Although a superbowl commercial would garner a lot of attention, it seems to me like this attention would be better directed at the iMac. Why? Simple, average joe watches the Superbowl. He's not to interested in a machine that costs $1700-$3500, display extra. He'd be a lot more interested in a $1300-$1800 that includes a display.
For this reason, I doubt Apple would choose this as the forum to unleash the G4/5. It would've made more sense to release it at SF & save the iMac for the S.B.
<strong>The iMac has considerably higher margins than the PowerMac line. As such you rely on that to keep your business in a solvent position, it allows you to spend money on r&d, etc. If you have 1) new iMacs and 2) new PowerMacs, and you introduce them both at the same time you have the following scenario:
You blow your wad in one big "OH!" You make a lot of noise for a short period of time, and the short term effect is amazing, but your "girlfriend" is sitting there 5 minutes later asking herself "Is that all there is?"
Additionally, you "wow" her with the size and speed of one of your new machines, but what will please her are the "small" things, foreplay etc, ala iMac. Not to mention that these things get you far better positioned for the "Next Big Thing".</strong><hr></blockquote>Man, you are sniffing glue. First of all, to call the iMac a higher margin machine is just loopy. PowerMacs have much higher margins. Just think about it - the new iMac is basically the same thing that was offered 6 months ago (before MWNY 2001) for around $4000. Now it's $1799. Prices have come down some, but not that much. Maybe you mean they sell more iMacs, but they're definitely not going to be higher margin than those PowerMacs.
Secondly, I don't buy this idea that they wouldn't want to introduce multiple products at the same event. I think they would introduce 'em if they had 'em. Look at MWSF 2001, where they introduced the long-awaited PowerBook Ti, as well as the new speed-bumped PowerMacs at 733 Mhz, and SuperDrive, etc. etc.
Plus, although people have been talking about the new iMac, there's quite a bit of criticism for not introducing new PowerMacs, and having a screwed up product line because of that, etc. This takes away from the overall impact of the iMac, rather than adding to it.
Nope, it doesn't make sense to hold back on the PowerMac if it was available. Fact is, they just don't have the CPUs.
Yes it is. However, if Apple were to introduce it during the week, they would likely do it before the SuperBowl. And the week before the SuperBowl is the week of the 27th.
[QB]Man, you are sniffing glue. First of all, to call the iMac a higher margin machine is just loopy. PowerMacs have much higher margins. Just think about it - the new iMac is basically the same thing that was offered 6 months ago (before MWNY 2001) for around $4000. Now it's $1799. Prices have come down some, but not that much. Maybe you mean they sell more iMacs, but they're definitely not going to be higher margin than those PowerMacs.
/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I will agree with this. What I meant to say is that the total profit on the iMacs is greater then the PowerMac's.
<strong>Well, a new chip deserves a new case or at least mods to the exsisting QS case. Especailly a color mod to match the white keyboard and mouse. I think that and the speeds warrant a descent party. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, if they give me a white keyboard with my new PowerMac, heads are gonna roll.
Ahhh....I can see it now...a short case G-5/ very well ventilated...
creamy white..Kind of looks like an oven.Availability when???May,June,July,???Can I leave a down payment?Pass me that joint.I need to chill for awhile.....Summer is almost here...
Yeah, but it's not the end to all memory bottlenecks.
[quote]<strong>
Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone shipping a 200mhz DDR motherboard let alone a 400mhz SDR motherboard.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct, both of the above would run at 100MHz, DDR and QDR respectively. Then again, almost everyone seems to (technically incorrectly) refer to them as 200MHz and 400MHz.
The originally poster was stating that increasing the cpu clockspeed without increasing memory speed will you no improvement in performance. However, if we take a look at the desktop's (except the crippled 733), we see that they ship with 2 megs of DDR L3 cache running at 1/4 of processor speed. If that trend continues, then doubling clock speed will see a real [average] performance increase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For many applications, including typical fields of use for AltiVec, this is not true. A cache is only useful if you *repeatedly* access the same tokens of data, which is not the case for many number-crunching problems, for example.
If you read the comments at the bottom of the page, you'll see a slightly ticked off Gay Blade tell everyone that he didn't say the 20th but more like the week of the 20th as he said in his article "Jan. 20 or thereabouts".
Comments
My wife will agree to that. She was kinda *excited* when she saw it during the keynote
Sept. 11 pushed it back.
