I don't really have any beef with Apple moving the high end to $3499 and keeping it there for now. They do have some justification, the Superdrive isn't cheap and neither are dual processors. The low end needs to drop a bit more, though. In fact, if they took the current 733 and 876 and dropped them to $1199 and $1799 respectively, the G5s could start at $2299.
If Apple does go exclusively with the G5 this January I can see them pulling a "Yikes" on the low end... no DDR, no USB2, no 1394b. For $1799. That would be a mistake, IMHO.
I think if G5 really shows in spring and like what MOSR said, having both G4 and G5 in the PowerMac series. Apple will just call them the Power Macintosh series. Rather than calling them G5 or G4.....
If Apple gives us a G5 Power Mac (I don't think we'll see G5 PowerBooks for a year+) and it thrashed all the x86 computers across the board, not just in a few Photoshop tests, then they can pretty much charge what they want. It will sell. The caveat is that it must be the undisputed speed champ of the pc world.
How big a job is it to get OS X ready to run at 64-bit?
A quick recompile. Quick meaning hella slow, but not involving lots of human intervention.
I suspect G5 will be in Powerbooks before too long. I think they'll get Apollo's at +- 1ghz, then low-clocked G5's (800mhz +). I imagine the G5s will be SOI, maybe Low-k dielectric, 0.13, so they shouldn't be too portable unfriendly.
Hopefully IBM makes them on their CMOS 9S process. Assuming they aren't already.
BTW, iBook users, have you heard about IBM's new G3? It will scale to 1ghz+, and features 512K on chip cache. Pretty sweet, if you ask me.
I simply can't accept the lineup. I think that we will only see a mixed bag of G4's and G5's if the G5's are only available in one speed and short supply.
Once a range of G5's are available they will replace all G4's. The reason... they should be cheaper to produce.
That being the case if we do see G5's at MWSF we can expect the iMac to jump from G3 to G5 as well, unless they stay with G3 of course.
[quote] I simply can't accept that lineup <hr></blockquote>
1. Thanks Dad, I'll try to do better.
2. Yeah, what a crappy line up
3. I was basically posting what others have said, not what I wanted.
[quote]That being the case if we do see G5's at MWSF we can expect the iMac to jump from G3 to G5 as well, unless they stay with G3 of course. <hr></blockquote>
WHAT??? You think that the iMacs will be G5's???? I hope that is a typo, because if you actually think that Apple is going to put G5's in the iMac and the towers at the same time then yo' smoking CRACK, ho!
I heard my first (and most likely only) inside info this weekend. While it wasn't very juicy, I believe it to be totally accurate based on the credibility of my source.
caffine posted this on the second page of this thread:
[quote] It came to my mind that MacOS X 10.2 is more or less programmed for a 2002 March release.
So, wouldn't it be logic to release both an adapted OS with the new G5.
This scenario would match the predicted timeframes for release of both products.
Only some ideas. <hr></blockquote>
According to what I heard, caffine pretty much nailed it. Also, the production specs for the G5 machines are "for all intents and purposes" final. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[quote] WHAT??? You think that the iMacs will be G5's???? <hr></blockquote>
I think it is possible. Why would you upgrade the G3 imac to a G4 if the G4 costs more than a G5? Apple wants to make the most profit possible and that means building machines for the lowest costs with the best performance.
SJ want's DVD burning on consumer machines, G5 is the way to achieve this. Don't forget that the Original B & W G3's had the same processors as the iMacs. Different clock rates and other componants accepted.
If there are sufficent G5's around then yes I expect them in iMacs. The G4's have not made it to the iMacs because they are simply too expensive for a consumer machine. G5's are said to be cheaper than G4's to produce so the gap between G5's and G3' or Apollos will not be that much.
Building the best machines in the market will bring about more sales. Team that up with the best OS and the best software and you have a winning formular.
<strong>I heard my first (and most likely only) inside info this weekend. While it wasn't very juicy, I believe it to be totally accurate based on the credibility of my source.
caffine posted this on the second page of this thread:
According to what I heard, caffine pretty much nailed it. Also, the production specs for the G5 machines are "for all intents and purposes" final. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
So then you are saying that the G5 and OSX 10.2 64bit will debut in February?
MacEdition's Naked Mole Rat, pretty hillarious column in general and sometimes accurate, has touched upon a possibility that I have been dreading all along. To wit: The G5s being only a pumped up G4 and renamed, all in the name of marketing. We're chomping at the bit for the G5, so Steve gives it to us, but in name only. How much would that suck?! Check out the <a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20011108.php"; target="_blank">Naked Mole Rat</a>
I think it is possible. Why would you upgrade the G3 imac to a G4 if the G4 costs more than a G5? Apple wants to make the most profit possible and that means building machines for the lowest costs with the best performance.
