<strong>I just don't think there is going to be a G5 this summer and the reason is because all the Apple execs are filing to <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/a/aapl.html"; target="_blank">sell stock</a>. That tells me that the iMac sales have flattened out and that they don't expect to see a significant boost from the power mac line (which they would if the G5 was released). And don't you think they would have held the release of the Xserver if the G5 was just around the corner?
There is a whole thread here about this subject, and (in a nut shell) what it means is that a bunch of Apple execs are selling stock. There can be any number of reasons for this -- including that a G5 is going to be released!
And yes, the release of the Xserve has nothing to do with a new PowerMac coming. If a G5 was coming and they had a 1U G4-based rack mount to get to market, you can be damn sure that they'd want to introduce it before the G5 so that they wouldn't get slammed for using old technology.
<strong>Everything I know about moki makes me believe he wouldn't trifle with us. He obviously wouldn't divulge anything he couldn't legally state - what would be the incentive there? He's a responsible head of a prominent Mac shareware company. I'm not going to swear by any testimony I hear around here, but what moki says does have credence, IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quoting Star Wars one liners (and doing a decent job of it, I might add) sounds a lot like triffling to me. Dropping hints and pictures about the POWER4 is probably his way of telling us that IBM "is in" at Apple, but it doesn't say anything about what a G5 will look like or when we'll see it.
I don't care if Moki is triffling or not but. All I want like all of us - I think - is MORE bandwidth. If it's a G5 or a G4, it doesn't matter. Please Apple throw away this old mobo (if Moto could give you a better FSB).
<strong>Now if it takes 3-5 years of full bore effort to design a chip and they just had this falling out last year isn't MWNY 02 or MWSF 03 a little optimistic?
Of course if there is a new uber PowerPC coming from IBM then my guess that the XServe's chipset was the trailblazer not for the next PowerMacs but for the next iMac may be borne out.
I think I'm good either way as long as something good is coming . Coming soon</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not unusual to have two design teams competing for a contract -- it may be that Apple asked IBM to compete right after the G4 fiasco, and both IBM and Moto have been running parallel design teams... until Moto finally gave up and conceded the race due to it drifting too far from the embedded market. Moving away from the embedded space means moving toward the server space, and since that's where IBM likes to be that would be fine by them. So while I have no evidence for a MWNY introduction, I also have no evidence against it. IBM keeps quiet about the custom projects they do for other companies (e.g. Gekko for Nintendo) so it would not at all be surprising that it is a completely secret project.
Your point about the Xserve design being better suited to the iMac is a good one. The Xserve is a small 1U enclosure with tight constraints on power and heat... exactly like the iMac/eMac. A very cool move would be for Apple to leverage this chipset & DDR in the iMac and portable lines, leaving the G5 and whatever uber-bus to the PowerMac. It would let them push the consumer clock rates as high as the G4 would allow because the PowerMac's performance would suddenly be untouchable. This would be the best lineup Apple has ever had from a marketing point of view... nobody would question the value of buying a PowerMac, and yet they could be delivering iMacs in the 1+ GHz range.
Moto would still be selling lots of G4s, and IBM would have a nice and juicy G5 contract. I'm curious about what the supposed "Apple Pi" extensions could be... HyperTransport, perhaps? More specialized graphics instructions for Quartz? Fancy DMA features for use with the on-chip memory controller? Hyper-threading? Steve's favourite recipe for apple pie?
[quote]And yes, the release of the Xserve has nothing to do with a new PowerMac coming.<hr></blockquote>
If the new PowerMac uses the same chipset as the Xserve, then it has one whole hell of a lot to do with it...
Remember, Apple likes to use the same chipset across their entire line. I suspect the Xserve is a peek at what Apple has in store for the rest of their machines for the next year or so.
[quote]If a G5 was coming and they had a 1U G4-based rack mount to get to market, you can be damn sure that they'd want to introduce it before the G5 so that they wouldn't get slammed for using old technology.<hr></blockquote>
Why? Look at all the PC rack mount servers using P3's. Server buyers are generally more intelligent than typical PC buyers, and realize that the "latest and greatest" may not be the optimum choice.
I'm not convinced that Apple set out to create a 1U server with the Xserve-- rather, I think Apple set out to build a rack-mountable server, and realized that they could squeeze dual G4's into 1U without the thing overheating. If Apple had access to the G5, I'd imagine they'd design their servers to use it, just so they didn't have to redesign them to use the new chip later, even if it did mean building 2U servers.
Sorry I was unclear; I what I meant was: "The Xserve doesn't tell us anything about what the next PowerMac might be. It could be the chipset that the next PowerMac will use, or it could be the chipset that the next iMac will use... and the PowerMac will use something newer".
