"I agree that ***re's no way a GPUL processor will cost Apple $900. However, workstations differ from PCs in one fundamental respect: In a PC, *** CPU is almost always way too powerful for *** mo***rboard. In a workstation, everything is fast, and bandwidth is abundant. This means *** whole mo***rboard is expensive, and ***re are no places to cut costs. If Apple decides to release a real workstation - say, a big fat switched fabric based on HyperTransport with 6.4GB/s bandwidth as a general rule (that's a bit excessive, I admit) and a scalable NUMA architecture to allow for multiple multicored processors - ***n you're talking about something that would really do a dual-core GPUL (or two, or four, or eight ) justice - and that would cost enough that $5 for *** package would be a very good price."
It's in the 'Cores'. See, 'Murch? Amorph kinda gets it!
A 'power'Mac might have a dual core.
An uberMac might have quad or eight. I dunno.
But they'd both have a GPUL inside (duh-doh-da-DUH...) and they'd cost a different amount.
No way Apple's not going to have a GPUL in a 'power'Mac when AMD will have a Hammer on Hypertransport for the usual ridiculous prices.
Apple will no doubt be trying to get back in the real world of performance with the GPUL.
A dual core GPUL will be right for the 'power'Macs by this time next year. Quad GPUL? That's another matter.
I don't dispute that GPUL will come down to Sub $3k I'm just saying don't expect it. I expect Apple to come out with as fast a machine as they can and there WILL be a market for it even it it's out the range of many users. Maya, Shake, Tremor and plenty of other users could easily afford to pay for the huge increase in power.
Give it two years and you'll probably see a $2500 GPUL based machine.
[quote] GPUL is going to compete with IBM's Linux/GPUL machines and you're in for a shocker if you think Apple is going to be shipping GPUL sub $3k computer initially. IBM won't ...why should Apple? <hr></blockquote>
IBM also sells 604e based workstations for $8k+. Don't read to much into what IBM does...
Apple wants to sell machines to all the professionals that have been abandoning the platform faster than the French can run from German tanks. They're not going to do that with workstation class hardware alone. They need machines starting at $1k and going up from there to get back those people. If they don't try to get those people back, then they're sunk.
[quote] I don't hear too many complaints about HP charging $26k for a Dual 750Mhz PA-8700
<hr></blockquote>
That's because damn near no one buys them, or even looks to buy them.
If Apple does as you expect, and introduces GPUL based machines at $4k, what do you think it will do for their market share? On the other hand, if Apple were to bring out GPUL based machines starting at $2k or slightly less, what would that do to their market share?
Apple needs to replace the Powermacs with machines that are at least twice as fast as the current offerings in order to be competitive with PCs. If the GPUL is going to be too expensive to fill that purpose, then what will?
Man this thread has gone down the drain! What happened to all the interesting posts. This argument between these few people about a topic that only one side is obviously right. The GPUL will be put in the Powermacs as soon as apple gets them. The other side is using screwy logic and is wrong!!!!! Moki please post something interesting and get these other people to shut up.
<strong>Man this thread has gone down the drain! What happened to all the interesting posts. This argument between these few people about a topic that only one side is obviously right. The GPUL will be put in the Powermacs as soon as apple gets them. The other side is using screwy logic and is wrong!!!!! Moki please post something interesting and get these other people to shut up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moki never said he knew everything about this processor. Don't build him up to be something he's not. And you too have tha ability to add substantive information as well. The issue isn't whether the GPUL is going to be put in Powermacs it's "at what price?"
Apple has never entered the market that you now say that they will enter. Your logic seems to be that GP-UL is based on Power4 and therefor has the potential to be a workstation class chip based on projected performance. A couple of points:
This processor is based on a Power4 core, but that is almost as much as we know (yeah, yeah, 8-way superscalar etc). But we don't know what its performace will be like. It isn't and there will be compromises .
The machine is more that a year away from market according to "sources", although eWeek is not a news source to be taken seriously; they have no credibility in the Mac rumour department. We don't know whether the performance will be competitive with P4 class machines at that time, and in any case there will be 64 bit processors from other companies available Q4 2003.
The current pro macs are behind the performance curve. It's not like there is not ground to be made up. And at $3400, these machines are not cheap. Bump them with SCSI drives, and a 2nd flat panel and your into workstation territory already.
