Well the 750fx is supposed to support up to a 200MHz system bus (SDR) so it would have plenty of bandwidth for a 266MHz DDR memory bus. So who knows. I wonder if the Apollo is supposed to offer system bus improvements. Anyone know?
<strong>When Steve introduced the first iMac, he said that it was not a computer with last year components...
So... Revolution 2... here we are !
Blow us away!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn't it originally introduced with a 33.3 modem? That would qaulify for "yesterday's components." (I understand they made the switch to 56k ratehr fast though).
Anyway, I wanted to expand on my original comment. I should have said if it has a new form factor it would be a mistake not to go with the G4. If it was still CRT it would be no big deal, but I guess all of you figured out what I meant.
I still believe the point remains valid that IF they used a G3, no matter the Mhz, then I would believe they would HAVE to go with that until at least MWSF 2003. I mean, wouldn't it suck to get it and in Tokyo or MWNY they get a G4? Does Apple really want to go into 2003 with some of their machines still running on G3s? I can understand if the iBook is not updated to a G4 until Tokyo or MWNY, but with OSX becoming a more stable and faster OS, with all new apps coming out, I cannot believe they want to go a whole year with any of their machines, especially if the get an "earth shattering" new form factor, using a chip that cannot take full advantage of what OSX can offer (short of dual processors which are of course more than likely reserved for the Pro macs, at least for a while).
I think the iMac will, if not should, have a G4 processor. It would be a reason for so many people to upgrade to a new iMac even if the low end is "only" a 733 Mhz G4. Think of how many G3 iMac users will want to upgrade! The iMacs and Pro Desktops can both coexist with G4 processors and G4 iMacs will not cannabalize Pro G4 sales as long as there is a performance gap...like was said about DDR, faster bus, bigger drives, more expandability, etc on the Pro Desktop G4's only. As far as the G5 is concerned, I don't think Apple is ready for its release and they shouldn't be rushed with it because it will only mean a cut-back features for the G5. I remember when I got my B&W G3, all the computers across the line had a G3 processor before the Pro desktops got the G4's in Aug '99...I think we're going to be entering a transitional period where all machines will have the G4 processor and later this year we'll see the G5's in the Pro Desktops.
Another thing that could differenticate (SP? wow that is way off) the G4 iMacs for G4 Towers could be the amount of L3 (L2) cache.
All of the iMacs even after the G4 was introed were hobbled with a tiny L2 cache, the pro towers all had 1MB. Same thing with the PB. It made them MUCH faster. This technique could be used again.
I'll say again the iMac NEEDS a G4!! OS X as default is coming soon, and the iMac has to be able to run it decently. That means AltiVec.
You think they can make that many G4s at those speeds?
Going back to an all dual PM line would be cool. ::Thinks back to MWNY2000:: Say didnt the low end not have dual processors? I think they'd keep the low end single for a lower cost...
You think they can make that many G4s at those speeds?
Going back to an all dual PM line would be cool. ::Thinks back to MWNY2000:: Say didnt the low end not have dual processors? I think they'd keep the low end single for a lower cost...
in response to what was said about imac customers buying ram, they dont. i am serious if they do they are willing to pay the extra money. the people who dont update their ram are schools, because they are cheap, trust me i know. then they are the people who want just a simple computer for surfing etc, and a few light games here and there. the people who do buy ram are into high gaming and/or graphics. don't tell me that if someone was into graphics they would get a pro machine. actually that is complete b.s. alot of people like photoshop just to play with and have access to the internet. a quick download(or an eight hour download if they are on a modem) and they have the software. if you were a kid or a teacher wouldnt you pay an extra $20 to get a kick out of your new hobby?
wow.. that's probably the best and most possible lineup i've seen so far. however, i think they'll keep the ibook on G3 for now, this is the only way an iMac would be able to sell? otherwise, why buy a flat screen imac when you can get a portable with the same components for about the same price. the same reasoning makes me think apple must give the iMac a G4!
in response to psantora, about a low-end PM with just one processor.. i think this is a good idea, but i'd like to see 4 options for the PM, one single processor and 3 duals. (fast, faster, fastest, and the new too fast!)
How does it compare with difference between G4 and G3?
Which would you rather have DDr or a G4 in an iMac?
I'd go with the G4 hands down.
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Crucial prices today
256MB PC133 $60.29
256MB PC2100 (DDR 266) $71.99
Not a huge difference, nor is there much additional cost (if any) in implementing the motherboard, other than a new northbridge (memory controller).
Strangely, I would expect to see DDR appearing in iBooks and PowerBooks pretty soon, as it has lower power dissipation than SDR (Interface runs at 2.5V instead of 3.3V).
Honestly, who cares what comes after the "G"? So few consumer-level applications are Altivec-enabled ... Apple really doesn't need to go to the expense. Not to mention that IBM is closing in on Altivec performance in its PowerPC chips without the need for extra code. I know we're mostly pro users here, but seriously you don't need Altivec to use Internet Explorer, AIM, Office, Appleworks, iTunes, and most games don't take advantage of it anyway. Think about it as an option of having a 1GHz G3 or a 733 G4. The extra MHz one could have by going with G3 will first of all make up for some of the difference, since OS X IS written to take better advantage of the G4, etc. And from a marketing standpoint it has more of an impact with consumers who don't give to sh*ts about the MHz-myth. Apple will sell more with a faster G3, and the performance difference would be zero as far as Joe Internet could tell.
