However, Motorola does not intend to move its PowerPC line to the .13 micron manufacturing process, which IBM already uses, until it ships the G5 processor.
So if we have only Dual G4 at MWNY... how can they max them up ? 1.2 ???
I was just considering that a Dual 1.4 would be a given but since they don't move the fab process... i'm a little bit scared. OR... maybe we will have G5
<strong>I wouldn't say that Apple has been behind for a half decade.
They've been behind for almost 3 years. Up to the intro of G4 they were ahead (you could show that a 500Mhz G4 was quite a bit faster than a 700Mhz P3. But Intel/AMD started to ratchet up the Mhz a lot faster than Mot/IBM at that point and they fell behind.
The Laptops only recently fell behind. You have to remember that untill very recently an x86 laptop chip was a fairly piss-poor balance of power-consumption and computing power. They sucked and Apple's Pismos were by far the best laptops on the market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OSX has surly been a drain to the hardware R and D budget. Apple for the past two decades has carried the responsibility for the development of user friendly computer experiences. M$, Dell, Compaq etc... can simply sit back and borrow whatever Apple comes out with and spend no money employing the kind of industrial design talent that Apple does.
I think that OSX has been an enormous distraction that is nearly in the rear view mirror. It sounds like by the time Apple releases Jaguar the dollars/quarter devoted to the OS can be drastically reduced and this should be the case for a very long time indeed.
This was a roadbump in the path of Apple. It had to be done and they did it without losing their software providers, they even seem to be picking up steam again in terms of developers. I'll bet the hardware guys have been operating on a shoestring compared to what they have been used to in the past. Even if they have had decent budgets to work with they have obviously been lacking attention from management. The PR required to make this leap to OSX happen is staggering. A company with 3~5% market share could have disapeared trying to move to a new platform.
I think the focus will shift to hardware very soon. I also think we will continue to see Apple pulling core software under the Apple umbrella. They are cornering video editing. What is next, sound, 3D, desktop publishing perhaps??? Apple is shoring up its key markets fast.
While some analysts have claimed that IBM is an inactive member of the AIM (Apple, IBM and Motorola) alliance, the company continues to supply PowerPC G3 processors for Apple's iBook and has pushed the aging G3 architecture up to a clock speed of 1 GHz.
By taking the power efficiency route and aiming to create 2 GHz ultrascalar and multi-core chips, IBM may find itself supplying PowerPC processors for Apple's next generation of low-power portables -- and possibly for multiprocessor desktop computers as well.
-snip-
Apple, which is planning to introduce rack-mount servers May 14th, may be heeding IBM's advice about power consumption and heat in close computing quarters.
"The growing energy demand means that trying to squeeze all-day battery life out of mobile computing devices becomes increasingly difficult, and server manufacturers have to cope with server racks that run so hot as to set the room on fire," Davari said.
-snip-
IBM's PowerPC roadmap, which is completely devoid of any reference to the AltiVec acceleration unit, calls for chip architecture to exceed the 2 GHz barrier in the coming year.
While keeping mum on specifics, the company did say that its upcoming chips will be multi-core, meaning that several processor cores can be arranged on a single chip. This technology allows the possibility of four-processor or even eight-processor configurations.
Motorola also has said it plans to exceed the 2 GHz barrier in the coming year and is calling for the same I/O improvements and pipeline upgrades offered by IBM.
However, Motorola does not intend to move its PowerPC line to the .13 micron manufacturing process, which IBM already uses, until it ships the G5 processor.
<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps we may see the G3 in rack-mount servers after all?
You're inaccurate and reactionary - Junkyard Dawg isn't "constantly bitching" as you put it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, first of all - do you know what "reactionary" means? if you look it up in the dictionary, a picture of your post will be next to it. Serious knee-jerk defense post on your part. Second, just to make sure you saw this - Junkyard Dawg said "All I can do is bitch".
To clarify my postition, I only singled JD out for his bad analogy. The rest of wasn't aimed so much at him as it was at everybody who rants and bitches about how Apple sucks so much and how they're so far behind Wintel, blah blah blah. I usually agree with what JD has to say.