Just so you know.
For this reason, I doubt Apple would choose this as the forum to unleash the G4/5. It would've made more sense to release it at SF & save the iMac for the S.B.
"Macromedia Shockwave Player will be available later this month, probably Jan. 22."
<a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0201/16.macromedia.php"; target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0201/16.macromedia.php</a>;
Why specifically the 22nd?
<strong>The iMac has considerably higher margins than the PowerMac line. As such you rely on that to keep your business in a solvent position, it allows you to spend money on r&d, etc. If you have 1) new iMacs and 2) new PowerMacs, and you introduce them both at the same time you have the following scenario:
You blow your wad in one big "OH!" You make a lot of noise for a short period of time, and the short term effect is amazing, but your "girlfriend" is sitting there 5 minutes later asking herself "Is that all there is?"
Additionally, you "wow" her with the size and speed of one of your new machines, but what will please her are the "small" things, foreplay etc, ala iMac. Not to mention that these things get you far better positioned for the "Next Big Thing".</strong><hr></blockquote>Man, you are sniffing glue. First of all, to call the iMac a higher margin machine is just loopy. PowerMacs have much higher margins. Just think about it - the new iMac is basically the same thing that was offered 6 months ago (before MWNY 2001) for around $4000. Now it's $1799. Prices have come down some, but not that much. Maybe you mean they sell more iMacs, but they're definitely not going to be higher margin than those PowerMacs.
Secondly, I don't buy this idea that they wouldn't want to introduce multiple products at the same event. I think they would introduce 'em if they had 'em. Look at MWSF 2001, where they introduced the long-awaited PowerBook Ti, as well as the new speed-bumped PowerMacs at 733 Mhz, and SuperDrive, etc. etc.
Plus, although people have been talking about the new iMac, there's quite a bit of criticism for not introducing new PowerMacs, and having a screwed up product line because of that, etc. This takes away from the overall impact of the iMac, rather than adding to it.
Nope, it doesn't make sense to hold back on the PowerMac if it was available. Fact is, they just don't have the CPUs.
<strong>Super Bowl is in February.
Sept. 11 pushed it back.
Just so you know.
Yes it is. However, if Apple were to introduce it during the week, they would likely do it before the SuperBowl. And the week before the SuperBowl is the week of the 27th.
[QB]Man, you are sniffing glue. First of all, to call the iMac a higher margin machine is just loopy. PowerMacs have much higher margins. Just think about it - the new iMac is basically the same thing that was offered 6 months ago (before MWNY 2001) for around $4000. Now it's $1799. Prices have come down some, but not that much. Maybe you mean they sell more iMacs, but they're definitely not going to be higher margin than those PowerMacs.
/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Yes, I will agree with this. What I meant to say is that the total profit on the iMacs is greater then the PowerMac's.
<strong>Well, a new chip deserves a new case or at least mods to the exsisting QS case. Especailly a color mod to match the white keyboard and mouse. I think that and the speeds warrant a descent party. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, if they give me a white keyboard with my new PowerMac, heads are gonna roll.
Alex
creamy white..Kind of looks like an oven.Availability when???May,June,July,???Can I leave a down payment?Pass me that joint.I need to chill for awhile.....Summer is almost here...
<strong>
You ever hear of cache?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but it's not the end to all memory bottlenecks.
[quote]<strong>
Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't seen anyone shipping a 200mhz DDR motherboard let alone a 400mhz SDR motherboard.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct, both of the above would run at 100MHz, DDR and QDR respectively. Then again, almost everyone seems to (technically incorrectly) refer to them as 200MHz and 400MHz.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
The originally poster was stating that increasing the cpu clockspeed without increasing memory speed will you no improvement in performance. However, if we take a look at the desktop's (except the crippled 733), we see that they ship with 2 megs of DDR L3 cache running at 1/4 of processor speed. If that trend continues, then doubling clock speed will see a real [average] performance increase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For many applications, including typical fields of use for AltiVec, this is not true. A cache is only useful if you *repeatedly* access the same tokens of data, which is not the case for many number-crunching problems, for example.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>The twentieth is a Sunday.
22nd is the earliest date, methinks.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you read the comments at the bottom of the page, you'll see a slightly ticked off Gay Blade tell everyone that he didn't say the 20th but more like the week of the 20th as he said in his article "Jan. 20 or thereabouts".