"We should have had the good stuff ready"
Hear me out...
I think Steve & Co. had this iMac all ready to go, but the G5 was delayed, and so they took all the chips that were supposed to go into the iMacs and doubled-up on the G4 towers. That's why there were enough 800Mhz G4 chips to go dual on the high end...because they were planning on stuffing them into all the iMacs. I believe the Apollo chips have always been set to go into the PowerBooks, and future iMac revisions, while the G5 was meant for the Pro line.
People were expecting the G5s before the last macworld, let alone this current one, and if I recall correctly, Motorola (or Apple, in-house?) has been working on them for longer than they have been working on the Apollo chips. The comments by Steve about the "good stuff" not being ready, the "closing the Mhz gap" and all the other evidence seems like G5s are just as likely as super-speed-bumped Apollos...
I could be way off base here, but I think by putting an 800Mhz G4 into the iMac, Apple has indicated something pretty special is in store for the Pro line...
I think Steve & Co. had this iMac all ready to go, but the G5 was delayed, and so they took all the chips that were supposed to go into the iMacs and doubled-up on the G4 towers. That's why there were enough 800Mhz G4 chips to go dual on the high end...because they were planning on stuffing them into all the iMacs. I believe the Apollo chips have always been set to go into the PowerBooks, and future iMac revisions, while the G5 was meant for the Pro line.
People were expecting the G5s before the last macworld, let alone this current one, and if I recall correctly, Motorola (or Apple, in-house?) has been working on them for longer than they have been working on the Apollo chips. The comments by Steve about the "good stuff" not being ready, the "closing the Mhz gap" and all the other evidence seems like G5s are just as likely as super-speed-bumped Apollos...
I could be way off base here, but I think by putting an 800Mhz G4 into the iMac, Apple has indicated something pretty special is in store for the Pro line...
Comments
The iMacs had G3s when the towers had G4s.
The new iMacs have G4 so the new towers will have G5s.
Logical conclusion I think. And for those who say no new case- what would and does the current tower look like sitting next to the new iMac? Would Steve and Jon spend that much time on the iMacs to not intro a breakthru on the towers? Not to mention the white keyboard and mouse that does not match the current towers.
Why invest time and energy in the Apollo if it was intended for the towers for only 3-6 months? It doesn't scale high enough for the towers because the towers need 1.2ghz now.
The iMac is at only 800mhz, so it gets the Apollo that scales to 1.2ghz or whatever, that means at least 4 speed bumps at 100mhz per bump. That's good life.
The G5 has been around longer then the Apollo, why does it seem like a dream to think they are a month or so off? No one knew anything at all about the new iMac, that could logically be said the same holds true for the G5. We don't know anything, that doesn't mean it's not ready.
Two points I think scream G5.
The iMac getting a G4.
The iMac makes the current tower laughable in terms of looks, speed, value and features.
the imac also had G3s when the powermac had g3s.
<strong>why does it seem like a dream to think they are a month or so off?</strong><hr></blockquote>
because they are _planned_ for _sampling_ January/February according to the (Motorola) website i posted the link to in an earlier thread. I trust them more than any speculations on rumor sites (read The Register nd MOSR) even more so with the knowledge they´ve been fed just by one source.
That´s why I think it´s a dream, YMMV.
bye.
<strong>Kidred,
the imac also had G3s when the powermac had g3s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For how long?
the imac was either equal or a tad bit slower than the lowend model. on its debut it was 233Mhz and so was the lowend PowerMac
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
<strong>August 1998 to August 30, 1999</strong><hr></blockquote>
How large was the gap in speed?
<strong>so they took all the chips that were supposed to go into the iMacs and doubled-up on the G4 towers. That's why there were enough 800Mhz G4 chips to go dual on the high end...because they were planning on stuffing them into all the iMacs. </strong><hr></blockquote>Although I agree with some of what you say, this part is wrong. The 800 Mhz PowerMac chip is different from the one in the iMac.
PowerMac = 7451
iMac = 7441
<strong>
How large was the gap in speed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I recall correctly, the gap was somewhere around 100 Mhz (233 iMac and 333 tower), though the low-end desktop was the same as the low-end iMac for a little while. However, keep in mind that this was way back when Apple was only first starting to define their 4-product matrix strategy, and there wasn't yet a solidified distinction in consumers' minds between what was supposed to constitute a "pro" machine and a "consumer" machine. Most computer companies just offer an increasing gradient of specs, and as far as I know, Apple is the only one who makes clearly-defined boundaries between the two categories.
<strong>Although I agree with some of what you say, this part is wrong. The 800 Mhz PowerMac chip is different from the one in the iMac.
PowerMac = 7451
iMac = 7441</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the difference, just the lack of an L3 cache? Could the difference be something easily changed in the fabbing process before they ramped up production? I'm no chip expert here...
<strong>Aren't the sampling plans for the embedded chip? Isn't Motorola pretty much avoiding any public discussion of the desktop G5?</strong><hr></blockquote>
that´s probably true (I dunno I´m no processor freak just trying to make some more or less educated guesses) but still is out of the horses mouth. The alternative would be to believe the rumor sites, and that doesn´t sound too appealing to me (they´ve been proven wrong more than once).
bye.
<strong>
What is the difference, just the lack of an L3 cache? Could the difference be something easily changed in the fabbing process before they ramped up production? I'm no chip expert here...
