at Apple working on the G-5.So, no G-5 until the Fourth Quarter: Oct.-Nov.-Dec..One complete year away???Holy Mackeral....Maybe for the best... since O/S-X is not complete.Too many patches.I guess we will have 10.5 by then.Not as many head-aches.I wanted a G-5 new case,HyperTransport,Rapid IO,DDR Ram,MPEG-4 on the motherboard,Raycer chip for the O/S,DVD-R,100 Gig HD,N-Vidia 32 Megs VRAM,built-in broad band, etc...Also Dual G-5's at 1.6 GHz Now that is hype.To blow WinDos out of the water.Run circles
around the WinTel platform.But, look at what we will probably get.....alot of hype and the minimum in technology.Apple makes it seem like the year 2000.So... depressing.So many hard-core Mac Aficionados believed
in Apple Computer,Inc...Perhaps...2003, 1st Quarter???Sounds about right.Alot of people are abondoning the Apple platform.That is for sure...no Rumor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Renan - so you're saying that Apple is the bad guy and is to blame for no G5s. Apple could do it, but Apple is greedy and doesn't want to. THAT MAKES NO SENSE! Who is making out because of this greed? If Apple was making so much money using that strategy, why haven't they bought Microsoft yet? Why is the stock stuck at $20? Don't you think Apple would sell more Macs and make more money if they stuck in a G5?
Earth to Renan - G4's have been stuck and the G5 hasn't appeared yet because they are built by MEN (or WOMEN), not Gods. It's not greed, it's the technical challenge!
Now as far as your unsubstantiated claims - "too many patches" and "abandoning Mac's" - BACK IT UP!
But I'm with you on wanting G5s and DDR. I want G4's in iMacs too! But greed is not the issue.