Apple's next generation desktops and their balance of power
I won't bring up the oft discussed advantages of using G4s in the consumer computers, except that a larger G4 user base would eventually result in more Altivec coded apps, which is needed to compete with Wintels for speed.
But what if the next iMac is a G4 iMac? At first look, there is the problem of MHz with this. After all, wouldn't the iMac just get the slower G4s that are today's powermacs? With the Powermacs getting G5s? Something like:
iMac: 800- 933 MHz
Powermac G5: 1 GHz +
Since IBM has announced a new G3 that will clock at about 1 GHZ, the use of G4s in the iMac becomes even less desireable.
However, there is a development that warrants further consideration:
Motorola is developing both the Apollo G4, and the G5. If the Apollo is destined for the iMac, and the G5 for the powermacs, then this would suddenly put the pieces in place. Low power, low heat Apollo for iMac and MAYBE laptops, and the G5 for Powermacs;
Most interesting is a recent quote about Steve Jobs "wanting the entire desktop line to surpass 1 GHz."
Another is the rumored speeds of the Apollo and the G5
Apollo: 1.0, 1.13, 1.26 GHz
G5: 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 GHz.
This makes perfect sense for a product lineup consisting of desktops all running altivec enabled CPUs. From a marketing perspective it is compelling as well. The high end iMac overlaps with the powermac, which is a common occurance among apple products. But the bus speeds differ between the two:
Powermac : 266, w/ddrRAM
iMac: 133 Mhz with crap-RAM.
The motherboard architechture makes sense for this scenario as well.
What about the GHz G3? Apple could use it in the iBook, and put the Apollo in the titanium. It would be bad business to use the Apollo in both the iMac and Titanium, but if both laptops ran at about 1 GHz, one with a G3 (1 GHZ) and one with a G4 (1.0-1.26 GHz), this would make perfect marketing sense.
Everything is coming together as I have forseen it!
But seriously, bookmark this post--it will have historical value after MWSF!
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
But what if the next iMac is a G4 iMac? At first look, there is the problem of MHz with this. After all, wouldn't the iMac just get the slower G4s that are today's powermacs? With the Powermacs getting G5s? Something like:
iMac: 800- 933 MHz
Powermac G5: 1 GHz +
Since IBM has announced a new G3 that will clock at about 1 GHZ, the use of G4s in the iMac becomes even less desireable.
However, there is a development that warrants further consideration:
Motorola is developing both the Apollo G4, and the G5. If the Apollo is destined for the iMac, and the G5 for the powermacs, then this would suddenly put the pieces in place. Low power, low heat Apollo for iMac and MAYBE laptops, and the G5 for Powermacs;
Most interesting is a recent quote about Steve Jobs "wanting the entire desktop line to surpass 1 GHz."
Another is the rumored speeds of the Apollo and the G5
Apollo: 1.0, 1.13, 1.26 GHz
G5: 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 GHz.
This makes perfect sense for a product lineup consisting of desktops all running altivec enabled CPUs. From a marketing perspective it is compelling as well. The high end iMac overlaps with the powermac, which is a common occurance among apple products. But the bus speeds differ between the two:
Powermac : 266, w/ddrRAM
iMac: 133 Mhz with crap-RAM.
The motherboard architechture makes sense for this scenario as well.
What about the GHz G3? Apple could use it in the iBook, and put the Apollo in the titanium. It would be bad business to use the Apollo in both the iMac and Titanium, but if both laptops ran at about 1 GHz, one with a G3 (1 GHZ) and one with a G4 (1.0-1.26 GHz), this would make perfect marketing sense.
Everything is coming together as I have forseen it!
But seriously, bookmark this post--it will have historical value after MWSF!
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
Comments
However, there is still one problem remains uncertain...and that is:
MOTOROLA!
Can't think of anything to add to the thread, huh?
it's not my fault that I've had lots of good ideas about future Apple products lately. Mark this thread, because I'm going down in AI history with the likes of Dorsal. This is some hard-hittin' speculation and if you can't stand the heat then leave the sauna.
<strong>
Can't think of anything to add to the thread, huh?
it's not my fault that I've had lots of good ideas about future Apple products lately. Mark this thread, because I'm going down in AI history with the likes of Dorsal. This is some hard-hittin' speculation and if you can't stand the heat then leave the sauna.</strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA, man you kill me
I thought the saying was 'can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen'
I hope it does though.
Great price/performance in both the iMac and PowerMac.
-'pert
<strong>I won't bring up the oft discussed advantages of using G4s in the consumer computers, except that a larger G4 user base would eventually result in more Altivec coded apps, which is needed to compete with Wintels for speed.
But what if the next iMac is a G4 iMac? At first look, there is the problem of MHz with this. After all, wouldn't the iMac just get the slower G4s that are today's powermacs? With the Powermacs getting G5s? Something like:
iMac: 800- 933 MHz
Powermac G5: 1 GHz +
Since IBM has announced a new G3 that will clock at about 1 GHZ, the use of G4s in the iMac becomes even less desireable.
However, there is a development that warrants further consideration:
Motorola is developing both the Apollo G4, and the G5. If the Apollo is destined for the iMac, and the G5 for the powermacs, then this would suddenly put the pieces in place. Low power, low heat Apollo for iMac and MAYBE laptops, and the G5 for Powermacs;
Most interesting is a recent quote about Steve Jobs "wanting the entire desktop line to surpass 1 GHz."