[quote] For someone to be so offended as to tell JD or anyone else to leave for suggesting that Apple has fallen behind performance-wise and may not catch up - well, it's a disturbing amount of protectionism to see. <hr></blockquote>
Ah. Well, see above for the definition of "reactionary", and for what it's worth, check out "protectionism" as it relates to your snap-defense of JD. If you read my post again, you'll find that it says nothing even remotely close to your quote there. In your post you spoke of "the intrusion of a realistic attitude"... well guess what? It doesn't get any more realistic than "if you're not satisfied with what Apple is offering you, then you need to get a different computer." THAT is reality. Not the hope that Apple will fix it, not the number manipulation game everybody loves to play, not future hardware rumors.
You either need to accept that Apple will darn well bring out whatever hardware they want to bring out, or you need to get a different kind of computer. It's the price you pay for using Macs, isn't it?
Nobody hopes more than I do that Apple will bring out some truly killer hardware and start really retaking their market share, but I'm clear enough on how it works that I'm not going to bitch about what they do bring out, even if I feel like it's not up to par.
Nobody hopes more than I do that Apple will bring out some truly killer hardware and start really retaking their market share, but I'm clear enough on how it works that I'm not going to bitch about what they do bring out, even if I feel like it's not up to par.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh really? Do tell me then, please, on how exactly we should let Apple know we're not that pleased with their hardware offerings?
I have been voting with my wallet, and I haven't bought a new Apple product since "the Great Performance Gap" began to develop. But I will also keep posting my dissatisfaction on these boards until Apple comes out with competitive hardware because I believe that all this negative buzz does reach Apple's ears.
I find it hard to imagine that Apple wouldn't notice that internet message boards are full of long-time, hard-core Apple customers, wanting and ready to buy Apple hardware but holding out because of slow and outdated computers. Especially when they have to drop the price of the top-end PowerMac a full $300 months before MW.
In fact, I feel it's my duty to post my opinions here, so that Apple may see why it is exactly that their high-end products might not be selling as well as they'd like.
I will be buying a new computer this October. I know already what the Intel offering will be by then. Dual Xeons at 2.8 Ghz with 1066 Mhz RDRAM, with a choice of video cards ranging from R300 to NV30 to 3DLabs P10. I have no idea what Apple will be offering. I'd much rather buy an Apple. If however they come out with yet another anemic upgrade to the PowerMacs, I won't let myself feel cheated, I'll buy an IBM, just like I did the last time I was in the market for a new workstation. It's as simple as that.
If you don't mind spendig thousands of dollars moving from one platform to the other every few years, with a hell lot of productive time lost, that's fine with all of us, I guess.
On the other hand, maybe you're not in the productive sector after all, but then I wouldn't bother getting a Dual Xeon...
<strong>If you don't mind spendig thousands of dollars moving from one platform to the other every few years, with a hell lot of productive time lost, that's fine with all of us, I guess.
On the other hand, maybe you're not in the productive sector after all, but then I wouldn't bother getting a Dual Xeon...
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what you're talking about with the productive time lost cause I don't get disoriented when I use different OS's. I can enjoy using one OS more than another but it after all the interface for most of the applications I use are the same on Windows and Mac.
You have to upgrade most of your software yearly too, anyway, and cross-grades are always available. Some applications (like LightWave) for example, come with a dual license+dongle and you can install it on a Mac and Windows box at the same time as long as you only use one at a time.
I don't get rid of my older computers either, at least not for a few more years, so I have to buy new software with the new computers anyway. So there, but that's all completely irrelevant. If Apple is betting on the financial burden of switching platforms to keep their customers from jumping ship, good luck! It works both ways you know...
Oh really? Do tell me then, please, on how exactly we should let Apple know we're not that pleased with their hardware offerings? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Email them. My point was that bitching about it here won't solve anything. As I said before, this board is not a personal line to Steve Jobs.
