(Rumor) G4 speedbump on Monday

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 91
    nitzernitzer Posts: 115member
    [quote]Originally posted by anand:

    <strong>For those people that worry about Apple stock - you people need to go back to school. If Apple sells as many iMacs as it looks like (600K+ a quarter) than it's stock will be a-OK. Yes, margins are low but more people will buy iMacs than powermacs. Period.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Right on.



    I say go ahead with your panic selling. I'm looking to buy more AAPL. I made a ton of money off it a couple years ago and I'm ready to do it again. :cool:
  • Reply 42 of 91
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    [quote]Originally posted by timortis:

    <strong>



    Apple will put hypertransport into the mobo. A couple of months ago The Inquirer quoted an AMD executive as saying : "Apple is using hypertransport in their upcoming products too", when he was talking about the adoption of hypertransport. I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't in part responsible for the rumored unbelieavable performance of the G5 machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If Apple is releasing a minor speed bump next week, then dont look for new Mother Boards, they will keep the UMA 1.5 specs.
  • Reply 43 of 91
    nebrienebrie Posts: 483member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>Well, the iMac alone won't get the analysts happy enough to keep Apple stock high, at least not as high as it is now, in the after announcement euphoria. remember, it's the analysts to a BIG degree that decide and influence the stock value of a company, apart from the companies financial performance.

    If analysts over the world would agree that Apple is going to die soon, the stock would make a dive like never before, good thing they never agreed so far.

    If you want to get the money you have in stock form now, sell them now, because they are NOT going to rise any further with the PowerMac release next week, definitely not.



    G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Your argument is so incredibly fatally flawed... I'm not even going to comment
  • Reply 44 of 91
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Actually, this entire scenario that's played out (since Seybold really, not just MWSF) is starting to remind me a lot of what happened when the 450 MHz G4's were finally bumped to 500MHz. Everyone though it was a stop-gap measure and was SURE Motorscrotum was going to release a big update to the line. People actually thought THEN (back in spring of [2000]) that the machines shipping that summer would be where we are NOW (800+ MHz). Unfortunately, the 500MHz machine stayed at or near the top of the pyramid for a long time...



    ...anyone care to bet that 1GHz or slightly above is where we will be for a year or more? If this is all the more Motorola can produce after Steve lit a fire under their ass last year this time, how in the hell is it they will magically produce a new chip that is an order of magnitude better than what we have, all the while enduring layoffs, huge financial losses and the like?



    I hate to be such a cold bastard about it -- I REALLY wish Apple would do something to reward all the people who've been holding out so long for a brand new pro machine -- but I'm sorry, from a business perspective it just looks less and less probable with every new story that comes out. Unlike most of the rumor crap, I tend to believe this latest development because of where it came from and the couple people who have verified it from a retailer standpoint....



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]



    [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 45 of 91
    So according to all the "info" we'll see:



    Next 30 days = update 867, 933, 1000 Mhz machines with superdrives and enhanced specs (maybe new screens too?)



    Next 60 days = update to Ti PB. Apollo chip @ 700 and 900 Mhz?



    Next 90-120 days = new digital lifestyle device Possible shift to 1 12.1" iBook and 2 14.1" models with price reductions.



    MWNY = iMac refresh. 1Ghz G4 chip offered.

    G5 introduction @ 1.2 1.4 1.6 Ghz. iBook G4 introed.



    MWSF 03 (matrix reloded just months away) = 1.6 1.8 2.0 Ghz G5's. G5 Ti PB. 1.4, 1.6 Ghz G4 iMac, 1Ghz iBook. (these could be spread out over Jan Feb Mar)



    Regadless, 2002 looks to be like a great year to jump on the Apple bandwaggon.



    [ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: JasonPP ]</p>
  • Reply 46 of 91
    smalmsmalm Posts: 671member
    [quote]Originally posted by dartblazer:

    <strong>Apple needs to stay with technology, and not only stay with it but be a leader. How about putting HyperTransport into the mobo, or be the first with serial ATA. Or something else that noone else has done. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Oh yes, Apple was the first to use 3,3V EDO DIMMS. Thank you very much Apple!
  • Reply 47 of 91
    A lot of people who have been brainwashed by the RDF. Get out Apple apologists.
  • Reply 48 of 91
    thttht Posts: 4,042member
    <strong>Originally posted by Moogs ™:

    Actually, this entire scenario that's played out (since Seybold really, not just MWSF) is starting to remind me a lot of what happened when the 450 MHz G4's were finally bumped to 500MHz.</strong>



    The original G4 debacle was caused by fabrication technology mismanagement by Moto and IBM and Intel's excellent fab tech management (they leapfrogged IBM and Moto). It was a 4 stage pipeline processor on stagnant fab tech versus a 10 stage pipeline processor on advancing fab tech. It was really a no brainer who would win. It was all about how many transitors Intel, AMD, Moto and IBM were willing to use, and Moto and IBM always came up short after the end of the PPC clone wars and the breakup of the AIM empire.



