Quartz Extreme & Jaguar promise to make the user experience for average tasks (Web, email, *cough* Word *cough*) much more pleasant and FAST.
New Powermacs combined with the updated OS promise to make the Pro market experience much faster as well.
It could be a very good year for Apple.
The 'darkside' will always be advancing, but Apple still has the edge. It can better anticipate Future Hardware & their own Operating System. This will keep them ahead of the curve for a long time. They are behind, but I think it's simply because the OS is so new. Even XP is old, it's an update NT. It's, he he, refined at least by MS's standards.
Jaguar will help probably more than most of us know.
Yes, Jaguar will be great. Too bad practically no one will be able to use quartz extreme
It's also supposedly coming out in August, so how much can they hype it at MWNY if it isn't available immediately? That will hurt it.
I'm just waiting for another whole banner thing going on at Apple's site. The moment if and when I see it promoting this MWNY as the best one yet, then I'll have lost all hope.
All you do is complain and make negative comments. You must be a joy to be around. Grow a ponytail and get a Gateway already. You're better off on a PC and the Mac community is better off without you trolling these boards.
[quote] Yes, Jaguar will be great. Too bad practically no one will be able to use quartz extreme <hr></blockquote>
I just don't get this. Here's a list of machines that will benefit from QE:
G4 iMac
QS PowerMacs, plus older PMs w/ Radeon graphics
eMacs
new iBooks w/Radeon graphics
TiBooks w/ Radeon graphics
anybody who's upgraded to Radeon/GF2MX+ graphics
...and that's "practically no one"? That's probably a few million machines...
[quote] It's also supposedly coming out in August, so how much can they hype it at MWNY if it isn't available immediately? That will hurt it. <hr></blockquote>
How would it be hurt? Hyping 10.1 before it came out didn't seem to do any damage.
First, my apologies to Amorph. This may be perceived as rant, however, it's also on topic with Future Hardware, particularly next week's future hardware.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Well, if it aint Zealot Apologist Steve...complete with non-detachable RDF!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes Bon-Bon, we know, everyone that doesn't bitch and moan about everything Apple does, and thereby agree with you, is subject to RDF. I wonder if you actually believe yourself sometimes ;-)
[quote]<strong>
The guy who thinks 'power'Macs are competitive when most objective Mac people think otherwise and realise the shortcomings of the current 'power'Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently, you don't read very well. I specifically mentioned the expected dual 1.3 - 1.5GHZ G4 systems - hence FUTURE HARDWARE.
[quote]<strong>
Gee, wonder why people are debating the cpu so much? The lack of DDR? The single pumped bus?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
blah, blah... Yes, you're good at quoting buzzwords, but apparently have no idea what they mean. Otherwise, you would have attempted to demonstrate the real world performance difference between a DDR system w/o L3 cache and a non-DDR system with L3 cache, etc. It's obvious you're stuck on buzzwords, but do not have the technical means of understanding what you're preaching about.
[quote]<strong>
The Stevie-guy who likes to think that the ponderous dual Gig G4 is a match for the latest Athlon single cpu machine half its price. And even if it was (in your fantasy land...) Mac users have to pay twice as much to get 'hanging in there performance?' We have to get two G4s to 'almost' beat 1 Athlon? What a pathetic loser argument.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How come you never mention the prices of the dual Athlon machines when talking about price? Why would you care how many processors are in a system, so long as it performs? In the server market, how fast a single processor is, is meaningless. I specifically challenged you to see if you ever used a dual 1GHZ G4. Obviously, you haven't, yet you continue to complain about performance. Yes, there are benchmarks where Athlons are faster. There are also benchmarks where Macs are faster. I contend that Macs are "competitive" in their target markets. That doesn't mean they blow away the competition across the board. Of course, they don't. As I mentioned though, new systems such as dual 1.3 - 1.5 GHZ G4s will certainly be competitive with P4 2.5 and Athlon 2100+ systems. Do you have any evidience to contradict this, or are you just going to rant on with your RDF nonsense? If you do try to bring up some benchmarks, lets review a range of them, not just a few isolated FP based 3D rendering tests where everybody knows Athlons excel, okay? I can repeatedly show you the same PS benches if you want to play that game.