Comments
<a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17712.html"; target="_blank">http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17712.html</a>;
and specially this part:
However, Motorola does not intend to move its PowerPC line to the .13 micron manufacturing process, which IBM already uses, until it ships the G5 processor.
So if we have only Dual G4 at MWNY... how can they max them up ? 1.2 ???
I was just considering that a Dual 1.4 would be a given but since they don't move the fab process... i'm a little bit scared. OR... maybe we will have G5
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>I wouldn't say that Apple has been behind for a half decade.
They've been behind for almost 3 years. Up to the intro of G4 they were ahead (you could show that a 500Mhz G4 was quite a bit faster than a 700Mhz P3. But Intel/AMD started to ratchet up the Mhz a lot faster than Mot/IBM at that point and they fell behind.
The Laptops only recently fell behind. You have to remember that untill very recently an x86 laptop chip was a fairly piss-poor balance of power-consumption and computing power. They sucked and Apple's Pismos were by far the best laptops on the market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OSX has surly been a drain to the hardware R and D budget. Apple for the past two decades has carried the responsibility for the development of user friendly computer experiences. M$, Dell, Compaq etc... can simply sit back and borrow whatever Apple comes out with and spend no money employing the kind of industrial design talent that Apple does.
I think that OSX has been an enormous distraction that is nearly in the rear view mirror. It sounds like by the time Apple releases Jaguar the dollars/quarter devoted to the OS can be drastically reduced and this should be the case for a very long time indeed.
This was a roadbump in the path of Apple. It had to be done and they did it without losing their software providers, they even seem to be picking up steam again in terms of developers. I'll bet the hardware guys have been operating on a shoestring compared to what they have been used to in the past. Even if they have had decent budgets to work with they have obviously been lacking attention from management. The PR required to make this leap to OSX happen is staggering. A company with 3~5% market share could have disapeared trying to move to a new platform.
I think the focus will shift to hardware very soon. I also think we will continue to see Apple pulling core software under the Apple umbrella. They are cornering video editing. What is next, sound, 3D, desktop publishing perhaps??? Apple is shoring up its key markets fast.
<a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17712.html"; target="_blank">http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17712.html</a>;
[quote]
While some analysts have claimed that IBM is an inactive member of the AIM (Apple, IBM and Motorola) alliance, the company continues to supply PowerPC G3 processors for Apple's iBook and has pushed the aging G3 architecture up to a clock speed of 1 GHz.
By taking the power efficiency route and aiming to create 2 GHz ultrascalar and multi-core chips, IBM may find itself supplying PowerPC processors for Apple's next generation of low-power portables -- and possibly for multiprocessor desktop computers as well.
-snip-
Apple, which is planning to introduce rack-mount servers May 14th, may be heeding IBM's advice about power consumption and heat in close computing quarters.
"The growing energy demand means that trying to squeeze all-day battery life out of mobile computing devices becomes increasingly difficult, and server manufacturers have to cope with server racks that run so hot as to set the room on fire," Davari said.
-snip-
IBM's PowerPC roadmap, which is completely devoid of any reference to the AltiVec acceleration unit, calls for chip architecture to exceed the 2 GHz barrier in the coming year.
While keeping mum on specifics, the company did say that its upcoming chips will be multi-core, meaning that several processor cores can be arranged on a single chip. This technology allows the possibility of four-processor or even eight-processor configurations.
Motorola also has said it plans to exceed the 2 GHz barrier in the coming year and is calling for the same I/O improvements and pipeline upgrades offered by IBM.
However, Motorola does not intend to move its PowerPC line to the .13 micron manufacturing process, which IBM already uses, until it ships the G5 processor.
<hr></blockquote>
Perhaps we may see the G3 in rack-mount servers after all?
[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: apple.otaku ]</p>
<strong>
You're inaccurate and reactionary - Junkyard Dawg isn't "constantly bitching" as you put it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, first of all - do you know what "reactionary" means? if you look it up in the dictionary, a picture of your post will be next to it. Serious knee-jerk defense post on your part. Second, just to make sure you saw this - Junkyard Dawg said "All I can do is bitch".