The apparent difference is lack of L3, but this involves removing quite a large portion of the die, all the cache control, TLBs, Tags etc, and the drivers for the interface. They have to be removed or disconnected from the power supply to get the lower power consumption benefit. It's a different chip.
Michael
Why ?
I buy a dual 800... problems... lots... the ASP didn't see the L3 cache... hopefully i had an AppleCare so a Apple tech guy come to my house to test the machine...
Didn't understand why the mac was so slow... grey screen and bips at startup... so I told him about the cache... and he respond to me WHAT CACHE? HE DIDN'T KNOW ! I show him the specs on the Apple Web Site... he phone to his big boss... NO ONE KNOWS !
So maybe this is true...
And what the about the first G4 733 wih cache and then no cache...
MMMhhh... can we really have G5 in a month ?
1) 800Mhz G4 iMac v. 867Mhz G4 PowerMac (too close)
2) Newly colored keyboard & mouse
3) Six months since last PowerMac update
4) All iMacs higher Mhz than highest Powerbook
5) Performance v. price great on iMacs, bad on PMs and PBs.
6) iBook still G3 (if PM's & PBs go G5, iBook can go Apollo very easily)
Any more you all can think of?
Now the 867 should have a decent speed advantage with L3 cache, but the $60 question is is the speed and expandiblity worth $1000 more ($700 plus $300 for a display). Still, if you are really into speed, I'm fairly sure the PM would handily outrun the iMac.
<strong>
How large was the gap in speed?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I remember correctly, when the iMac first came out it was at 233MHz, the same as the lowend tower. At MWSF '99 the B & W G3s came out with lowend @ 300MHz, and the iMac at 266MHz. Finally the iMac was upgraded to 333MHz and the tower got updated to 350MHz (not sure).
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly.
Apple/Moto began designing the G5 before the Apollo design was started. The G5 is almost here, I'm tellin' ya all. Just look at the lineup, there is a HUGE imbalance that is just waiting to be leveled off.
The iMac's CPU speeds are virtually the same as the Powermacs.
The Powermacs remained untouched at MWSF. Surely Motorola at least had some faster 7450 G4s ready. But Apple is waiting, because they want a bigger jump in speed.
The Apollo has ALWAYS been a low power version of the G4. This tells us that it's aimed at laptops and maybe the iMac. How else is Apple going to speed bump the Titanium?
There is no need for a low power CPU in the Powermacs...they can handle a 200 W CPU if outfitted with enough fans. Perfect home for the G5.
Finally, Apple likes the consumer line and the pro line to have different CPUs, this is a given. I can almost hear Jobs responding to the question of when the iMac gets a G4, "not until the Powermacs get G5s".
AT the very longest, the G5 will be here at MWNY, and that's the latest time possible.
With the P4 breaking 2 GHz, don't you guys think Steve Jobs would be sh!ting bricks if all they had was some lame-ass Apollo chip that would barely break 1 GHz? Jobs even has spoken of closing the MHz gap, and the Apollo will not do so. Only the G5 will.
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
Apple/Moto began designing the G5 before the Apollo design was started. The G5 is almost here, I'm tellin' ya all. Just look at the lineup, there is a HUGE imbalance that is just waiting to be leveled off.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Says who? That is what you said about G5 for this week. Where is it at? What company is making them, because it isn't Moto.
[quote]
<strong>
The Apollo has ALWAYS been a low power version of the G4. This tells us that it's aimed at laptops and maybe the iMac. How else is Apple going to speed bump the Titanium?
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Have you missed the trend over the last 20 years of how newer processors have ALWAYS required less power than their predecessor? Just curious.
[quote]
<strong>
There is no need for a low power CPU in the Powermacs...they can handle a 200 W CPU if outfitted with enough fans. Perfect home for the G5.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
I am sure tree-hugger Steve agrees that we can waste all the power we want as long as we can get these G5 monikers attached to some computers.
[quote]
<strong>
Finally, Apple likes the consumer line and the pro line to have different CPUs, this is a given.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
Just curious if you read the beginning of the thread where everyone agreed that PowerMacs and iMacs were both G3 for a long time? And the speed difference wasn't that great in terms of Mhz or proportion.
[quote]
<strong>
AT the very longest, the G5 will be here at MWNY, and that's the latest time possible.
</strong>
<hr></blockquote>
You forgot to say "The alleged G5" because until you come up with some facts that it exists (contrary to what Moto says), you have the burden of proof.
[quote]
<strong>
Jobs even has spoken of closing the MHz gap, and the Apollo will not do so. Only the G5 will.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are the specs for "The alleged G5?" I am guessing they are the same specs that everyone saw and expected for MWSF ... 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 Ghz. Hmmmmmm. How do you know what top end specs are for soon to be released G4?
Go back to the pound, puppy. Big dogs have to deal with reality. Unless you are Steve.
<strong>I think Steve & Co. had this iMac all ready to go, but the G5 was delayed, and so they took all the chips that were supposed to go into the iMacs and doubled-up on the G4 towers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the G5 was never planned for introduction at MacWorld/SF -- the plan always was for Apollo G4's. Indeed, the hardware was ready to go, which makes the fact that the speed-bumped towers didn't appear a marketing/management decision, not a technical one.
There are two mobo's in the wings -- one is SDRAM, the other is DDR. The SDRAM mobo's were ready to go, with nicely speed bumped Apolly G4 processors.
It is possible that Apple decided to just not bother with the SDRAM mobo's and wait a bit longer for the (already late) DDR mobo's, we'll have to wait and see.
[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>