Given these points, I can't imagine that Apple will suddenly decide it wants to market an high end "workstation" class machine. There is no historical precedent. And its not like there has not been opportunity. The Power3 and Power cores are PPC core supersets. Apple could have built a high end machine around the Power4 if it wanted tyo, but it didn't. I think your the one that is talking up what he wants to see, rather than what the historical record, and all reasonable sense will suggest what will happen.
Caveat:
I can see Xserve being configured either as a file server or a render farm with high bandwidth, but the powermacs are staying where they are: the $1500 to $3500 bracket.
[quote] you mean like emac, imac, powermac? <hr></blockquote>
uh, no. Let me explain something to you. Just because there are three of something doesn't make it a "three-tiered strategy". The iMac and eMac have the same target markets. They are both G4s with available superdrives, and similar price structures differentiated by the monitor. They have equivalent performance, but one is an LCD and one is a CRT. Apple sold the eMac in the education channel, but so many people wanted to stick with the CRT that Apple opened them up to consumers.
Edit: removed a small slander of Lemon's propensity to jump quickly on posts (slam dunky stuff). It was uncalled for and I apologize.
[quote] eWeek is not a news source to be taken seriously; they have no credibility in the Mac rumour department <hr></blockquote>
ummm... yes they do. they just nailed the os9 won't boot machine last week.
the writers at at eweek that write about the mac (except for nick de plume) are ex macweek people. you think they've built about a few apple sources over the past decade?
Nothing about OS9 only. They do predict that Apple will announce it's Euro retail effort. I don't seem to recall hearing anything about that after the fact... Strange that...
Of course, if you have alink that shows an eweek prediction that was accurate, well, I'd like to see it.
<strong>The issue isn't whether the GPUL is going to be put in Powermacs it's "at what price?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's more than that: We don't know whether the GPUL will be single- or dual-core, or both. Either way, Apple has a lot of options as far as whether they starve it in a PC-style mobo or fatten it in a workstation-class mobo. Knowing Apple, they'll try to split the difference. But that will have at least as significant an impact on the final price as the processor itself.
Apple can also put it on two boards, or put a single-core chip on a lower-end board and a dual-core chip on a higher-end one, etc.
[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>Apple has never entered the market that you now say that they will enter. Your logic seems to be that GP-UL is based on Power4 and therefor has the potential to be a workstation class chip based on projected performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't forget that Apple has Shake, Maya, Oracle 9, and other heavy-duty apps coming in from the UNIX and high-end NT worlds for the first time. They have an OS that can run with the big boys for the first time.
Before this year, Apple had never shipped a rackmounted server - or a rackmounted anything, for that matter. And Steve was quite clear that the XServe was only the 'humble' introduction to the line.
Apple will have options, and they like to have options.
[quote] Don't forget that Apple has Shake, Maya, Oracle 9, and other heavy-duty apps coming in from the UNIX and high-end NT worlds for the first time. They have an OS that can run with the big boys for the first time.
Before this year, Apple had never shipped a rackmounted server - or a rackmounted anything, for that matter. And Steve was quite clear that the XServe was only the 'humble' introduction to the line.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes. Maya etc. I think that this is more a reflection that the desktop hardware is catching up to the high end software. There are lots of apps in science that no one would ever have run on a desktop that are now routine. Criminny, I run BLAST locally on my portable (!) and have several whole genome databases installed on it. That was unheard of until recently. It is my contention in this thread that the workstation market as we once knew it is dead, or at least on it's last legs. Consumer machines are just too powerful to differentiate Pro machines on a performance basis. You were right when you earlier pointed out that the things that differentiate workstation class machines were motherboard features, hardened parts and redundancy: these things, and not the processor, at least not anymore.
And again, as I placed in my caveat, I do see th Xserve perhaps splitting with this GP-UL introduction into something similar to what hmurch. wants.
Edit: and I wanted to add that that portable "workstation" has an uptime measured in weeks and months. Things have changed.
Haha, well I'm a vegetarian. I did not search so far back into the eweek archive.
But really, credibility aside, the way that the eweek article about GP-UL was written... well, it looks like it was drawn right out of these forums. I don't doubt the substance since Apple clearly needs to do something, but I do doubt the details such as dates. The "source" might be Eugene(!), and we know that he knows nothing!
