<strong>Granted, JYD usually comes across pessimistic and all, but here's something I'd like everyone to consider. Apple is a large company, dedicated to making a profit (obvious, huh). Now, if you could sell old, proven H/W technology for a premium cost, high profit margins to a marginally adequate niche group; as opposed to leading edge H/W technology with minimal profit margins to that same niche group (but with "possible" growth potential) ... which would you do (moneywise)? My point is that Apple, like lots of other companies, is controlled by the "Bean Counters". Fast Profit is the name of the game to them (in general). Now, if we, as consumers, are COMPLACENT in our acceptance of old H/W technology (shown by our purchases of said technology, just so Apple can make more of a profit), then wouldn't the "Bean Counters" suggest "milking" the trend as long as possible to make more profits? Given, JYD spouts off alot more often than most about Apple being doomed, it appears he has to, because it appears that it is easier for folks to just accept inaction, than to have the desire for Apple to maintain Research and Development in bettering their product (another side effect is maintaining that marginal niche group segment, percentage wise, and possibly growing it). When you read JYD's posts, yes, accept them as an extreme side of things, but also be wary of the other extreme ... COMPLACENCY! As consumers, we can help Apple realize that the company has to maintain R & D to develop their product (thus keeping Apple around for us to enjoy the product, IT IS A BALANCE). A kick a$$ O/S is useless, unless you have something to run it on, and I'm sure we all want the most bang for our buck (or what ever currency is being charged us).
Sorry for rambling folks, but it kinda bothered me that people were getting personal and not taking the time to see things from "the other person's" point of view (there isn't enough of that in the world as it is, and Mac IS supposed to be a "Better World"). Me, I'm waiting to get a new Mac, and I hoping that Apple comes up with somthing I wanna buy come MWNY there abouts.
If you read this, thanks for reading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good post.
See my point here: Apple has been doing this (selling marginal HW at high profit) for a few years with the Powermac. THey haven't been that up to date since the 500s, and maybe the Dual 500 (mystic). So its time for them to up the ante again. It's a cycle. Apple uses blah hardware for a while, then releases a product that makes all drool....like the original G4. Its time for the next jump. Bean counters realize also that a good practice is to occasionally release something FANTASTIC to create a buzz, and thus, new markets, etc.
BUT you make a valid point. This is exactly why I'm so pessimistic about iMac updates at MWNY (see the LCD iMac thread) because the iMac JUST got its wow-ness and can now cruise for another 6 months. It only makes sense.
But Powermacs WILL get a big update. Hear my words. Let them sink in.
its not 2000 Mhz., its 2 at 1000 Mhz. you dont just add them together, there is too much going on in a dual processor conifiguration for you to simply sum it up in such a manner. but this of course is all semantics anyway.
i like the way everyone around here rags on spymac for having one really big fiasco rumor (iwalk), yet even appleinsider has devolved into a forums-only site, since apple is tighter than a drum. oh, and let's not forget the whole "disney buys apple" fiasco that appleinsider published back in the fall of '98, i believe, which shot to hell ai's credibility and nearly brought down the whole site.
just trying to add some perspective here. unfortunate thing is, those who won't listen never will. and those who will listen already know.
See my point here: Apple has been doing this (selling marginal HW at high profit) for a few years with the Powermac. THey haven't been that up to date since the 500s, and maybe the Dual 500 (mystic). So its time for them to up the ante again. It's a cycle. Apple uses blah hardware for a while, then releases a product that makes all drool....like the original G4. Its time for the next jump. Bean counters realize also that a good practice is to occasionally release something FANTASTIC to create a buzz, and thus, new markets, etc.
BUT you make a valid point. This is exactly why I'm so pessimistic about iMac updates at MWNY (see the LCD iMac thread) because the iMac JUST got its wow-ness and can now cruise for another 6 months. It only makes sense.
But Powermacs WILL get a big update. Hear my words. Let them sink in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First off, Thanks ... on many counts. And yes you are right. I'm just trying to keep optimism/pessimism in check concerning the "Pro" line updates (I would really like to get a new Mac, but also want to spend wisely). On the good side, we have the upgrade houses offering up to 1GHz cards/ Apple's lid on Security/ IBM's Power4 rumors/ an initial intro of DDR/ and all the subtle hints going on; on the DOWN SIDE ... Moto's track record. I lurk alot on the boards, but have posted a little more often. Usually not alot I can contribute rumorwise (with credibility).