[quote]<strong>
Gee, well, if I don't know how to set my memory allocation then you can't read PC prices or use a dictionary because in no way are Apple's 'power'Macs in any way competitive at the moment with any comparable machine in their price brackets. Not on:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a retarded argument. What does "you not knowing how to allocate memory for applications" have to do with the "price of computers"? You don't even follow a sense of logic. Perhaps, you're suffering from a GDF (Gates Distortion Field) in such a way to interfere with common sense.
Yes, there is a premium on some Mac offerings. However, the iMac has been proven to be more cost effective than similar flat panel Gateway systems. I've posted similar links in the past. Xserve is competitive with other 1U based units of similar performance, and dual CPU based PCs are typically expensive. Additionally, yes, you can build some PC systems to be a better value with hardware alone. However, you're still not factoring in the cost of using Windows vs. Macs OS. In short, you're comparing Apples to Oranges (literally).
[quote]<strong>
1.5 G4$? Catch up.
I'll buy when we have something like a next generation CPU/memory system on something like Hypertransport or Rio.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doubtful. You'll find a reason to bash Apple and claim they are not competitive. I do find it amusing how fixated you are on buzzwords, yet you've yet to define a personal need which is not yet met by today's systems. What will hypertransport and Rapid IO do for you that you cannot accomplish now on a current, or what will be current in a week, Mac? What's a matter, cat got your tongue? ;-)
I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.
He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
The only thing that makes me question whether this chip is the "real" G5 is Dorsal?s comment on the chips integer/FPU performance. He said it was on par with the 7455 at the same clock speed.
I thought this was where the G5 was supposed to be twice as fast as the G4, not as fast. I guess those SPEC scores that surfaced awhile back were just BS.
Or Maybe Dorsal was just talking about theoretical performance numbers. The G5 could still be twice as fast as the G4, since RapidIO and DDR would bring its real world performance closer to its theoretical performance.
So Dorsal? Are these systems you've been testing actually G5 PowerMacs?
If the G5 is coming next week, then this will definitely be a MacWorld to remember, and I?m going to be there!
<strong>Lets look at at the P4, the current state of the art Intel processor. Originally fabbed in a .18 micron Al process it could obtain at least 2GHz.
They then introduced a new version made in their new .13 micron process that started at 1.9GHz(I think, would welcom correction). This will obtain 3GHz before the year is out. That is a 50% increase in clock speeds with a slightly tweaked architecture (but no extra pipeline stages).
Motorola should be able to make the G4 go from 1GHz to 1.5Ghz by shrinking it to a .13 micron process. You even get lower power disipation as a nice side effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PIV was a completely new processor and had been designed with future scalability in mind. It had plenty in its legs before it went to a 130nm process.
The Athlon on the other hand, that had nothing left, has gone absolutely nowhere since dropping to a 130nm process.
Point is don't make simplistic generalisations as it isn't so simple as change process this way and receive x times speed boost.
[quote]There is no way Apple is hosing my cheque book with antiquated tech'. And with our most optimistic or 'realistic' predictions...Apple will still be behind.<hr></blockquote>
Frankly Lemon Whine Whine, I don't see your check book opening up for any kind of hardware that Apple will introduce.
For Apple to reach these goals they will have to have computers that appeal to everyone. Right now the iMag/e-Mac is a great low end computer. The tower, with some system upgrades is a competent Pro-Computer.
What Apple is really missing is a low-end Pro-Sumer model with some upgradable components (most notably would be the graphics card). There is a large market for Gamers who will not buy an all-in one due to bieng stuck with an old graphics system. For this market the tower's price and sales focus just does not fit. If Apple were to add in a lower-end tower ($1000-$1200) or reintroduce the Cube then they might be able to gain these sales, though it might canabilize some of the tower's sales as well.
<strong>I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.
He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. By Motorola's defintion, there are really only two key attributes which define what a G5 is: "Extensible Architechture" - meaning Book E compliant. The other is: New Bus Topology - Rapid IO. Technically, MOT claims both 32bit and 64bit parts, so 64bit is not a requirement for G5.
<strong>I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.