    <strong>Everyone though it was a stop-gap measure and was SURE Motorscrotum was going to release a big update to the line.</strong>



    Not me. I knew Apple was going to be in a bit of bind way back in 1998 It was then that Apple had to start designing PowerPC and core logic chips themselves. That's designing, not fabbing. I had it all laid out. Take the the 604e and add backside cache (multiple short channel RDRAM would have been very interesting). After that, increase pipeline depth and add AltiVec and another FPU unit. After that add on-die L2, and perhaps memory controller and video controller. That would have taken 4 years. In the span of time, a next generation PPC microarchitecture could have been worked on.



    <strong>...anyone care to bet that 1GHz or slightly above is where we will be for a year or more?</strong>



    If the G4s in these alleged, and they are alleged not confirmed, 1 GHz Power Macs are 0.18 micron SOI (HiP 6 + SOI) G4 chips, than Moto (and thusly Apple) can ship 1 GHz to 1.5 GHz 0.13 micron SOI G4 chips in the Summer.



    If the G4s are 0.13 micron SOI (HiP 7) chips, than Apple can ship 1 GHz to 1.2 GHz 0.13 micron chips in the Summer.



    The G5 will not ship until 2003. If Moto ships a G5 (not the 8540, but a desktop uprocessor) in 2002, than my hat's off to them. They would be doing something against all odds, lottery like odds, by keeping it's design and fabrication secret for over 3 to 4 years. All G5 rumors to date have been flights of fancy, nothing more. The only thing we do know is that it exists, maybe.



    <strong>I hate to be such a cold bastard about it -- I REALLY wish Apple would do something to reward all the people who've been holding out so long for a brand new pro machine -- but I'm sorry, from a business perspective it just looks less and less probable with every new story that comes out.</strong>



    If you don't like the product, then don't buy it. Nothing to be sorry for.



    The only I would warn you of is that 90% of the time, the quality of one's work does not depend on the speed of the machine. 90% is from the wetware, 5% on software and 5% on hardware. Of course it'll make a difference if the machine was an order of magnitude faster, but when you're within 50 to 70%, it's virtually irrelevent.
  • Reply 49 of 91
    crayzcrayz Posts: 73member
    The only I would warn you of is that 90% of the time, the quality of one's work does not depend on the speed of the machine. 90% is from the wetware, 5% on software and 5% on hardware. Of course it'll make a difference if the machine was an order of magnitude faster, but when you're within 50 to 70%, it's virtually irrelevent.



    Wow! So I guess that means that someone could do Final Cut Pro 3 video work in OS X 95% as well 300MHz 603e as on an 800MHz G4! Well....90%, since you couldn't run OS X or FCP 3. But that's still pretty good!



  • Reply 50 of 91
    thttht Posts: 4,042member
    <strong>Originally posted by crayz:

    Wow! So I guess that means that someone could do Final Cut Pro 3 video work in OS X 95% as well 300MHz 603e as on an 800MHz G4! Well....90%, since you couldn't run OS X or FCP 3. But that's still pretty good!</strong>



    Is FCP an order of magnitude faster on a 800 MHz G4 than a 300 MHz 603e? Since parts of FCP are AltiVec enhanced, I would presume an 800 MHz G4 would be 2.5 faster by virtue of clock rate increase and 2 to 3 times faster on top of that on some ops due to AltiVec.
  • Reply 51 of 91
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    It's true. pscates could whip off a killer design running Illustrator on a 6100 faster than I ever could on a top of the line machine with two Cinema Displays.



    Closer to my own field, the better I get at designing and writing code, the less time I spend waiting for compilers and debuggers. The computer becomes a text editor, essentially, and I could use anything to do that.



    The only tasks for which that argument doesn't hold are tasks that require so much horsepower up front that they really can't be done on older hardware - if it were possible to shoehorn Maya onto the aforementioned 6100, I don't think anyone could do much of anything with it. But very few of the tasks that computers are asked to do fall into that category.
  • Reply 52 of 91
    jwdawsojwdawso Posts: 369member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>Well, the iMac alone won't get the analysts happy enough to keep Apple stock high, at least not as high as it is now, in the after announcement euphoria. remember, it's the analysts to a BIG degree that decide and influence the stock value of a company, apart from the companies financial performance.