The niche is out there. Imagine a SGI/Shake user looking to migrate to Apple. Think they're going to worry about paying $10k for a GPUL Powermac/Shake bundle? Nope</strong><hr></blockquote>
So that's why SGI is making a killing on their workstation business and cornering the market while HP, IBM and Dell are struggling to sell Intel workstations.
[quote] The GPUL is NOT the POWER4. <hr></blockquote>
I never said that. The GPUL is more akin to a Xeon than a P4(which doesn't even do SMP)
Wormboy...just because you can run Blast on your Notebook doesn't mean the workstation maket is finished. Make your living doing so and things change.
I believe Amorph has the right idea. It depend on if Apple has the option of Single and Dual Cores. Dual Cores will be Workstation level IMO with beefy mobos. Your opinions are just as valid as mine. We'll all know in a year!!
1. We don't even know for sure if this GPUL is going to be used in a Mac. Heck we don't even know if it is really called GPUL!
2. If in deed this GPUL is going to be used in new Macs then what makes you think it will be a workstation class processor? And if it will not be out till the end of 03 then imagine how far behind we will be. This CPU will probable hardly catch us up to the PC world.
3. Apple is already behind we need to catch up not just charge more money for good workstation class machines (even if they are workstations type chips). What apple needs to do is come out with a workstation class machine and charge the same prices as they do for the PowerMac. As well they need to bundle all of those Apps they bought with this new PowerMac.
4. Apple now has the best OS on the market. I have worked with many computers. I put a PC together this weekend. All sort of high speed stuff (Rambus 800mhz, 2.4Ghz P4, 10,000 RPM HD ect) I put windows XP on it...this was a mistake! First it wasn't any faster than our Powermac 867. I don't know about speed tests but just using the computer it didn't do anything faster. I couldn't tell that it had all that cool fast shit by using it. But I can tell you that XP crashed twice in 2 hours time. So sure it wasn't any faster than my powermac but it costs only 1400$. Now granted I built it myself but even if I had bought one it would have been cheaper by at least 500$. This is apples problem: A new PowerMac can hold it own with all the fancy PC shit but it cost a lot more.
\t
\tNow there is another little interesting fact hidden in here. Our PowerMac has, as you all know, 133Mhz Ram and bus, a 867Mhz G4 ect, so how can it hold it own against the PC I put together? The only answer is that all that fancy high speed stuff doesn't really make much of a difference doing normal things. Or is it the OS?
5. In the past apple has been ahead of the x86 side with their PowerMacs or at least even. Now they are behind because you have to pay
500-1000 more to get an apple that will do the same thing as a PC can. Apple will either have to lower prices or get some new tech. Will they lower prices or do they have something to give us? Cause we all know that the PowerMacs are not selling.
6. I believe that if apple plans to bring in another 5% they will need to compete with all the PCs price/performance wise. People have to buy one first before they can see how great the OS is, although the apple stores do help present the OS. So apple needs something solid to advertise beyond design because that is all you can tell about the OS or computer from an add. You can't see how it works.. see what I mean? Apple has everything in the right place so that is they release a really good CPU people will start switching. I think steve knows this... he isn't stupid. I would imagine if apple is serious about Getting 10% they will release this GPUL as soon as they can and make a big deal about it.
7. So to sum up all of my words: Apple will release this GPUL in the next 6 months ( think February). It will be in the regular PowerMac line and the Xserve. The prices will be the same and we will most likely see a new case design. Then they will but dual G4s in all the iMac flat panels( the G4 only costs about 90$ per chip) and single G4s in the emacs. This will bring apple back up to even in the consumer and ahead in the Pro market. AND THEY WILL GET THEIR 10% as fast as you can say GPUL!!!!
8. If they don't release this GPUL till end of next year then why even bother. We will be so far behind apple will be in the dumps again. And you have to question how many more people like Steve are out there to try to make it work again. Steve will not lose this fight!!!!! If there is any hope for apple we will see it in february!!!
Amorph: I agree that the only way the Cube will be resurrected is if it replaces the Power Mac.