He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
The only thing that makes me question whether this chip is the "real" G5 is Dorsal?s comment on the chips integer/FPU performance. He said it was on par with the 7455 at the same clock speed.
I thought this was where the G5 was supposed to be twice as fast as the G4, not as fast. I guess those SPEC scores that surfaced awhile back were just BS.
Or Maybe Dorsal was just talking about theoretical performance numbers. The G5 could still be twice as fast as the G4, since RapidIO and DDR would bring its real world performance closer to its theoretical performance.
So Dorsal? Are these systems you've been testing actually G5 PowerMacs?
If the G5 is coming next week, then this will definitely be a MacWorld to remember, and I?m going to be there! </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It's interesting how those that have always been sceptical of Dorsal have gone very quite. I think that this time Dorsal has been so specific and there SEEMS to be lots of corroberating evidence...
Well we will find out in 9 days, but I think Dorsal is real.
FWIW I do not see any reason to doubt the ability of Moto to jump from 1 to 1.5 ghz IF they are either moving to another chip OR a different fabrication process. If we were talking about scaling the existing chip using the same production processes I wouold agree. But since the assumption is that production has moved to .13 it seems logical that a one-off jump could be reasonable.
<strong>Final machines have been seeded a while ago with updated hardware. That means they were in their final case designs and processor speeds. There is a much more professional look to them and the design is cleaner that the older case design. There is more chrome and metallic accents.
Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.
A more detailed case description will be coming soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Case description will come along after a few rumor sites post some details about it and Dorsal can then write a little paragraph about "the case that was sent to him.." I highly doubt Apple sends out finished brand spanking new cases out for motherboard testing. My brother is an engineer for Chrysler, when they send out a car for testing it's the engine that is being tested, not the body. They disguise the car and make it all out of porportion so no one can rip them off. Apple is the same way, Apple IS industrial design to the fullest degree. Dorsal even said in the past that Apple sent them out in metal boxes that couldn't be opened. Then they could be opened but there was no system profiler, then they all of a sudden knew part numbers but it wasn't a G5, then it was a G5.
Dorsal's prying for attention has exposed him as a fraud. It worked for a while, but it has become Kormac-esque.
Don't forget what Quartz Extreme really is. Remember that the GUI speedup is just a side effect of it. That is what SJ discussed in the Keynote because everyone can benefit but the real significance of QE was discussed in the private sessions. Even with a "pokey" 1Ghz you will be able to do things in real time that you can't on even the fastest PC.
I highly doubt Apple sends out finished brand spanking new cases out for motherboard testing. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, they do send cases out for some kinds of testing. A few years ago I played around with a test Wallstreet that had prototype plastics. The form factor was spot on, but the color wasn't there yet. This was a month to 6 weeks before announce.
At 1 week before announce, it's not surprising that you'll have some real cases going out. Of course there's also hardware floating around that won't ship at the next announce, so you don't always know, but at least they wouldn't have finished plastics on them.
I saw some prototype dual CPU systems that never got released, so it's easy to see what direction Apple is going yet never get the product release right.
Well, they do send cases out for some kinds of testing. A few years ago I played around with a test Wallstreet that had prototype plastics. The form factor was spot on, but the color wasn't there yet. This was a month to 6 weeks before announce.
At 1 week before announce, it's not surprising that you'll have some real cases going out. Of course there's also hardware floating around that won't ship at the next announce, so you don't always know, but at least they wouldn't have finished plastics on them.
I saw some prototype dual CPU systems that never got released, so it's easy to see what direction Apple is going yet never get the product release right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The examples that have been used are for machines years old which would be in testing more than two years ago, things are different now ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CUBE and Worker Bee. Worker Bee worked for a company outside of Apple that Apple hired (contract work, he actually was on the Apple campus but was not a real Apple employee) to test hardware and software. After the WB incident Apple discontinued using contracted workers for that and brought everything in-house.
My point? Apple is careful as hell right now with its designs. Someone testing thoroughput of a PCI bus does not need to see the plastic case to see if it works or not.
<strong>'Apple's Year' implies something really special is going to happen. A 'bumped' G4 isn't special.
Well, not to me it isn't.