<strong>i like the way everyone around here rags on spymac for having one really big fiasco rumor (iwalk), yet even appleinsider has devolved into a forums-only site, since apple is tighter than a drum. oh, and let's not forget the whole "disney buys apple" fiasco that appleinsider published back in the fall of '98, i believe, which shot to hell ai's credibility and nearly brought down the whole site.
just trying to add some perspective here. unfortunate thing is, those who won't listen never will. and those who will listen already know. </strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference being that AI already had a decent amount of credibility when the Disney thing came out. But most of us always took AI with a grain of salt anyways. Spymac did their fake and went ALL OUT in the ultimate visitor-attractive hoax ever. Spymac lured all the visitors there, and note how they now have a lovely store. They are out there to make money. Sure we all are in some way, but thats lame what Spymac represents.
Okay guys, I have to apologize. I sent that rumour to spymac, knowing that they'd publish it shamelessly. I was just hoping to bring everyone's expectations in line for MWNY, rather than letting them go wild like at MWSF. Its a good bet that we'll get at least a 0.2 GHz bump, and if the prices of the 1 GHz units have dropped enough for the accelerator companies then Apple might be able to afford putting two in every PowerMac. I didn't expect to cause such a ruckus here. I'm truly very sorry for this.
Four (4) PCI-X expansion slots; 128bit/133MHz; grouped two slots per bus
Four (4) USB2 ports; 480Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Four (4) FireWire2 ports; 800Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Airport
BlueTooth
Wireless Keyboard
Wireless Mouse
Now, if we could replace the dual 1.2GHz G4 with quad 1.5GHz G4s...
And bump the system bus up to a 533MHz RapidIO implementation...
And pop the RAM up, both in speed (say, 333MHz sticks...) and capacity/density (8GB from 8 @ 1GB DIMMs)...
And switch the OpenGL/video/graphics interface from AGP to HyperTransport tied directly to the main memory controller; offloading ALL OpenGL/2D operations from the CPU... and double the RAM while we're at it... (512MB DDR SDRAM!)
Bump the ATA interface up to ATA133, and we'll call it good...
Cheers!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I disagree -- the minimum we will see at MWNY is no change to the PowerMac lineup. This actually wouldn't be the worst case scenario ... it would likely mean that they were just holding off until some new technology is ready. A more likely minimum is the current machines with a 10-20% higher clock rate. Even that isn't the end of the world, however, as the next machines in the pipeline could come along in the fall.
Worst case scenario would be a 2 GHz G5, DDR333 w/ RapidIO machine that is only 10% faster than the current machines. That would be bad.
Four (4) PCI-X expansion slots; 128bit/133MHz; grouped two slots per bus
Four (4) USB2 ports; 480Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Four (4) FireWire2 ports; 800Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Airport
BlueTooth
Wireless Keyboard
Wireless Mouse
Now, if we could replace the dual 1.2GHz G4 with quad 1.5GHz G4s...
And bump the system bus up to a 533MHz RapidIO implementation...
And pop the RAM up, both in speed (say, 333MHz sticks...) and capacity/density (8GB from 8 @ 1GB DIMMs)...
And switch the OpenGL/video/graphics interface from AGP to HyperTransport tied directly to the main memory controller; offloading ALL OpenGL/2D operations from the CPU... and double the RAM while we're at it... (512MB DDR SDRAM!)
Bump the ATA interface up to ATA133, and we'll call it good...
Cheers!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>If they went with 933DP / 1ghz DP / 1.2ghz DP, all with DDR, and the top 2 with Superdrives, at the current Powermac price points, that wouldn't be too bad. I'd probably pick one up. A dual 1.2 w/ DDR would be substantially faster than the current dual 1.0.ghz</strong><hr></blockquote>
...i'd wait for some benchmarks before assuming a "substantial" speed improvement. given the xserve's DDR supprt the improvement is likely to be minor.
And switch the OpenGL/video/graphics interface from AGP to HyperTransport tied directly to the main memory controller; offloading ALL OpenGL/2D operations from the CPU... and double the RAM while we're at it... (512MB DDR SDRAM!)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And once AI comes back up twenty people will be posting that Apple sucks because you can't upgrade the video card. "Man, I thought Apple was sticking to Industry standards."
[quote] Where did the 1.6GHz G4 come from? <hr></blockquote>
Obviously to me, unless I'm mistakin the 1.6GHz Power PC 7455 @ 1600 is out and they're cranking away. My source is from distributed.net. Here is the page where they post their speeds for the rc5 projects. The info most likely should be under NDA, but woops. Scroll down the list of PPC until ...Bingo!