That is, you have a 20cm3 (8") basic box, all most people have to buy. Specs something like this:
AGP Slot (7x7" instead of 9x5" standard)
3x RAM Slots (DDR (QDR?) DIMMs)
ApplePI Slot (for one or two GPULs)
Hard Drive (3 1/2")
Optical Drive (Laptop-size Tray loading)
Then you can buy CD/DVD add ons, hard drive add ons, and PCI(-express) add ons.
The Cube 2 could use 10GB Ethernet with Rendevous to connect to the add ons.
The Cube 2 and add ons would be stackable, with the Cube on top, functioning as a heat chimney.
That's the only way I could see The Return of the Cube?.
IBM is making the GPUL to replace the 604e in entry level servers and desktops. IBM will also want a non-palladium chip ready to go for its business customers.
It will be cheap enough and cool enough for Apple. Similar market, except Apple doesn't charge (as) huge premiums.
Comments
It's in the 'Cores'. See, 'Murch? Amorph kinda gets it!
A 'power'Mac might have a dual core.
An uberMac might have quad or eight. I dunno.
But they'd both have a GPUL inside (duh-doh-da-DUH...) and they'd cost a different amount.
No way Apple's not going to have a GPUL in a 'power'Mac when AMD will have a Hammer on Hypertransport for the usual ridiculous prices.
Apple will no doubt be trying to get back in the real world of performance with the GPUL.
A dual core GPUL will be right for the 'power'Macs by this time next year. Quad GPUL? That's another matter.
Lemon Bon Bon
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't hear too many complaints about HP charging $26k for a Dual 750Mhz PA-8700
<a href="http://www.hp.com/workstations/products/unix/jclass/j6700/specs.html"; target="_blank">http://www.hp.com/workstations/products/unix/jclass/j6700/specs.html</a>;
I don't dispute that GPUL will come down to Sub $3k I'm just saying don't expect it. I expect Apple to come out with as fast a machine as they can and there WILL be a market for it even it it's out the range of many users. Maya, Shake, Tremor and plenty of other users could easily afford to pay for the huge increase in power.
Give it two years and you'll probably see a $2500 GPUL based machine.
IBM also sells 604e based workstations for $8k+. Don't read to much into what IBM does...
Apple wants to sell machines to all the professionals that have been abandoning the platform faster than the French can run from German tanks. They're not going to do that with workstation class hardware alone. They need machines starting at $1k and going up from there to get back those people. If they don't try to get those people back, then they're sunk.
<hr></blockquote>
That's because damn near no one buys them, or even looks to buy them.
If Apple does as you expect, and introduces GPUL based machines at $4k, what do you think it will do for their market share? On the other hand, if Apple were to bring out GPUL based machines starting at $2k or slightly less, what would that do to their market share?
Apple needs to replace the Powermacs with machines that are at least twice as fast as the current offerings in order to be competitive with PCs. If the GPUL is going to be too expensive to fill that purpose, then what will?
<strong>Man this thread has gone down the drain! What happened to all the interesting posts. This argument between these few people about a topic that only one side is obviously right. The GPUL will be put in the Powermacs as soon as apple gets them. The other side is using screwy logic and is wrong!!!!! Moki please post something interesting and get these other people to shut up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Moki never said he knew everything about this processor. Don't build him up to be something he's not. And you too have tha ability to add substantive information as well. The issue isn't whether the GPUL is going to be put in Powermacs it's "at what price?"
Apple has never entered the market that you now say that they will enter. Your logic seems to be that GP-UL is based on Power4 and therefor has the potential to be a workstation class chip based on projected performance. A couple of points:
- This processor is based on a Power4 core, but that is almost as much as we know (yeah, yeah, 8-way superscalar etc). But we don't know what its performace will be like. It isn't and there will be compromises .
- The machine is more that a year away from market according to "sources", although eWeek is not a news source to be taken seriously; they have no credibility in the Mac rumour department. We don't know whether the performance will be competitive with P4 class machines at that time, and in any case there will be 64 bit processors from other companies available Q4 2003.
- The current pro macs are behind the performance curve. It's not like there is not ground to be made up. And at $3400, these machines are not cheap. Bump them with SCSI drives, and a 2nd flat panel and your into workstation territory already.