[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>Why? Look at all the PC rack mount servers using P3's. Server buyers are generally more intelligent than typical PC buyers, and realize that the "latest and greatest" may not be the optimum choice.
I'm not convinced that Apple set out to create a 1U server with the Xserve-- rather, I think Apple set out to build a rack-mountable server, and realized that they could squeeze dual G4's into 1U without the thing overheating. If Apple had access to the G5, I'd imagine they'd design their servers to use it, just so they didn't have to redesign them to use the new chip later, even if it did mean building 2U servers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I think they wanted a 1U server. This is an important feature of the machine, and this is the first of their servers ... and they've already said it is the low-end one. The high end might just be redundant power supplies, more drives, and slightly higher G4 clock rates... but I doubt it.
Just a question (and I don't have time enough to trawl through the previous threads), but wasn't it Moki that a few months ago was totally shooting down rumours of the G5 arriving soon?
I remember something about him saying 'no way Jose' - now has his tune changed (or at least, no further denials)?
IF they did lose the G5 that would explain all of the chest-thumping of late by Moto regarding how long the G4 will be around and how well it will scale. No one likes to lose.
<strong>Just a question (and I don't have time enough to trawl through the previous threads), but wasn't it Moki that a few months ago was totally shooting down rumours of the G5 arriving soon?
I remember something about him saying 'no way Jose' - now has his tune changed (or at least, no further denials)? </strong><hr></blockquote>
About a year ago, for MacWorld NY, there were rampant rumours about a G5 coming out -- I said "don't hold your breath" and was attacked ("he doesn't know what he's talking about" yadda yadda
The same thing happened for MacWorld/SF and MacWorld/Tokyo -- literally, just rewind the video tape.
I'll say it again for this coming MacWorld/NY -- I think some very cool stuff is in the works, but you aren't going to see it in a month.
I am not under NDA for any of this stuff, and indeed, it is a mixture of water cooler talk and speculation. But still, you know people here and there, you can put the pieces together. Clearly there is no way in hell I'd state anything that could affect any NDAs with anyone.
What would seem mostly likely for the Pro line at MacWorld would be a DDR machine with USB 2, 800mbs FireWire, and a fairly nifty feature (which will be used only by a very few engineers): mini DSPs sitting on the memory controller, allowing things like MPEG4 to be done with close to zero overhead.
This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested.
As for the G5, waiting for it may be a lot like waiting for Godot... but that doesn't mean Apple doesn't have other plans in the works (and who knows, they may label whatever the next processor is the "g5" just for marketing purposes).
I am not under NDA for any of this stuff, and indeed, it is a mixture of water cooler talk and speculation. But still, you know people here and there, you can put the pieces together. Clearly there is no way in hell I'd state anything that could affect any NDAs with anyone.
What would seem mostly likely for the Pro line at MacWorld would be a DDR machine with USB 2, 800mbs FireWire, and a fairly nifty feature (which will be used only by a very few engineers): mini DSPs sitting on the memory controller, allowing things like MPEG4 to be done with close to zero overhead.
This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cool! Not earth shattering but a worthwhile upgrade (at the same prices as the current machines).
Edit: I'll write "I will not space and click the "post" button before typing anything" 50 times on the blackboard.
If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it. They are now rapidly approaching a point where they will do irreparable damage to their professional market-share and ability to penetrate demanding markets like 3-d, HD video production/post-production, engineering, and simulation. x86 is gonna put a big hurting on them when budget x86 boxes start outrunning DP powermacs that cost 3X as much.
<strong>If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it. They are now rapidly approaching a point where they will do irreparable damage to their professional market-share and ability to penetrate demanding markets like 3-d, HD video production/post-production, engineering, and simulation. x86 is gonna put a big hurting on them when budget x86 boxes start outrunning DP powermacs that cost 3X as much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if they incorporate custom DSP ASIC into the Northbridge. Dedicated hardware runs orders of magnitude faster than any high-performance processor can. It's like the difference between having a 3D card versus trying to do OpenGL in software.
If this becomes a reality, then no PC or Workstation currently in the market can even touch the Mac in Video Processing and Effects work, probably audio as well.
Of course, apps would have to be coded to take advantage of this new hardware. Which, when you consider Shake and Final Cut Pro makes a lot of sense.
[re: moki's idea of custom DSPs astride the memory controller]
Of course, apps would have to be coded to take advantage of this new hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That depends on how Apple decides to implement them. If they understand a subset of the AltiVec instruction set, then Apple could probably include logic to reroute those instructions on the fly, and forward anything that they can't handle across the bus. It wouldn't be easy (and, to be honest, I'm not sure if it's even practicable) but it certainly would be transparent.
Comments
<strong>
Actually, It's "good against the living" not "good against the real".</strong><hr></blockquote>
ya know...I was debating that when I posted it...thanks for the clarification..