SJ want's DVD burning on consumer machines, G5 is the way to achieve this. Don't forget that the Original B & W G3's had the same processors as the iMacs. Different clock rates and other componants accepted.
If there are sufficent G5's around then yes I expect them in iMacs. The G4's have not made it to the iMacs because they are simply too expensive for a consumer machine. G5's are said to be cheaper than G4's to produce so the gap between G5's and G3' or Apollos will not be that much.
Building the best machines in the market will bring about more sales. Team that up with the best OS and the best software and you have a winning formular.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry but I don't think that will happen. And by the way, in that context, the word is EXcepted.
But, good point about the original iMacs. That alone however is not nearly enough to make a case for a G5 iMac.
Are you telling me they would have a G3 ibook, G4 PB, G5 iMac, and G5 PM? I don't think that would make the product matrix very clear.
There were not dates given more specific than the first half of '02. The only technical detail was that the new machines will use a true 64 bit G5 processor.
If G5 was going to be such a universally applicable product, Mot and IBM wouldn't even have bothered with the Apollo and Sahara respectively. No, I think that by the end of 2002 we may indeed see altivec for the consumer lines (IBM has SIMD slated for SaharaII in H2 2002), but we won't see iMac processor parity with G5.
We won't even see 64bit procs. Whatever gets called a G5 will be 32bit. Apple just now has an almost acceptable version of it's new OS at 32 bits. They're not ready to do 64 yet, and won't be for some time. 64bit procs aren't on anyone's consumer time lines for quite awhile yet. Not AMD, not intel, not MS (from the software side). The 64 bit stuff will exist but if you think that the current PowerMacs are expensive, watch out!!! A Itanium chip alone costs more than most home computers. People are getting smoke blown up their asses about 64bit G5. Their will be something with a longer pipeline and a stronger FPU that is 32 bit, too hot for anything but a desktop, but also faster than any other PPC. It'll exist only to keep the prolines in the ball-park with 3-d, 2-D, and rendering in general. Apollo and Sahara will be frugal, and cool, enough to run in everything else. Right now, 7440 (which is basically 7450 with less transistors) is running in a laptop. 7460 will consume less power than 7450 and compare well with 7440 in heat and power consumption. Strip a few transistors form Apollo (as they did to create 7440) and you get a very good laptop chip with room to grow over the next 18-24 months.
By the end of 2002 Apple's line-up will balance itself a little more like wintels: Much faster (Mhz wise) desktops; lower (relative to desktops) Mhz laptops, and consumer models. ALL 32 bits The new cheaper chips are the Apollo and Sahara (by virtue their more advanced and higher yielding fabs)
If a G5 exists at all, it will be a pumped up G4 designed to run fast at the expense of heat and efficiency because Mhz Myth or not Apple has a marketing battle to fight. The G4/G3s for the rest of the line up will retain their focus on smaller pipeline stages for heat and power reasons. Why? because the rest of the lineup will have to go into a very finely tuned, and relatively small, heat sensitive enclosure. The towers are the only models that can get away with a big, hot, and hungry proc chugging away underneath. Well, those and some huge-big industrial enterprise class CISCO routers, SGI workstations, etc...
1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.
2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.
All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you here. Look at all of the indicators. It is obvious that they are trying to clear their inventory of both iMacs and PowerMacs. They wouldn't offer deals like that unless they did have something up their sleeve. Also it might mean that they are going to do something with their Displays as well, but that is an unknown.
[quote]<strong>
The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but I don't see a LCD iMac anytime soon. As much as the form factor would be awesome, it just wouldn't be worth the increase in price to Apple. Now, what they will more than likely do is have the iMac at a G4 running at 733, 867, and 933, and maybe a 1 GHz one (someone check my math on that one) with PC133 memory archeticure. The reason why for this is because the iMac needs this kind of boost. Design is great, but performance is even better. I think they need to do it in steps, and making the iMac a G4 is the first step.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- "If you sold cars that didn't run, could you call that a feature?"
I think the G5 might be too hot for the convection-cooled iMacs. G3s consume I think about 7-8W vs I wanna say 40w for the G5. Even if the G5 does end up cheaper than the G4, I think Apple would be forced to either put the more expensive G4 in the iMacs, or ditch the convection cooling. Heck, even the G4 might be too hot for convection cooling.
<strong>...Heck, even the G4 might be too hot for convection cooling.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the G4 goes into the Ti Powerbook and that is even worse than convection cooling. An iMac should be able to supply both more mass than a Ti book (for better radiative cooling) and better air flow (for convection cooling). Plus there is always the example of the cube.