To satisify the curiosity of users that want to see the performance difference between different processors and architectures, we provide these data tabulation pages listing client processing rates that have been reported to us by other users.
The recommended way for obtaining reliable computation rates from your client's benchark is to run the "long" client benchmark 3 times, and taking the best rate of the three. Also, when possible, it is best to run the clients in as similar an environment as possible. Not all UNIX/multiuser machines have that luxury, so there may be some fluctuation between measured and actual speed. <hr></blockquote>
Once again, if anyone can shed some light on what these tests are, etc.
[quote] ...i'd wait for some benchmarks before assuming a "substantial" speed improvement. given the xserve's DDR supprt the improvement is likely to be minor. <hr></blockquote>
...i'd wait for some benchmarks before assuming a "substantial" speed improvement. given the xserve's DDR supprt the improvement is likely to be minor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here is the basis for my assertion that dual 1.2 w/ DDR would be "substantially" faster than the current 1.0 ghz duals (the simple version being that the dual 1ghz Xserve is "substantially" faster than the dual 1ghz Powermac in these benchmarks.
Comments
<strong>
umm some people dont get it it goes 800mhz 933mhx THEN IT IS 2x1000 mhz which equals 2000 mhz
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Someone want to tell me what in the heck this guy is talking about?
Sorry for being a dick....I'm just totally lost as to the point of your post...and 2x 1000 Mhz not equal 2000 Mhz, btw.
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: The All Knowing 1 ]</p>
<strong>Well, I did not write this myself, but I found it some time ago over at MacNN and it describes nicely my point of view about the theme
Greetings,
Martin</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vielen Dank', Martin!
That really does sum it up.
<strong>Granted, JYD usually comes across pessimistic and all, but here's something I'd like everyone to consider. Apple is a large company, dedicated to making a profit (obvious, huh). Now, if you could sell old, proven H/W technology for a premium cost, high profit margins to a marginally adequate niche group; as opposed to leading edge H/W technology with minimal profit margins to that same niche group (but with "possible" growth potential) ... which would you do (moneywise)? My point is that Apple, like lots of other companies, is controlled by the "Bean Counters". Fast Profit is the name of the game to them (in general). Now, if we, as consumers, are COMPLACENT in our acceptance of old H/W technology (shown by our purchases of said technology, just so Apple can make more of a profit), then wouldn't the "Bean Counters" suggest "milking" the trend as long as possible to make more profits? Given, JYD spouts off alot more often than most about Apple being doomed, it appears he has to, because it appears that it is easier for folks to just accept inaction, than to have the desire for Apple to maintain Research and Development in bettering their product (another side effect is maintaining that marginal niche group segment, percentage wise, and possibly growing it). When you read JYD's posts, yes, accept them as an extreme side of things, but also be wary of the other extreme ... COMPLACENCY! As consumers, we can help Apple realize that the company has to maintain R & D to develop their product (thus keeping Apple around for us to enjoy the product, IT IS A BALANCE). A kick a$$ O/S is useless, unless you have something to run it on, and I'm sure we all want the most bang for our buck (or what ever currency is being charged us).
Sorry for rambling folks, but it kinda bothered me that people were getting personal and not taking the time to see things from "the other person's" point of view (there isn't enough of that in the world as it is, and Mac IS supposed to be a "Better World"). Me, I'm waiting to get a new Mac, and I hoping that Apple comes up with somthing I wanna buy come MWNY there abouts.
If you read this, thanks for reading.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good post.
See my point here: Apple has been doing this (selling marginal HW at high profit) for a few years with the Powermac. THey haven't been that up to date since the 500s, and maybe the Dual 500 (mystic). So its time for them to up the ante again. It's a cycle. Apple uses blah hardware for a while, then releases a product that makes all drool....like the original G4. Its time for the next jump. Bean counters realize also that a good practice is to occasionally release something FANTASTIC to create a buzz, and thus, new markets, etc.
BUT you make a valid point. This is exactly why I'm so pessimistic about iMac updates at MWNY (see the LCD iMac thread) because the iMac JUST got its wow-ness and can now cruise for another 6 months. It only makes sense.
But Powermacs WILL get a big update. Hear my words. Let them sink in.
just trying to add some perspective here. unfortunate thing is, those who won't listen never will. and those who will listen already know.
When was the last time Apple bumped 200 mhz? OR better yet, when has Apple ever bumped more then 200mhz?