<strong>These aren't the G5's you're looking for... move along.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Haaa Hoooo Hooooo Hooooo
[translate]Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me![/translate]
You'll checkout
<a href="http://www.worldssmallestpc.com"; target="_blank">http://www.worldssmallestpc.com</a>;
this baby flies
<strong>Im a BiG MAC fan but youve got to see what the PC types are up to
You'll checkout
<a href="http://www.worldssmallestpc.com"; target="_blank">http://www.worldssmallestpc.com</a>;
this baby flies</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple could do a better job of it, if there were a sizeable market for such a thing -- its pretty niche.
<strong>I just don't think there is going to be a G5 this summer and the reason is because all the Apple execs are filing to <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/t/a/aapl.html"; target="_blank">sell stock</a>. That tells me that the iMac sales have flattened out and that they don't expect to see a significant boost from the power mac line (which they would if the G5 was released). And don't you think they would have held the release of the Xserver if the G5 was just around the corner?
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: pjn23 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a whole thread here about this subject, and (in a nut shell) what it means is that a bunch of Apple execs are selling stock. There can be any number of reasons for this -- including that a G5 is going to be released!
And yes, the release of the Xserve has nothing to do with a new PowerMac coming. If a G5 was coming and they had a 1U G4-based rack mount to get to market, you can be damn sure that they'd want to introduce it before the G5 so that they wouldn't get slammed for using old technology.
this baby flies<hr></blockquote>
I don't think this baby flies...
And in case of we've got this:
<a href="http://www.apple.com/ibook/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/ibook/</a>;
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
<strong>Everything I know about moki makes me believe he wouldn't trifle with us. He obviously wouldn't divulge anything he couldn't legally state - what would be the incentive there? He's a responsible head of a prominent Mac shareware company. I'm not going to swear by any testimony I hear around here, but what moki says does have credence, IMO.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quoting Star Wars one liners (and doing a decent job of it, I might add) sounds a lot like triffling to me. Dropping hints and pictures about the POWER4 is probably his way of telling us that IBM "is in" at Apple, but it doesn't say anything about what a G5 will look like or when we'll see it.
First push the bandwidth then push the megahertz.
<strong>Now if it takes 3-5 years of full bore effort to design a chip and they just had this falling out last year isn't MWNY 02 or MWSF 03 a little optimistic?
Of course if there is a new uber PowerPC coming from IBM then my guess that the XServe's chipset was the trailblazer not for the next PowerMacs but for the next iMac may be borne out.
I think I'm good either way as long as something good is coming . Coming soon</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is not unusual to have two design teams competing for a contract -- it may be that Apple asked IBM to compete right after the G4 fiasco, and both IBM and Moto have been running parallel design teams... until Moto finally gave up and conceded the race due to it drifting too far from the embedded market. Moving away from the embedded space means moving toward the server space, and since that's where IBM likes to be that would be fine by them. So while I have no evidence for a MWNY introduction, I also have no evidence against it. IBM keeps quiet about the custom projects they do for other companies (e.g. Gekko for Nintendo) so it would not at all be surprising that it is a completely secret project.
Your point about the Xserve design being better suited to the iMac is a good one. The Xserve is a small 1U enclosure with tight constraints on power and heat... exactly like the iMac/eMac. A very cool move would be for Apple to leverage this chipset & DDR in the iMac and portable lines, leaving the G5 and whatever uber-bus to the PowerMac. It would let them push the consumer clock rates as high as the G4 would allow because the PowerMac's performance would suddenly be untouchable. This would be the best lineup Apple has ever had from a marketing point of view... nobody would question the value of buying a PowerMac, and yet they could be delivering iMacs in the 1+ GHz range.
Moto would still be selling lots of G4s, and IBM would have a nice and juicy G5 contract. I'm curious about what the supposed "Apple Pi" extensions could be... HyperTransport, perhaps? More specialized graphics instructions for Quartz? Fancy DMA features for use with the on-chip memory controller? Hyper-threading? Steve's favourite recipe for apple pie?
If the new PowerMac uses the same chipset as the Xserve, then it has one whole hell of a lot to do with it...
Remember, Apple likes to use the same chipset across their entire line. I suspect the Xserve is a peek at what Apple has in store for the rest of their machines for the next year or so.
[quote]If a G5 was coming and they had a 1U G4-based rack mount to get to market, you can be damn sure that they'd want to introduce it before the G5 so that they wouldn't get slammed for using old technology.<hr></blockquote>
Why? Look at all the PC rack mount servers using P3's. Server buyers are generally more intelligent than typical PC buyers, and realize that the "latest and greatest" may not be the optimum choice.