I'd like to see Apple move to the next generation of PPC cpu. The symbolic 'G5'...with high speed memory and bus...don't care who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do understand why you're disappointed with the performance level of current Power Macs.
I don't, however, get why you're so hung up about whether the next thing is called a 'G5' or not.
If a 'bumped' G4 means both a jump from 1 GHz to 1.4 or 1.5 GHZ, and full-throttle, better-than-Xserve access to DDR, what's the issue? If that's 'all' we get, that could be quite amazing. Maybe they'll even call a G4 that's so much improved a G5. But it Apple still calls it a G4, what's the big deal?
Is there some concrete G5-ish feature that you think you think we'll be missing in anything that's not explicitly crowned a G5? If it's 64 bits... well, I'll wait until I here talk about a 64-bit version of OS X to even care.
The examples that have been used are for machines years old which would be in testing more than two years ago, things are different now ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CUBE and Worker Bee. </strong><hr></blockquote>
True, Apple is more careful, but plastics can still be found around and about. What was unique about the cube situation was that it was a new product, and I think for a sufficiently new product, plastics will be much harder to come by (iPod, LCD iMac). Of course, Xserve cases weren't that hard to come by, nor were eMac.
An upgraded tower case isn't a showstopper for Apple to let out, as much as the specs are. Everyone knows that the tower will look more-or-less like it does now. Maybe more rounded or square, more aluminum or plastic, but honestly, not being a consumer item, the styling of the tower isn't a big deal. I'm sure they are out there, but anyone that leaks them will likely not get seeded for some time. Since Apple tends to have multiple hardware prototypes and sometimes multiple case prototypes, leaking is especially hazardous - not only could you be leaking a product that will never ship, you might well make it perfectly clear where that leak came from.
And even with all of their apparent paranoia, Apple higher-ups have been known to bring relatively completed designs and specs to big .edu markets (Maine ordered how many iBook dual USB at intro? CRT and LCD iMacs were shown prior to intro, as was eMac.) and big .com markets (Xserve at Genentech)
The honest truth is that the people that see these systems sign NDAs and stick to them. If Apple showed up at my door with prototype hardware and had me sign an NDA, it would bind not only me but my employer. If I leaked that information, I'm almost positive it would cost me my job (as well it should).
Comments
New Powermacs combined with the updated OS promise to make the Pro market experience much faster as well.
It could be a very good year for Apple.
The 'darkside' will always be advancing, but Apple still has the edge. It can better anticipate Future Hardware & their own Operating System. This will keep them ahead of the curve for a long time. They are behind, but I think it's simply because the OS is so new. Even XP is old, it's an update NT. It's, he he, refined at least by MS's standards.
Jaguar will help probably more than most of us know.
It's also supposedly coming out in August, so how much can they hype it at MWNY if it isn't available immediately? That will hurt it.
I'm just waiting for another whole banner thing going on at Apple's site. The moment if and when I see it promoting this MWNY as the best one yet, then I'll have lost all hope.
I just don't get this. Here's a list of machines that will benefit from QE:
- G4 iMac
- QS PowerMacs, plus older PMs w/ Radeon graphics
- eMacs
- new iBooks w/Radeon graphics
- TiBooks w/ Radeon graphics
- anybody who's upgraded to Radeon/GF2MX+ graphics
...and that's "practically no one"? That's probably a few million machines...[quote] It's also supposedly coming out in August, so how much can they hype it at MWNY if it isn't available immediately? That will hurt it. <hr></blockquote>
How would it be hurt? Hyping 10.1 before it came out didn't seem to do any damage.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Well, if it aint Zealot Apologist Steve...complete with non-detachable RDF!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes Bon-Bon, we know, everyone that doesn't bitch and moan about everything Apple does, and thereby agree with you, is subject to RDF. I wonder if you actually believe yourself sometimes ;-)
[quote]<strong>
The guy who thinks 'power'Macs are competitive when most objective Mac people think otherwise and realise the shortcomings of the current 'power'Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apparently, you don't read very well. I specifically mentioned the expected dual 1.3 - 1.5GHZ G4 systems - hence FUTURE HARDWARE.