[quote]Apple announcing the first shipping consumer 64 bit computer is sooooo Jobs.<hr></blockquote> True... And I thought the G5 was supposedly fully 32-bit backwards compatible meaning no performance hit with 32-bit stuff? (This would make G5s w/o a 64-bit OS very plausible)
Comments
Beige G3, Nov 1997: $1999, $2499, $2999
B&W G3, Jan 1999: $1599, $1999, $2499, $2999
G4, Sept 1999: $1599, $2499, $3499
G4, Jan 2001: $1699, $2499, $3499
I don't really have any beef with Apple moving the high end to $3499 and keeping it there for now. They do have some justification, the Superdrive isn't cheap and neither are dual processors. The low end needs to drop a bit more, though. In fact, if they took the current 733 and 876 and dropped them to $1199 and $1799 respectively, the G5s could start at $2299.
If Apple does go exclusively with the G5 this January I can see them pulling a "Yikes" on the low end... no DDR, no USB2, no 1394b. For $1799. That would be a mistake, IMHO.
Fast G4 733 CD-RW
No DDR
Old Bus?
Faster G4 867 CD/RW DVD
same
Fastest G5 1.2 CD/RW-DVD
DDR
USB 2
Gigawire
New Bus
Fastester: G5 1.4 Superdrive
DDR, USB 2, Gigawire, new bus
Ultimate: G5 1.6 SuperDrive
same as above
Ultimatest: Dual G5 1.4 Superdrive
same as above
Hard Drive the size of Utah
I don't know....six models.....hmmmm. Perhaps. I still think a total G5 line up would be better.
How big a job is it to get OS X ready to run at 64-bit?
I suspect G5 will be in Powerbooks before too long. I think they'll get Apollo's at +- 1ghz, then low-clocked G5's (800mhz +). I imagine the G5s will be SOI, maybe Low-k dielectric, 0.13, so they shouldn't be too portable unfriendly.
Hopefully IBM makes them on their CMOS 9S process. Assuming they aren't already.
BTW, iBook users, have you heard about IBM's new G3? It will scale to 1ghz+, and features 512K on chip cache. Pretty sweet, if you ask me.
I simply can't accept the lineup. I think that we will only see a mixed bag of G4's and G5's if the G5's are only available in one speed and short supply.
Once a range of G5's are available they will replace all G4's. The reason... they should be cheaper to produce.
That being the case if we do see G5's at MWSF we can expect the iMac to jump from G3 to G5 as well, unless they stay with G3 of course.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
1. Thanks Dad, I'll try to do better.
2. Yeah, what a crappy line up
3. I was basically posting what others have said, not what I wanted.
[quote]That being the case if we do see G5's at MWSF we can expect the iMac to jump from G3 to G5 as well, unless they stay with G3 of course. <hr></blockquote>
WHAT??? You think that the iMacs will be G5's???? I hope that is a typo, because if you actually think that Apple is going to put G5's in the iMac and the towers at the same time then yo' smoking CRACK, ho!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
caffine posted this on the second page of this thread:
[quote] It came to my mind that MacOS X 10.2 is more or less programmed for a 2002 March release.
So, wouldn't it be logic to release both an adapted OS with the new G5.
This scenario would match the predicted timeframes for release of both products.
Only some ideas. <hr></blockquote>
According to what I heard, caffine pretty much nailed it. Also, the production specs for the G5 machines are "for all intents and purposes" final. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I think it is possible. Why would you upgrade the G3 imac to a G4 if the G4 costs more than a G5? Apple wants to make the most profit possible and that means building machines for the lowest costs with the best performance.
SJ want's DVD burning on consumer machines, G5 is the way to achieve this. Don't forget that the Original B & W G3's had the same processors as the iMacs. Different clock rates and other componants accepted.
If there are sufficent G5's around then yes I expect them in iMacs. The G4's have not made it to the iMacs because they are simply too expensive for a consumer machine. G5's are said to be cheaper than G4's to produce so the gap between G5's and G3' or Apollos will not be that much.
Building the best machines in the market will bring about more sales. Team that up with the best OS and the best software and you have a winning formular.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>I heard my first (and most likely only) inside info this weekend. While it wasn't very juicy, I believe it to be totally accurate based on the credibility of my source.
caffine posted this on the second page of this thread:
According to what I heard, caffine pretty much nailed it. Also, the production specs for the G5 machines are "for all intents and purposes" final. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
So then you are saying that the G5 and OSX 10.2 64bit will debut in February?
<strong>
I think it is possible. Why would you upgrade the G3 imac to a G4 if the G4 costs more than a G5? Apple wants to make the most profit possible and that means building machines for the lowest costs with the best performance.