<strong>
Good post.
See my point here: Apple has been doing this (selling marginal HW at high profit) for a few years with the Powermac. THey haven't been that up to date since the 500s, and maybe the Dual 500 (mystic). So its time for them to up the ante again. It's a cycle. Apple uses blah hardware for a while, then releases a product that makes all drool....like the original G4. Its time for the next jump. Bean counters realize also that a good practice is to occasionally release something FANTASTIC to create a buzz, and thus, new markets, etc.
BUT you make a valid point. This is exactly why I'm so pessimistic about iMac updates at MWNY (see the LCD iMac thread) because the iMac JUST got its wow-ness and can now cruise for another 6 months. It only makes sense.
But Powermacs WILL get a big update. Hear my words. Let them sink in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
First off, Thanks ... on many counts. And yes you are right. I'm just trying to keep optimism/pessimism in check concerning the "Pro" line updates (I would really like to get a new Mac, but also want to spend wisely). On the good side, we have the upgrade houses offering up to 1GHz cards/ Apple's lid on Security/ IBM's Power4 rumors/ an initial intro of DDR/ and all the subtle hints going on; on the DOWN SIDE ... Moto's track record. I lurk alot on the boards, but have posted a little more often. Usually not alot I can contribute rumorwise (with credibility).
Very informational though, and I appreciate that.
<strong>i like the way everyone around here rags on spymac for having one really big fiasco rumor (iwalk), yet even appleinsider has devolved into a forums-only site, since apple is tighter than a drum. oh, and let's not forget the whole "disney buys apple" fiasco that appleinsider published back in the fall of '98, i believe, which shot to hell ai's credibility and nearly brought down the whole site.
just trying to add some perspective here. unfortunate thing is, those who won't listen never will. and those who will listen already know.
The difference being that AI already had a decent amount of credibility when the Disney thing came out. But most of us always took AI with a grain of salt anyways. Spymac did their fake and went ALL OUT in the ultimate visitor-attractive hoax ever. Spymac lured all the visitors there, and note how they now have a lovely store. They are out there to make money. Sure we all are in some way, but thats lame what Spymac represents.
Apple PowerMac G4 MP Workstation
Dual 1.2GHz G4 CPUs
512KB on-die 1:1 L2 cache per CPU
4MB backside 2:1 (DDR SRAM) L3 cache per CPU
166MHz Front Side Bus
2GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM (4 @ 512MB CL2 DIMMs)
Three (3) ATA100 interfaces - two devices per interface, two interfaces grouped with hardware RAID support
SuperDrive2
CD-R drive (finally, a second optical drive from Apple...)
Four (4) ATA100 120GB/7,200rpm/8MB cache HDDs - hot-swappable/removable sleds - RAID Level 0
AGP Pro110 8x graphics slot
Apple/nVidia Quartz Extreme graphics card; dual 600MHz GPUs, 256MB DDR SDRAM, dual ADC ports
Four (4) PCI-X expansion slots; 128bit/133MHz; grouped two slots per bus
Four (4) USB2 ports; 480Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Four (4) FireWire2 ports; 800Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Airport
BlueTooth
Wireless Keyboard
Wireless Mouse
Now, if we could replace the dual 1.2GHz G4 with quad 1.5GHz G4s...
And bump the system bus up to a 533MHz RapidIO implementation...
And pop the RAM up, both in speed (say, 333MHz sticks...) and capacity/density (8GB from 8 @ 1GB DIMMs)...
And switch the OpenGL/video/graphics interface from AGP to HyperTransport tied directly to the main memory controller; offloading ALL OpenGL/2D operations from the CPU... and double the RAM while we're at it... (512MB DDR SDRAM!)
Bump the ATA interface up to ATA133, and we'll call it good...
Cheers!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Worst case scenario would be a 2 GHz G5, DDR333 w/ RapidIO machine that is only 10% faster than the current machines. That would be bad.
<strong>Worst case for MacWorld New York 2002:
Apple PowerMac G4 MP Workstation
Dual 1.2GHz G4 CPUs
512KB on-die 1:1 L2 cache per CPU
4MB backside 2:1 (DDR SRAM) L3 cache per CPU
166MHz Front Side Bus
2GB PC2100 DDR SDRAM (4 @ 512MB CL2 DIMMs)
Three (3) ATA100 interfaces - two devices per interface, two interfaces grouped with hardware RAID support
SuperDrive2
CD-R drive (finally, a second optical drive from Apple...)