    If analysts over the world would agree that Apple is going to die soon, the stock would make a dive like never before, good thing they never agreed so far.

    If you want to get the money you have in stock form now, sell them now, because they are NOT going to rise any further with the PowerMac release next week, definitely not.



    G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Since you are all knowing, then how much money are you investing in selling short Apple stock?



    Wait a second, I just realized, since you are all knowing, you are also infinitely wealthy. So you must just be taking time off from your south seas island life style to surf the web and let us poor unenlightened Mac people know the truth.



    I'm running off now to my broker - thanks so much!
  • Reply 53 of 91
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    Well, this is my own thought on the current situation. Last time I listened to my guts, I'd have bought at 13$ per share and sold at 143$ per share, that's about 1100% gain, not too bad...



    G-News
  • Reply 54 of 91
    nitzernitzer Posts: 115member
    [quote]Originally posted by G-News:

    <strong>Well, this is my own thought on the current situation. Last time I listened to my guts, I'd have bought at 13$ per share and sold at 143$ per share, that's about 1100% gain, not too bad...



    G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Is that a "would have" in there? Thinking about and doing are two different things.



    I agree there may be some weakness in AAPL in the short term (if the latest rumour holds true anyway). Late 2002 to 2003 could have some serious upside. G5s are imminent within the year and when they are released you will some serious non-mac geek drool.
  • Reply 55 of 91
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    [quote]Originally posted by THT:

    <strong>[qb]The only I would warn you of is that 90% of the time, the quality of one's work does not depend on the speed of the machine. 90% is from the wetware, 5% on software and 5% on hardware. Of course it'll make a difference if the machine was an order of magnitude faster, but when you're within 50 to 70%, it's virtually irrelevent.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Quality of work never depends on the speed of the machine unless you can't even run the program you need.



    However clearly you haven't had to deal with functions that take hours to complete. When you have to repeat them often speed does start to matter. Repeating a 2hr operation a few dozen times is far preferable to repeating 3hr operations. It also becomes important when you work to a deadline.



    Speed for an anverage consumer doesn't matter. If speed doesn't matter you buy an iMac. PowerMacs are their for those who need the speed though and frankly the current offerings aren't impressive.
  • Reply 56 of 91
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    Yeah, that's a would have, and I believe you would only "would have" too, if you had been 16 years old then and had just about 3000$ on the bank account.

    Sometimes there are other factors than fear that hold you off investing into the stock market.



    I agree that stock is likely going to skyrocket at MWNY or whenever the G5 with new mobo and case will be introduced, but until then, stock is going to dive, and if you sell now, and buy again when it's really low, you're gains will be even higher when it goes up again in H2 02.



    G-news
  • Reply 57 of 91
    What if ...

    ... Motorola acknowledged that the G4 is a dead-end road and allocated 80% of the enineering-manpower to the development of the G5 a year and a half ago?

    ... Steve acknowledged that Apple lost the GHz battle and therefore tries to win the war by skipping the 1.x GHz era and jumping right into the 2.x GHz league



    There were times when thousands of engineers tried to get another 5% speed out of prop aircraft whilst others were working on jet-engines...



    Just a thought...
  • Reply 58 of 91
    [quote]Originally posted by Gulliver:

    <strong>What if ...

    ... Motorola acknowledged that the G4 is a dead-end road and allocated 80% of the enineering-manpower to the development of the G5 a year and a half ago?

    ... Steve acknowledged that Apple lost the GHz battle and therefore tries to win the war by skipping the 1.x GHz era and jumping right into the 2.x GHz league



    There were times when thousands of engineers tried to get another 5% speed out of prop aircraft whilst others were working on jet-engines...



    Just a thought...</strong><hr></blockquote>'



    A very good point.
  • Reply 59 of 91
    g-newsg-news Posts: 1,107member
    It's what I have been hoping for for months now...

    However speed bumps above 200MHz from one chip generation to the next would be a total industry first...

    Of course a 1.2GHz jump or even more would be more than just incredibly cool, it would make EVERYONE'S HEAD TURN TOWARDS INFINITE LOOP and say: MAN THEY'VE GOT SOME SERIOUS GUTS!



    Of course it's never going to happen.

    Before we see that they'll come up with some rather lame excuses like "4 brains are better than 2" or "8 are better than 1" or whatever...SMP is nice, but SMP alone won't suffice.



    G-News
  • Reply 60 of 91
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I still think we're going to go over 1 Ghz, with the dual 1Ghz at the top like the current 800, and a single 1.1Ghz or so in the middle.



    That would seem like a pretty decent bump to me, if true.
Sign In or Register to comment.