SJ want's DVD burning on consumer machines, G5 is the way to achieve this. Don't forget that the Original B & W G3's had the same processors as the iMacs. Different clock rates and other componants accepted.
If there are sufficent G5's around then yes I expect them in iMacs. The G4's have not made it to the iMacs because they are simply too expensive for a consumer machine. G5's are said to be cheaper than G4's to produce so the gap between G5's and G3' or Apollos will not be that much.
Building the best machines in the market will bring about more sales. Team that up with the best OS and the best software and you have a winning formular.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry but I don't think that will happen. And by the way, in that context, the word is EXcepted.
But, good point about the original iMacs. That alone however is not nearly enough to make a case for a G5 iMac.
Are you telling me they would have a G3 ibook, G4 PB, G5 iMac, and G5 PM? I don't think that would make the product matrix very clear.
[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
We won't even see 64bit procs. Whatever gets called a G5 will be 32bit. Apple just now has an almost acceptable version of it's new OS at 32 bits. They're not ready to do 64 yet, and won't be for some time. 64bit procs aren't on anyone's consumer time lines for quite awhile yet. Not AMD, not intel, not MS (from the software side). The 64 bit stuff will exist but if you think that the current PowerMacs are expensive, watch out!!! A Itanium chip alone costs more than most home computers. People are getting smoke blown up their asses about 64bit G5. Their will be something with a longer pipeline and a stronger FPU that is 32 bit, too hot for anything but a desktop, but also faster than any other PPC. It'll exist only to keep the prolines in the ball-park with 3-d, 2-D, and rendering in general. Apollo and Sahara will be frugal, and cool, enough to run in everything else. Right now, 7440 (which is basically 7450 with less transistors) is running in a laptop. 7460 will consume less power than 7450 and compare well with 7440 in heat and power consumption. Strip a few transistors form Apollo (as they did to create 7440) and you get a very good laptop chip with room to grow over the next 18-24 months.
By the end of 2002 Apple's line-up will balance itself a little more like wintels: Much faster (Mhz wise) desktops; lower (relative to desktops) Mhz laptops, and consumer models. ALL 32 bits The new cheaper chips are the Apollo and Sahara (by virtue their more advanced and higher yielding fabs)
If a G5 exists at all, it will be a pumped up G4 designed to run fast at the expense of heat and efficiency because Mhz Myth or not Apple has a marketing battle to fight. The G4/G3s for the rest of the line up will retain their focus on smaller pipeline stages for heat and power reasons. Why? because the rest of the lineup will have to go into a very finely tuned, and relatively small, heat sensitive enclosure. The towers are the only models that can get away with a big, hot, and hungry proc chugging away underneath. Well, those and some huge-big industrial enterprise class CISCO routers, SGI workstations, etc...
NO 64 bit in 2002, count on it.
Apple announcing the first shipping consumer 64 bit computer is sooooo Jobs.
Maybe that's just because I'm overdue to upgrade.
<strong>Other things that point to a G5 are:
1) The G4 has been around for quite awhile now. Apple could use the marketing kick.
2) The iMac is also suffering, and has been for a year. This means LCD iMac and perhaps a G4. We obviously won't have a G4 iMac AND a G4 in the towers.
All in all, I think the evidence points to a G5.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you here. Look at all of the indicators. It is obvious that they are trying to clear their inventory of both iMacs and PowerMacs. They wouldn't offer deals like that unless they did have something up their sleeve. Also it might mean that they are going to do something with their Displays as well, but that is an unknown.
[quote]<strong>
The argument for LCD iMac is even more compelling. The iMac design is three years old. We expected it last time, but it is reasonable to conclude that Apple waited due to market conditions. If Apple brought this out early next year though, I think we would see a huge upgrade cycle. If it had a G4 the cycle would be even bigger. The PC market will still be in shambles, but Apple will have a truly different and powerful machine. I think this will also happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but I don't see a LCD iMac anytime soon. As much as the form factor would be awesome, it just wouldn't be worth the increase in price to Apple. Now, what they will more than likely do is have the iMac at a G4 running at 733, 867, and 933, and maybe a 1 GHz one (someone check my math on that one) with PC133 memory archeticure. The reason why for this is because the iMac needs this kind of boost. Design is great, but performance is even better. I think they need to do it in steps, and making the iMac a G4 is the first step.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- "If you sold cars that didn't run, could you call that a feature?"
<strong>...Heck, even the G4 might be too hot for convection cooling.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the G4 goes into the Ti Powerbook and that is even worse than convection cooling. An iMac should be able to supply both more mass than a Ti book (for better radiative cooling) and better air flow (for convection cooling). Plus there is always the example of the cube.