An excellent question Belle. (S)he has every right to post and have an account. Although, it should be said that (small d) dorsal has added nothing of relevance to this thread, and the lone post that has been made seems intended to stir up controversy. Juvenile, but not offensive. Certainly not a banning transgression.
<strong>Although, it should be said that (small d) dorsal has added nothing of relevance to this thread, and the lone post that has been made seems intended to stir up controversy. Juvenile, but not offensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know, I think dorsal's contribution to this thread has been one of the most sensible.
[quote]You don't know who you are dealing with here. Be careful about your assumptions.<hr></blockquote>
I honestly couldn't agree more, even though I'm probably taking it in a different context to that originally intended.
Dorsal is a common word so no need for banning accounts because of a name. it's not like I have a trademark on it... yet . In the meantime I thought I''d enlighten on some of the details in question. Apple has been so kind as to send some advanced information on their hardware roadmaps. Normally this is so uncommon as to be unheard of! But there are such diverging hardware plans for the upcoming year(s) that it has been made necessary. the line of work we're in demands we have advance knowledge of these plans. They are of the magnitude of when they transitioned over to the PowerPC from 680X0 or the transition to PCI from NuBus. Soon (in a couple of Quarters) Apple's hardware will be radically different than what it is now.Some of the more obscure stuff are the methods of input, output, but some other details focus on SOC develpments from Motorola and Apple and to some extent, IBM. Future personal devices from Apple will have more of an intimate relationship with Apple's desktop hardware, and to a point an integral relationship. Future desktop systems (iMac type machines and modular machines) will have bundled gadgets suited for specific uses (for example: an iPod bundled with an iMac where the iPod would slide in a slot in the imac made for it) depending on the desktop system it comes with. Some of the examples cited indicated to me atleast, that Apple want's to expand it's core business from just consumer and professional graphics artists to business and media creation.
Some of the ideas are novel but not so revolutionary. But other ideas are simply innovative and original. It gives you confidence that Apple not only wants to live on the cutting edge but thrive there. Some of this will become apparent this upcoming expo. The next couple of years will be busy for us because new opportunities have been presented to us. Some will come to fruition soon hopefully.
Dorsal, you didn't give us ANY info in that last post. Anyone could have written it. Why don't you post something that will prove you have inside info? Give us some hard facts for once. Can you do that?
Why does he have to PROVE that he has insider info? Can't he just say what he thinks? Why don't you or anybody else prove they have insider info? because we don't have to. We're just having a lively discussion and this is good for the board. reminds me of the good ole days
<strong>Future desktop systems (iMac type machines and modular machines) will have bundled gadgets suited for specific uses (for example: an iPod bundled with an iMac where the iPod would slide in a slot in the imac made for it) depending on the desktop system it comes with. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So..... if an iPod were to slide into its "mothership," what happens when one buys the next iWidget? It doesn't fit?
It seems that there would have to be some sort of form-factor convergence, or that this connector (basically, I am assuming firewire) would have to be extended from the machine, rather than having an 8-track-like place that they would join. It seems un-Apple to force such restrictions on its products when they are banking on such open standards as FireWire. I can see, perhaps, a firewire plug on the front of the machine. Are you suggesting a "dock" of sorts? that seems a bit odd.
<strong>Why does he have to PROVE that he has insider info? Can't he just say what he thinks? Why don't you or anybody else prove they have insider info? because we don't have to. We're just having a lively discussion and this is good for the board. reminds me of the good ole days </strong><hr></blockquote>
So, if no G5 in Jan, when would be the next best place to release it? March? 3 months after a ghz G4? I want a G5, but don't know if I can wait 6 more months for June/July.
If not MWSF, then MWNY. If March, then Apple announces it at MWSF.
It will be announced at MWSF, and you will all be both dissapointed and elated. Dissapointed because MHz won't be as high as some rumors suggest. Elated because performance will be staggering, compared to current Macs, and even to current Wintel boxes. Apple is about to leapfrog the competition.
<strong>If not MWSF, then MWNY. If March, then Apple announces it at MWSF.
It will be announced at MWSF, and you will all be both dissapointed and elated. Dissapointed because MHz won't be as high as some rumors suggest. Elated because performance will be staggering, compared to current Macs, and even to current Wintel boxes. Apple is about to leapfrog the competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it's the performance I'm after I'm still tugging along on my G4 450 so it will be quite a step up for me. I don't think I'll be disspointed as long as it's got faster system bus and DDR ram. A 1ghz G5 with the faster bus and ram will make me a very happy camper (not to mention the cinema display )
Remember how the G4 was announced as tech @ Seybold fall, intro'ed in January?