[quote]<strong>
Gee, wonder why people are debating the cpu so much? The lack of DDR? The single pumped bus?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
blah, blah... Yes, you're good at quoting buzzwords, but apparently have no idea what they mean. Otherwise, you would have attempted to demonstrate the real world performance difference between a DDR system w/o L3 cache and a non-DDR system with L3 cache, etc. It's obvious you're stuck on buzzwords, but do not have the technical means of understanding what you're preaching about.
[quote]<strong>
The Stevie-guy who likes to think that the ponderous dual Gig G4 is a match for the latest Athlon single cpu machine half its price. And even if it was (in your fantasy land...) Mac users have to pay twice as much to get 'hanging in there performance?' We have to get two G4s to 'almost' beat 1 Athlon? What a pathetic loser argument.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How come you never mention the prices of the dual Athlon machines when talking about price? Why would you care how many processors are in a system, so long as it performs? In the server market, how fast a single processor is, is meaningless. I specifically challenged you to see if you ever used a dual 1GHZ G4. Obviously, you haven't, yet you continue to complain about performance. Yes, there are benchmarks where Athlons are faster. There are also benchmarks where Macs are faster. I contend that Macs are "competitive" in their target markets. That doesn't mean they blow away the competition across the board. Of course, they don't. As I mentioned though, new systems such as dual 1.3 - 1.5 GHZ G4s will certainly be competitive with P4 2.5 and Athlon 2100+ systems. Do you have any evidience to contradict this, or are you just going to rant on with your RDF nonsense? If you do try to bring up some benchmarks, lets review a range of them, not just a few isolated FP based 3D rendering tests where everybody knows Athlons excel, okay? I can repeatedly show you the same PS benches if you want to play that game.
[quote]<strong>
Gee, well, if I don't know how to set my memory allocation then you can't read PC prices or use a dictionary because in no way are Apple's 'power'Macs in any way competitive at the moment with any comparable machine in their price brackets. Not on:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a retarded argument. What does "you not knowing how to allocate memory for applications" have to do with the "price of computers"? You don't even follow a sense of logic. Perhaps, you're suffering from a GDF (Gates Distortion Field) in such a way to interfere with common sense.
Yes, there is a premium on some Mac offerings. However, the iMac has been proven to be more cost effective than similar flat panel Gateway systems. I've posted similar links in the past. Xserve is competitive with other 1U based units of similar performance, and dual CPU based PCs are typically expensive. Additionally, yes, you can build some PC systems to be a better value with hardware alone. However, you're still not factoring in the cost of using Windows vs. Macs OS. In short, you're comparing Apples to Oranges (literally).
[quote]<strong>
1.5 G4$? Catch up.
I'll buy when we have something like a next generation CPU/memory system on something like Hypertransport or Rio.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doubtful. You'll find a reason to bash Apple and claim they are not competitive. I do find it amusing how fixated you are on buzzwords, yet you've yet to define a personal need which is not yet met by today's systems. What will hypertransport and Rapid IO do for you that you cannot accomplish now on a current, or what will be current in a week, Mac? What's a matter, cat got your tongue? ;-)
Steve
He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
The only thing that makes me question whether this chip is the "real" G5 is Dorsal?s comment on the chips integer/FPU performance. He said it was on par with the 7455 at the same clock speed.
I thought this was where the G5 was supposed to be twice as fast as the G4, not as fast. I guess those SPEC scores that surfaced awhile back were just BS.
Or Maybe Dorsal was just talking about theoretical performance numbers. The G5 could still be twice as fast as the G4, since RapidIO and DDR would bring its real world performance closer to its theoretical performance.
So Dorsal? Are these systems you've been testing actually G5 PowerMacs?
If the G5 is coming next week, then this will definitely be a MacWorld to remember, and I?m going to be there!
<strong>Lets look at at the P4, the current state of the art Intel processor. Originally fabbed in a .18 micron Al process it could obtain at least 2GHz.
They then introduced a new version made in their new .13 micron process that started at 1.9GHz(I think, would welcom correction). This will obtain 3GHz before the year is out. That is a 50% increase in clock speeds with a slightly tweaked architecture (but no extra pipeline stages).