Another is the rumored speeds of the Apollo and the G5
Apollo: 1.0, 1.13, 1.26 GHz
G5: 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 GHz.
This makes perfect sense for a product lineup consisting of desktops all running altivec enabled CPUs. From a marketing perspective it is compelling as well. The high end iMac overlaps with the powermac, which is a common occurance among apple products. But the bus speeds differ between the two:
Powermac : 266, w/ddrRAM
iMac: 133 Mhz with crap-RAM.
The motherboard architechture makes sense for this scenario as well.
What about the GHz G3? Apple could use it in the iBook, and put the Apollo in the titanium. It would be bad business to use the Apollo in both the iMac and Titanium, but if both laptops ran at about 1 GHz, one with a G3 (1 GHZ) and one with a G4 (1.0-1.26 GHz), this would make perfect marketing sense.
Everything is coming together as I have forseen it!
But seriously, bookmark this post--it will have historical value after MWSF!
[ 12-03-2001: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
That actually sounds like a natural progression. And it goes along with what Steve had said about wanting the SuperDrive in the hands of the consumer, not just the prosumer by 2002.
You might have to make the iMac come down in speed some, but other than that I don't see anything wrong with that selection of fine speculation!! Go Dawg!!
iBook 1Ghz+G3
TiBook 800Mhz+G4
iMac 733Mhz+G4
PowerMac 1.2Ghz+G5
Andrew
[quote]Originally posted by the Belgian waffle:
<strong>
Because Apple needs processors for both the 'consumer'- and the 'pro'-line.
So let's put it into perspective:
The G4 was introduced at 400 (yikes!), 450 and 500 MHz, and then cut back to 350, 400 and 450 MHz; which actually was what we had with the G3 Yosemite.
By all accounts, the G3 has scaled better than the G4. The G3 was never stuck at 500 MHz for a year, the G4 was. Apple's marketing decision was to put a G3 in comsumer machines, and a G4 in Pro machines. No way in hel was Apple going to have a 'consumer' iMac at faster clock than a G4 powermac. Hence no iMacs faster than 500 MHz.
Let's assume the G5 does surface, and it goes at faster MHz than the G4 we have know (G4e). Fine and dandy, Apple get those G5's in machines once the hit the supply hot spot.
But what about the iMac then? Suppose we'll have 1; 1.2 and 1.4 (or 1.2; 1.4 and 1.6) GHz come MW; where would it leave the iMac? At 700 MHz with a G3? At 900 - 1000 MHz with a G3? Or at 900 - 1000 ( and up, but not over the G5 speeds) MHz G4 with altivec and the superdrive iMovie/ iDVD combo on selected (expensive) configurations?
My money is on a G5 in the powermacs, and apollo G4's in iMacs, with superdrives. If there's one line Jobs would love to utter, it'd be 'DVD burning, now for the consumer, thanks to Apple.'
Apple should be ready for a big jump come January, and I think (and hope, for Apple's sake), that they will deliver.
We'll see soon enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really think we're in for a treat come MW. On the other hand, Apple will have to come up with something good, they've stalled for too long now, IMHO.
<strong>That's exactly what I was saying <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000001&p=7"; target="_blank">over at this thread</a> (page 7).
... My money is on a G5 in the powermacs, and apollo G4's in iMacs, with superdrives. If there's one line Jobs would love to utter, it'd be 'DVD burning, now for the consumer, thanks to Apple.'
Apple should be ready for a big jump come January, and I think (and hope, for Apple's sake), that they will deliver...
I really think we're in for a treat come MW. On the other hand, Apple will have to come up with something good, they've stalled for too long now, IMHO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great shot at the true strategy Belgian. Now we know where J.D. gets his "good ideas" - Right on this board! After reviewing that thread I was amazed that it wasn't polluted with J.D.'s usual rants and attacks. He just Hijacked the thread to start a new topic with his name on it.
edit: Oh, and one more thing - J.D. if you can't stand the heat get out of the "Hothouse" (sic)
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Aphelion ]</p>
<strong>
iBook 1Ghz+G3
Andrew</strong><hr></blockquote>
ah hem...
this chip does not exsist yet....or at least it isn't shipping yet.
I don't expect to see this chip in a Mac until sometime late Q1 early Q2 or at all...
<strong>
ah hem...
this chip does not exsist yet....or at least it isn't shipping yet.
I don't expect to see this chip in a Mac until sometime late Q1 early Q2 or at all...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he's saying that because of the topic "next generation"
<strong>
This is some hard-hittin' speculation and if you can't stand the heat then leave the sauna.</strong><hr></blockquote>
don't you mean the sahara? if you can't stand the heat then leave the <strong>sahara</strong>
that and nothing more
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]</p>
JD: new ideas for future apple products? there are already threads about the same stuff, post in them.
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: SameOldSht ]</p>
<strong>i hope the moderators of these boards realize soon that JD posts way to many new threads and that they should start closing em' down left and right.
JD: new ideas for future apple products? there are already threads about the same stuff, post in them.
[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: SameOldSht ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is your problem?? So far I have seen you critize (I know, spelling error) Dawg now twice. Probably more than that. Why are you doing this?? Dawg isn't just talking about what is the future hardware going to be. He is asking a very specific question. Quite honestly, I would encourage him to continue doing this. It brings up interesting discussion and also encourages deeper thought than that of I think new iMacs are coming out in SF".
Here is a penny. Get a clue and a brain. Then bring me back the change.