Comments
<strong>
Probably because it DOES cost more. The only person who said A LOT more is applenut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Alright, I guess I didn't read carefully enough in this thread, but I knew there were plenty of times when people said that it costs A LOT more.
<strong>
Probably because it DOES cost more. The only person who said A LOT more is applenut.</strong><hr></blockquote>
tis true
prices have skyrocketed for DDR RAM since I last looked. anyone know why?
Apologies for misleading anyone and posting false info
<strong>DDR RAM DOES NOT COST A LOT MORE THAN PC133 RAM.
a few bucks at most. most of the time the prices are nearly the same</strong><hr></blockquote>
How does it compare with difference between G4 and G3?
Which would you rather have DDr or a G4 in an iMac?
I'd go with the G4 hands down.
-Paul
<strong>When Steve introduced the first iMac, he said that it was not a computer with last year components...
So... Revolution 2... here we are !
Blow us away!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn't it originally introduced with a 33.3 modem? That would qaulify for "yesterday's components." (I understand they made the switch to 56k ratehr fast though).
Anyway, I wanted to expand on my original comment. I should have said if it has a new form factor it would be a mistake not to go with the G4. If it was still CRT it would be no big deal, but I guess all of you figured out what I meant.
I still believe the point remains valid that IF they used a G3, no matter the Mhz, then I would believe they would HAVE to go with that until at least MWSF 2003. I mean, wouldn't it suck to get it and in Tokyo or MWNY they get a G4? Does Apple really want to go into 2003 with some of their machines still running on G3s? I can understand if the iBook is not updated to a G4 until Tokyo or MWNY, but with OSX becoming a more stable and faster OS, with all new apps coming out, I cannot believe they want to go a whole year with any of their machines, especially if the get an "earth shattering" new form factor, using a chip that cannot take full advantage of what OSX can offer (short of dual processors which are of course more than likely reserved for the Pro macs, at least for a while).
-Adolfo
All of the iMacs even after the G4 was introed were hobbled with a tiny L2 cache, the pro towers all had 1MB. Same thing with the PB. It made them MUCH faster. This technique could be used again.
I'll say again the iMac NEEDS a G4!! OS X as default is coming soon, and the iMac has to be able to run it decently. That means AltiVec.
iMac G4 - 800, 900, 1000
Powermac - G4 866x2, 933x2, 1000x2
Powerbook G4 - 667, 733, 800
iBook G4 - 700, 700, 800
This is more likely* than any G5.
SdC
* (footnote) - which is like saying that a snowball has a better chance in a blast furnace than it does in hell.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</p>
<strong>wouldn't this be nice:
iMac G4 - 800, 900, 1000
Powermac - G4 866x2, 933x2, 1000x2
Powerbook G4 - 667, 733, 800
iBook G4 - 700, 700, 800
<<yadda yadda yadda>>
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
You think they can make that many G4s at those speeds?
Going back to an all dual PM line would be cool. ::Thinks back to MWNY2000:: Say didnt the low end not have dual processors? I think they'd keep the low end single for a lower cost...
-Paul
<strong>
You think they can make that many G4s at those speeds?
Going back to an all dual PM line would be cool. ::Thinks back to MWNY2000:: Say didnt the low end not have dual processors? I think they'd keep the low end single for a lower cost...
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. Check my footnote. I think the G5 is 2Q 2002 stuff, so I think this is the absolute best that could happen. I'm sticking to my predictions <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000421"; target="_blank">here</a>.
SdC
p.s. i dont like the shift key :-)
<strong>wouldn't this be nice:
iMac G4 - 800, 900, 1000
Powermac - G4 866x2, 933x2, 1000x2
Powerbook G4 - 667, 733, 800
iBook G4 - 700, 700, 800
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: suckfuldotcom ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
wow.. that's probably the best and most possible lineup i've seen so far. however, i think they'll keep the ibook on G3 for now, this is the only way an iMac would be able to sell? otherwise, why buy a flat screen imac when you can get a portable with the same components for about the same price. the same reasoning makes me think apple must give the iMac a G4!
in response to psantora, about a low-end PM with just one processor.. i think this is a good idea, but i'd like to see 4 options for the PM, one single processor and 3 duals. (fast, faster, fastest, and the new too fast!)
<strong>
How does it compare with difference between G4 and G3?
Which would you rather have DDr or a G4 in an iMac?
I'd go with the G4 hands down.
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Crucial prices today
256MB PC133 $60.29
256MB PC2100 (DDR 266) $71.99
Not a huge difference, nor is there much additional cost (if any) in implementing the motherboard, other than a new northbridge (memory controller).
Strangely, I would expect to see DDR appearing in iBooks and PowerBooks pretty soon, as it has lower power dissipation than SDR (Interface runs at 2.5V instead of 3.3V).
Michael
-S
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: SpiffyGuyC ]</p>