Motorola should be able to make the G4 go from 1GHz to 1.5Ghz by shrinking it to a .13 micron process. You even get lower power disipation as a nice side effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The PIV was a completely new processor and had been designed with future scalability in mind. It had plenty in its legs before it went to a 130nm process.
The Athlon on the other hand, that had nothing left, has gone absolutely nowhere since dropping to a 130nm process.
Point is don't make simplistic generalisations as it isn't so simple as change process this way and receive x times speed boost.
Frankly Lemon Whine Whine, I don't see your check book opening up for any kind of hardware that Apple will introduce.
Jaguar may well be it. But Apple won't get the numbers they're after (10%...Steve Jobs wants to double market share...) unless it is 'compelling.'
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
For Apple to reach these goals they will have to have computers that appeal to everyone. Right now the iMag/e-Mac is a great low end computer. The tower, with some system upgrades is a competent Pro-Computer.
What Apple is really missing is a low-end Pro-Sumer model with some upgradable components (most notably would be the graphics card). There is a large market for Gamers who will not buy an all-in one due to bieng stuck with an old graphics system. For this market the tower's price and sales focus just does not fit. If Apple were to add in a lower-end tower ($1000-$1200) or reintroduce the Cube then they might be able to gain these sales, though it might canabilize some of the tower's sales as well.
<strong>I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.
He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. By Motorola's defintion, there are really only two key attributes which define what a G5 is: "Extensible Architechture" - meaning Book E compliant. The other is: New Bus Topology - Rapid IO. Technically, MOT claims both 32bit and 64bit parts, so 64bit is not a requirement for G5.
Steve
<strong>I'm beginning to think that the chip Dorsal described earlier is not a G4, but in fact the G5.
He said it used RapidIO and OCEAN and was also Book E compliant. That sounds a lot like the G5 to me.
The only thing that makes me question whether this chip is the "real" G5 is Dorsal?s comment on the chips integer/FPU performance. He said it was on par with the 7455 at the same clock speed.
I thought this was where the G5 was supposed to be twice as fast as the G4, not as fast. I guess those SPEC scores that surfaced awhile back were just BS.
Or Maybe Dorsal was just talking about theoretical performance numbers. The G5 could still be twice as fast as the G4, since RapidIO and DDR would bring its real world performance closer to its theoretical performance.
So Dorsal? Are these systems you've been testing actually G5 PowerMacs?
If the G5 is coming next week, then this will definitely be a MacWorld to remember, and I?m going to be there!
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It's interesting how those that have always been sceptical of Dorsal have gone very quite. I think that this time Dorsal has been so specific and there SEEMS to be lots of corroberating evidence...
Well we will find out in 9 days, but I think Dorsal is real.
FWIW I do not see any reason to doubt the ability of Moto to jump from 1 to 1.5 ghz IF they are either moving to another chip OR a different fabrication process. If we were talking about scaling the existing chip using the same production processes I wouold agree. But since the assumption is that production has moved to .13 it seems logical that a one-off jump could be reasonable.
<strong>Final machines have been seeded a while ago with updated hardware. That means they were in their final case designs and processor speeds. There is a much more professional look to them and the design is cleaner that the older case design. There is more chrome and metallic accents.
Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.
A more detailed case description will be coming soon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Case description will come along after a few rumor sites post some details about it and Dorsal can then write a little paragraph about "the case that was sent to him.." I highly doubt Apple sends out finished brand spanking new cases out for motherboard testing. My brother is an engineer for Chrysler, when they send out a car for testing it's the engine that is being tested, not the body. They disguise the car and make it all out of porportion so no one can rip them off. Apple is the same way, Apple IS industrial design to the fullest degree. Dorsal even said in the past that Apple sent them out in metal boxes that couldn't be opened. Then they could be opened but there was no system profiler, then they all of a sudden knew part numbers but it wasn't a G5, then it was a G5.
Dorsal's prying for attention has exposed him as a fraud. It worked for a while, but it has become Kormac-esque.
<strong>
I highly doubt Apple sends out finished brand spanking new cases out for motherboard testing. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, they do send cases out for some kinds of testing. A few years ago I played around with a test Wallstreet that had prototype plastics. The form factor was spot on, but the color wasn't there yet. This was a month to 6 weeks before announce.