Four (4) ATA100 120GB/7,200rpm/8MB cache HDDs - hot-swappable/removable sleds - RAID Level 0
AGP Pro110 8x graphics slot
Apple/nVidia Quartz Extreme graphics card; dual 600MHz GPUs, 256MB DDR SDRAM, dual ADC ports
Four (4) PCI-X expansion slots; 128bit/133MHz; grouped two slots per bus
Four (4) USB2 ports; 480Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Four (4) FireWire2 ports; 800Mbps; two front panel, two back panel
Airport
BlueTooth
Wireless Keyboard
Wireless Mouse
Now, if we could replace the dual 1.2GHz G4 with quad 1.5GHz G4s...
And bump the system bus up to a 533MHz RapidIO implementation...
And pop the RAM up, both in speed (say, 333MHz sticks...) and capacity/density (8GB from 8 @ 1GB DIMMs)...
And switch the OpenGL/video/graphics interface from AGP to HyperTransport tied directly to the main memory controller; offloading ALL OpenGL/2D operations from the CPU... and double the RAM while we're at it... (512MB DDR SDRAM!)
Bump the ATA interface up to ATA133, and we'll call it good...
Cheers!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
FINALLY
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Someone with some class! Now this is a rumor! This is what is supposed to be going on less thana month from Macworld, not this pessimistic BS.
That was a pretty silly post, specs are all outta balance...
I could go back and edit, but who cares?!?
But put me on the list for the Quad-Core Quad CPU G5s...
Mmmm...G5s...
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Maya for Mac OS X <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>Douglass Adams was a Mac freak. Now he's dead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. That was a great post. I just can't understand why people give you a hard time. Really, I just don't get it.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>If they went with 933DP / 1ghz DP / 1.2ghz DP, all with DDR, and the top 2 with Superdrives, at the current Powermac price points, that wouldn't be too bad. I'd probably pick one up. A dual 1.2 w/ DDR would be substantially faster than the current dual 1.0.ghz</strong><hr></blockquote>
...i'd wait for some benchmarks before assuming a "substantial" speed improvement. given the xserve's DDR supprt the improvement is likely to be minor.
<strong>Worst case for MacWorld New York 2002:
Apple PowerMac G4 MP Workstation
Dual 1.2GHz G4 CPUs
(all kinds of crazy specs)
And switch the OpenGL/video/graphics interface from AGP to HyperTransport tied directly to the main memory controller; offloading ALL OpenGL/2D operations from the CPU... and double the RAM while we're at it... (512MB DDR SDRAM!)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And once AI comes back up twenty people will be posting that Apple sucks because you can't upgrade the video card. "Man, I thought Apple was sticking to Industry standards."
<strong>Okay guys, I have to apologize. I sent that rumour to spymac..........</strong><hr></blockquote>
ARE YOU SERIOUS?! <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Maybe I should send them what I have heard about G6 from my source
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
pey/coy-ote
- Cheers!
To bauman
[quote] Where did the 1.6GHz G4 come from? <hr></blockquote>
Obviously to me, unless I'm mistakin the 1.6GHz Power PC 7455 @ 1600 is out and they're cranking away. My source is from distributed.net. Here is the page where they post their speeds for the rc5 projects. The info most likely should be under NDA, but woops. Scroll down the list of PPC until ...Bingo!
<a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5</a>;
From their speed page.
<a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/"; target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/</a>;
[quote] Speed Pages
To satisify the curiosity of users that want to see the performance difference between different processors and architectures, we provide these data tabulation pages listing client processing rates that have been reported to us by other users.
The recommended way for obtaining reliable computation rates from your client's benchark is to run the "long" client benchmark 3 times, and taking the best rate of the three. Also, when possible, it is best to run the clients in as similar an environment as possible. Not all UNIX/multiuser machines have that luxury, so there may be some fluctuation between measured and actual speed. <hr></blockquote>
Once again, if anyone can shed some light on what these tests are, etc.
Thanks
-tink
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
<a href="http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html"; target="_blank">Not necessarily...</a>
<strong>
...i'd wait for some benchmarks before assuming a "substantial" speed improvement. given the xserve's DDR supprt the improvement is likely to be minor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here is the basis for my assertion that dual 1.2 w/ DDR would be "substantially" faster than the current 1.0 ghz duals (the simple version being that the dual 1ghz Xserve is "substantially" faster than the dual 1ghz Powermac in these benchmarks.
<a href="http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html</A>;