I'm not convinced that Apple set out to create a 1U server with the Xserve-- rather, I think Apple set out to build a rack-mountable server, and realized that they could squeeze dual G4's into 1U without the thing overheating. If Apple had access to the G5, I'd imagine they'd design their servers to use it, just so they didn't have to redesign them to use the new chip later, even if it did mean building 2U servers.
[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>Why? Look at all the PC rack mount servers using P3's. Server buyers are generally more intelligent than typical PC buyers, and realize that the "latest and greatest" may not be the optimum choice.
I'm not convinced that Apple set out to create a 1U server with the Xserve-- rather, I think Apple set out to build a rack-mountable server, and realized that they could squeeze dual G4's into 1U without the thing overheating. If Apple had access to the G5, I'd imagine they'd design their servers to use it, just so they didn't have to redesign them to use the new chip later, even if it did mean building 2U servers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh I think they wanted a 1U server. This is an important feature of the machine, and this is the first of their servers ... and they've already said it is the low-end one. The high end might just be redundant power supplies, more drives, and slightly higher G4 clock rates... but I doubt it.
I remember something about him saying 'no way Jose' - now has his tune changed (or at least, no further denials)?
Apple - Damn you for your silence.
<strong>Just a question (and I don't have time enough to trawl through the previous threads), but wasn't it Moki that a few months ago was totally shooting down rumours of the G5 arriving soon?
I remember something about him saying 'no way Jose' - now has his tune changed (or at least, no further denials)? </strong><hr></blockquote>
About a year ago, for MacWorld NY, there were rampant rumours about a G5 coming out -- I said "don't hold your breath" and was attacked ("he doesn't know what he's talking about" yadda yadda
The same thing happened for MacWorld/SF and MacWorld/Tokyo -- literally, just rewind the video tape.
I'll say it again for this coming MacWorld/NY -- I think some very cool stuff is in the works, but you aren't going to see it in a month.
I am not under NDA for any of this stuff, and indeed, it is a mixture of water cooler talk and speculation. But still, you know people here and there, you can put the pieces together. Clearly there is no way in hell I'd state anything that could affect any NDAs with anyone.
What would seem mostly likely for the Pro line at MacWorld would be a DDR machine with USB 2, 800mbs FireWire, and a fairly nifty feature (which will be used only by a very few engineers): mini DSPs sitting on the memory controller, allowing things like MPEG4 to be done with close to zero overhead.
This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested.
As for the G5, waiting for it may be a lot like waiting for Godot... but that doesn't mean Apple doesn't have other plans in the works (and who knows, they may label whatever the next processor is the "g5" just for marketing purposes).
<strong>
I am not under NDA for any of this stuff, and indeed, it is a mixture of water cooler talk and speculation. But still, you know people here and there, you can put the pieces together. Clearly there is no way in hell I'd state anything that could affect any NDAs with anyone.
What would seem mostly likely for the Pro line at MacWorld would be a DDR machine with USB 2, 800mbs FireWire, and a fairly nifty feature (which will be used only by a very few engineers): mini DSPs sitting on the memory controller, allowing things like MPEG4 to be done with close to zero overhead.
This DDR machine should have been out about a year ago, but they kept on cramming too many new things on the mobo all at once, resulting in all sorts of problems that needed to be addressed and tested.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cool! Not earth shattering but a worthwhile upgrade (at the same prices as the current machines).
Edit: I'll write "I will not space and click the "post" button before typing anything" 50 times on the blackboard.
[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: BobtheTomato ]</p>
<strong>If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>If Apple doesn't have something better than an incrementally improved G4 in 6-9 months time, that will be the beginning of the end for Apple as we know it. They are now rapidly approaching a point where they will do irreparable damage to their professional market-share and ability to penetrate demanding markets like 3-d, HD video production/post-production, engineering, and simulation. x86 is gonna put a big hurting on them when budget x86 boxes start outrunning DP powermacs that cost 3X as much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if they incorporate custom DSP ASIC into the Northbridge. Dedicated hardware runs orders of magnitude faster than any high-performance processor can. It's like the difference between having a 3D card versus trying to do OpenGL in software.
If this becomes a reality, then no PC or Workstation currently in the market can even touch the Mac in Video Processing and Effects work, probably audio as well.
Of course, apps would have to be coded to take advantage of this new hardware. Which, when you consider Shake and Final Cut Pro makes a lot of sense.
<strong>
[re: moki's idea of custom DSPs astride the memory controller]
Of course, apps would have to be coded to take advantage of this new hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That depends on how Apple decides to implement them. If they understand a subset of the AltiVec instruction set, then Apple could probably include logic to reroute those instructions on the fly, and forward anything that they can't handle across the bus. It wouldn't be easy (and, to be honest, I'm not sure if it's even practicable) but it certainly would be transparent.