To clarify my postition, I only singled JD out for his bad analogy. The rest of wasn't aimed so much at him as it was at everybody who rants and bitches about how Apple sucks so much and how they're so far behind Wintel, blah blah blah. I usually agree with what JD has to say.
[quote] For someone to be so offended as to tell JD or anyone else to leave for suggesting that Apple has fallen behind performance-wise and may not catch up - well, it's a disturbing amount of protectionism to see. <hr></blockquote>
Ah. Well, see above for the definition of "reactionary", and for what it's worth, check out "protectionism" as it relates to your snap-defense of JD. If you read my post again, you'll find that it says nothing even remotely close to your quote there. In your post you spoke of "the intrusion of a realistic attitude"... well guess what? It doesn't get any more realistic than "if you're not satisfied with what Apple is offering you, then you need to get a different computer." THAT is reality. Not the hope that Apple will fix it, not the number manipulation game everybody loves to play, not future hardware rumors.
You either need to accept that Apple will darn well bring out whatever hardware they want to bring out, or you need to get a different kind of computer. It's the price you pay for using Macs, isn't it?
Nobody hopes more than I do that Apple will bring out some truly killer hardware and start really retaking their market share, but I'm clear enough on how it works that I'm not going to bitch about what they do bring out, even if I feel like it's not up to par.
<strong>
Nobody hopes more than I do that Apple will bring out some truly killer hardware and start really retaking their market share, but I'm clear enough on how it works that I'm not going to bitch about what they do bring out, even if I feel like it's not up to par.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh really? Do tell me then, please, on how exactly we should let Apple know we're not that pleased with their hardware offerings?
I have been voting with my wallet, and I haven't bought a new Apple product since "the Great Performance Gap" began to develop. But I will also keep posting my dissatisfaction on these boards until Apple comes out with competitive hardware because I believe that all this negative buzz does reach Apple's ears.
I find it hard to imagine that Apple wouldn't notice that internet message boards are full of long-time, hard-core Apple customers, wanting and ready to buy Apple hardware but holding out because of slow and outdated computers. Especially when they have to drop the price of the top-end PowerMac a full $300 months before MW.
In fact, I feel it's my duty to post my opinions here, so that Apple may see why it is exactly that their high-end products might not be selling as well as they'd like.
I will be buying a new computer this October. I know already what the Intel offering will be by then. Dual Xeons at 2.8 Ghz with 1066 Mhz RDRAM, with a choice of video cards ranging from R300 to NV30 to 3DLabs P10. I have no idea what Apple will be offering. I'd much rather buy an Apple. If however they come out with yet another anemic upgrade to the PowerMacs, I won't let myself feel cheated, I'll buy an IBM, just like I did the last time I was in the market for a new workstation. It's as simple as that.
On the other hand, maybe you're not in the productive sector after all, but then I wouldn't bother getting a Dual Xeon...
G-News
<strong>If you don't mind spendig thousands of dollars moving from one platform to the other every few years, with a hell lot of productive time lost, that's fine with all of us, I guess.
On the other hand, maybe you're not in the productive sector after all, but then I wouldn't bother getting a Dual Xeon...
G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know what you're talking about with the productive time lost cause I don't get disoriented when I use different OS's. I can enjoy using one OS more than another but it after all the interface for most of the applications I use are the same on Windows and Mac.
You have to upgrade most of your software yearly too, anyway, and cross-grades are always available. Some applications (like LightWave) for example, come with a dual license+dongle and you can install it on a Mac and Windows box at the same time as long as you only use one at a time.
I don't get rid of my older computers either, at least not for a few more years, so I have to buy new software with the new computers anyway. So there, but that's all completely irrelevant. If Apple is betting on the financial burden of switching platforms to keep their customers from jumping ship, good luck! It works both ways you know...
[ 05-13-2002: Message edited by: timortis ]</p>
<strong>
Oh really? Do tell me then, please, on how exactly we should let Apple know we're not that pleased with their hardware offerings? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Email them. My point was that bitching about it here won't solve anything. As I said before, this board is not a personal line to Steve Jobs.