Perhaps the G5's technical specifications will be introduced to the developer public @ Seybold, so they can ready their apps = (recompile for 64-bit, add whatever new AltiVec calls are existant) and then the new G5, along with a slew of apps native for it, will be announced to the public in July at NY.
As for the question of breaking 32-bit compatibility, perhaps the Apps and OS would be shipped as a FAT binary, such as was shipped during the 68k-PPC switchover... both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. And, seeing as reports on the G5 say that it runs 32 bit stuff @ full speed, even non-recompiled apps would be fine.
This seems like the most plausible scenerio to me.
So, Apollo @ SF, G5 preview @ Seybold- would seem more likely in later spring, say, April? (effectively killing G4 purchasing for the time being) and then G5 public launch in July. This would also allow higher Mhz chips to be produced in great enough quantities to drive down the price, and also to meet the OVERWHELMING demand that the ~2 GHZ, Pentium 4 killin' G5 would recieve.
[QB]Does anyone think that G4's will find their way into consumer macs in 2002??? Or that Altivec will find it's way into G3's???
<hr></blockquote>
I think that Steve guaranteed us Altivec in the consumer (iMac) line in January, when he said we could expect to see a SuperDrive in the iMac in 2002.
I think it will be a G4...although the idea of a G3 with Altivec added on is interesting, there's no marketing bang to this (at least not like upgrading the iMac from G3 to G4).
A G4 upgrade for the iMac line has basically been waiting for the G5 upgrade to the PowerMac line, because we can never have the iMac and PowerMac too close to each other (again for marketing and not technical reasons).
Whether we'll get a "real" G5 or a re-labeled and enhanced G4 remains to be seen.
[quote]
Some people have said that Apple should just scrap Altivec but I think that a strong SIMD unit is essential for any future looking chip.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly... there is too much Altivec-optimized code in OS X, iTunes, iMovie, etc. for Apple to even consider abandoning it.
[quote]
However, with IBM not including an SIMD unit in the Sahara at least untill the Sahara II (not untill late 2002 at the earliest) and Apple's reluctance to rely on just Moto, it looks like Apollo belongs only to the 'power'macs for at least another year.
<hr></blockquote>
Unless Apollo magically becomes a "G5", as per some of the more reliable rumor sources lately.
[quote]
Whadda ya all think? One nice thing about the G5 rumors is that a slower G4 chip would then be available in large enough quantities for the rest of the line-up.
(snip)
Apple could put their marketing spin on G4 consumer macs: "Supercomputers for everyone!" or some such tag (better than the crap I came up with).
The last post by dorsal m seems quite odd to me. Apple releasing a roadmap like that? Including digital hub devices? I thought that what dorsal did...based on the old AI...was he worked for a company that concentrated primarily on PCI busses and motherboard architecture.
Comments
<strong>Jonathan, if
Dorsal M = real dorsal
please cancel the account of fake dorsal</strong><hr></blockquote>
What makes the "real" Dorsal Many more valid a poster than the "fake" dorsal?
<strong>Although, it should be said that (small d) dorsal has added nothing of relevance to this thread, and the lone post that has been made seems intended to stir up controversy. Juvenile, but not offensive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know, I think dorsal's contribution to this thread has been one of the most sensible.
[quote]You don't know who you are dealing with here. Be careful about your assumptions.<hr></blockquote>
I honestly couldn't agree more, even though I'm probably taking it in a different context to that originally intended.
There are good reasons for that lack of precedent.
Some of the ideas are novel but not so revolutionary. But other ideas are simply innovative and original. It gives you confidence that Apple not only wants to live on the cutting edge but thrive there. Some of this will become apparent this upcoming expo. The next couple of years will be busy for us because new opportunities have been presented to us. Some will come to fruition soon hopefully.
<strong>Future desktop systems (iMac type machines and modular machines) will have bundled gadgets suited for specific uses (for example: an iPod bundled with an iMac where the iPod would slide in a slot in the imac made for it) depending on the desktop system it comes with. </strong><hr></blockquote>
So..... if an iPod were to slide into its "mothership," what happens when one buys the next iWidget? It doesn't fit?
It seems that there would have to be some sort of form-factor convergence, or that this connector (basically, I am assuming firewire) would have to be extended from the machine, rather than having an 8-track-like place that they would join. It seems un-Apple to force such restrictions on its products when they are banking on such open standards as FireWire. I can see, perhaps, a firewire plug on the front of the machine. Are you suggesting a "dock" of sorts? that seems a bit odd.