At 1 week before announce, it's not surprising that you'll have some real cases going out. Of course there's also hardware floating around that won't ship at the next announce, so you don't always know, but at least they wouldn't have finished plastics on them.
I saw some prototype dual CPU systems that never got released, so it's easy to see what direction Apple is going yet never get the product release right.
That thing was suited up in full plastics, with all the trimmings.
Granted, it might be a little tougher to toss around a laptop without some decent casing - but it was almost identical to the final version.
So, it <i>is</i> possible that there were close-to-final plastics on this thing.
and I'd also like to say, I'm totally stoked for new PowerMacs. Period.
<strong>
Well, they do send cases out for some kinds of testing. A few years ago I played around with a test Wallstreet that had prototype plastics. The form factor was spot on, but the color wasn't there yet. This was a month to 6 weeks before announce.
At 1 week before announce, it's not surprising that you'll have some real cases going out. Of course there's also hardware floating around that won't ship at the next announce, so you don't always know, but at least they wouldn't have finished plastics on them.
I saw some prototype dual CPU systems that never got released, so it's easy to see what direction Apple is going yet never get the product release right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The examples that have been used are for machines years old which would be in testing more than two years ago, things are different now ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CUBE and Worker Bee. Worker Bee worked for a company outside of Apple that Apple hired (contract work, he actually was on the Apple campus but was not a real Apple employee) to test hardware and software. After the WB incident Apple discontinued using contracted workers for that and brought everything in-house.
My point? Apple is careful as hell right now with its designs. Someone testing thoroughput of a PCI bus does not need to see the plastic case to see if it works or not.
<strong>'Apple's Year' implies something really special is going to happen. A 'bumped' G4 isn't special.
Well, not to me it isn't.
I'd like to see Apple move to the next generation of PPC cpu. The symbolic 'G5'...with high speed memory and bus...don't care who makes it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do understand why you're disappointed with the performance level of current Power Macs.
I don't, however, get why you're so hung up about whether the next thing is called a 'G5' or not.
If a 'bumped' G4 means both a jump from 1 GHz to 1.4 or 1.5 GHZ, and full-throttle, better-than-Xserve access to DDR, what's the issue? If that's 'all' we get, that could be quite amazing. Maybe they'll even call a G4 that's so much improved a G5. But it Apple still calls it a G4, what's the big deal?
Is there some concrete G5-ish feature that you think you think we'll be missing in anything that's not explicitly crowned a G5? If it's 64 bits... well, I'll wait until I here talk about a 64-bit version of OS X to even care.
<strong>
The examples that have been used are for machines years old which would be in testing more than two years ago, things are different now ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CUBE and Worker Bee. </strong><hr></blockquote>
True, Apple is more careful, but plastics can still be found around and about. What was unique about the cube situation was that it was a new product, and I think for a sufficiently new product, plastics will be much harder to come by (iPod, LCD iMac). Of course, Xserve cases weren't that hard to come by, nor were eMac.
An upgraded tower case isn't a showstopper for Apple to let out, as much as the specs are. Everyone knows that the tower will look more-or-less like it does now. Maybe more rounded or square, more aluminum or plastic, but honestly, not being a consumer item, the styling of the tower isn't a big deal. I'm sure they are out there, but anyone that leaks them will likely not get seeded for some time. Since Apple tends to have multiple hardware prototypes and sometimes multiple case prototypes, leaking is especially hazardous - not only could you be leaking a product that will never ship, you might well make it perfectly clear where that leak came from.
And even with all of their apparent paranoia, Apple higher-ups have been known to bring relatively completed designs and specs to big .edu markets (Maine ordered how many iBook dual USB at intro? CRT and LCD iMacs were shown prior to intro, as was eMac.) and big .com markets (Xserve at Genentech)
The honest truth is that the people that see these systems sign NDAs and stick to them. If Apple showed up at my door with prototype hardware and had me sign an NDA, it would bind not only me but my employer. If I leaked that information, I'm almost positive it would cost me my job (as well it should).
Just because there might be real info doesn't mean the thread can degenerate into crap.
You either believe it or you don't.