Puzzled,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
<strong>Why does he have to PROVE that he has insider info? Can't he just say what he thinks? Why don't you or anybody else prove they have insider info? because we don't have to. We're just having a lively discussion and this is good for the board. reminds me of the good ole days
Exactly.
I believe the Apollo 1GHz+ G4 will be introduced at the Jan. '02 Macworld with DDR and maybe 1394B and/or USB 2.0.
I think the G5 will be released in March of '02 when Apple officially releases OS X.
I don't believe the G5 has floating/integer perf. 3X the P4 at the same clock speed. However, if true, it would be rather nice...
- Mark <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
No G5 in Jan
or
G5 in Jan
So, if no G5 in Jan, when would be the next best place to release it? March? 3 months after a ghz G4? I want a G5, but don't know if I can wait 6 more months for June/July.
It will be announced at MWSF, and you will all be both dissapointed and elated. Dissapointed because MHz won't be as high as some rumors suggest. Elated because performance will be staggering, compared to current Macs, and even to current Wintel boxes. Apple is about to leapfrog the competition.
<strong>If not MWSF, then MWNY. If March, then Apple announces it at MWSF.
It will be announced at MWSF, and you will all be both dissapointed and elated. Dissapointed because MHz won't be as high as some rumors suggest. Elated because performance will be staggering, compared to current Macs, and even to current Wintel boxes. Apple is about to leapfrog the competition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, it's the performance I'm after
<strong>If not MWSF, then MWNY. If March, then Apple announces it at MWSF.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahem. Seybold.
apple_otaku
Remember how the G4 was announced as tech @ Seybold fall, intro'ed in January?
Perhaps the G5's technical specifications will be introduced to the developer public @ Seybold, so they can ready their apps = (recompile for 64-bit, add whatever new AltiVec calls are existant) and then the new G5, along with a slew of apps native for it, will be announced to the public in July at NY.
As for the question of breaking 32-bit compatibility, perhaps the Apps and OS would be shipped as a FAT binary, such as was shipped during the 68k-PPC switchover... both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. And, seeing as reports on the G5 say that it runs 32 bit stuff @ full speed, even non-recompiled apps would be fine.
This seems like the most plausible scenerio to me.
So, Apollo @ SF, G5 preview @ Seybold- would seem more likely in later spring, say, April? (effectively killing G4 purchasing for the time being) and then G5 public launch in July. This would also allow higher Mhz chips to be produced in great enough quantities to drive down the price, and also to meet the OVERWHELMING demand that the ~2 GHZ, Pentium 4 killin' G5 would recieve.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>
[QB]Does anyone think that G4's will find their way into consumer macs in 2002??? Or that Altivec will find it's way into G3's???
<hr></blockquote>
I think that Steve guaranteed us Altivec in the consumer (iMac) line in January, when he said we could expect to see a SuperDrive in the iMac in 2002.
I think it will be a G4...although the idea of a G3 with Altivec added on is interesting, there's no marketing bang to this (at least not like upgrading the iMac from G3 to G4).
A G4 upgrade for the iMac line has basically been waiting for the G5 upgrade to the PowerMac line, because we can never have the iMac and PowerMac too close to each other (again for marketing and not technical reasons).
Whether we'll get a "real" G5 or a re-labeled and enhanced G4 remains to be seen.
[quote]
Some people have said that Apple should just scrap Altivec but I think that a strong SIMD unit is essential for any future looking chip.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly... there is too much Altivec-optimized code in OS X, iTunes, iMovie, etc. for Apple to even consider abandoning it.
[quote]
However, with IBM not including an SIMD unit in the Sahara at least untill the Sahara II (not untill late 2002 at the earliest) and Apple's reluctance to rely on just Moto, it looks like Apollo belongs only to the 'power'macs for at least another year.
<hr></blockquote>
Unless Apollo magically becomes a "G5", as per some of the more reliable rumor sources lately.
[quote]
Whadda ya all think? One nice thing about the G5 rumors is that a slower G4 chip would then be available in large enough quantities for the rest of the line-up.
(snip)
Apple could put their marketing spin on G4 consumer macs: "Supercomputers for everyone!" or some such tag (better than the crap I came up with).
<hr></blockquote>
YUP
<strong>apple_otaku may have something there.
Remember how the G4 was announced as tech @ Seybold fall, intro'ed in January?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, YUP
Seybold is, from a marketing perspective, the BEST place to announce a kickass new PowerMac G5.
?!?!