Given these points, I can't imagine that Apple will suddenly decide it wants to market an high end "workstation" class machine. There is no historical precedent. And its not like there has not been opportunity. The Power3 and Power cores are PPC core supersets. Apple could have built a high end machine around the Power4 if it wanted tyo, but it didn't. I think your the one that is talking up what he wants to see, rather than what the historical record, and all reasonable sense will suggest what will happen.Caveat:
I can see Xserve being configured either as a file server or a render farm with high bandwidth, but the powermacs are staying where they are: the $1500 to $3500 bracket.
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
[quote] you mean like emac, imac, powermac? <hr></blockquote>
uh, no. Let me explain something to you. Just because there are three of something doesn't make it a "three-tiered strategy". The iMac and eMac have the same target markets. They are both G4s with available superdrives, and similar price structures differentiated by the monitor. They have equivalent performance, but one is an LCD and one is a CRT. Apple sold the eMac in the education channel, but so many people wanted to stick with the CRT that Apple opened them up to consumers.
Edit: removed a small slander of Lemon's propensity to jump quickly on posts (slam dunky stuff). It was uncalled for and I apologize.
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
ummm... yes they do. they just nailed the os9 won't boot machine last week.
the writers at at eweek that write about the mac (except for nick de plume) are ex macweek people. you think they've built about a few apple sources over the past decade?
ya think?
[quote] <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,522405,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,522405,00.asp</a>; <hr></blockquote>
Nothing about OS9 only. They do predict that Apple will announce it's Euro retail effort. I don't seem to recall hearing anything about that after the fact... Strange that...
Of course, if you have alink that shows an eweek prediction that was accurate, well, I'd like to see it.
<strong>The issue isn't whether the GPUL is going to be put in Powermacs it's "at what price?"</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's more than that: We don't know whether the GPUL will be single- or dual-core, or both. Either way, Apple has a lot of options as far as whether they starve it in a PC-style mobo or fatten it in a workstation-class mobo. Knowing Apple, they'll try to split the difference. But that will have at least as significant an impact on the final price as the processor itself.
Apple can also put it on two boards, or put a single-core chip on a lower-end board and a dual-core chip on a higher-end one, etc.
[quote]Originally posted by wormboy:
<strong>Apple has never entered the market that you now say that they will enter. Your logic seems to be that GP-UL is based on Power4 and therefor has the potential to be a workstation class chip based on projected performance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't forget that Apple has Shake, Maya, Oracle 9, and other heavy-duty apps coming in from the UNIX and high-end NT worlds for the first time. They have an OS that can run with the big boys for the first time.
Before this year, Apple had never shipped a rackmounted server - or a rackmounted anything, for that matter. And Steve was quite clear that the XServe was only the 'humble' introduction to the line.
Apple will have options, and they like to have options.
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Before this year, Apple had never shipped a rackmounted server - or a rackmounted anything, for that matter. And Steve was quite clear that the XServe was only the 'humble' introduction to the line.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes. Maya etc. I think that this is more a reflection that the desktop hardware is catching up to the high end software. There are lots of apps in science that no one would ever have run on a desktop that are now routine. Criminny, I run BLAST locally on my portable (!) and have several whole genome databases installed on it. That was unheard of until recently. It is my contention in this thread that the workstation market as we once knew it is dead, or at least on it's last legs. Consumer machines are just too powerful to differentiate Pro machines on a performance basis. You were right when you earlier pointed out that the things that differentiate workstation class machines were motherboard features, hardened parts and redundancy: these things, and not the processor, at least not anymore.
And again, as I placed in my caveat, I do see th Xserve perhaps splitting with this GP-UL introduction into something similar to what hmurch. wants.
Edit: and I wanted to add that that portable "workstation" has an uptime measured in weeks and months. Things have changed.
[ 09-21-2002: Message edited by: wormboy ]</p>
Money shown:
August 2, 2002
Apple to Slam Lid on Mac OS 9
ByÂ*Daniel Drew Turner and Matthew Rothenberg
<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,431382,00.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,431382,00.asp</a>;
Now serving crow in the dining room. Wormboy will you be eating one serving or two?
But really, credibility aside, the way that the eweek article about GP-UL was written... well, it looks like it was drawn right out of these forums. I don't doubt the substance since Apple clearly needs to do something, but I do doubt the details such as dates. The "source" might be Eugene(!), and we know that he knows nothing!
<strong>
You're confusing "consumer" processors with Big Iron procs like the Power4
The GPUL is NOT the POWER4.
<strong>
The niche is out there. Imagine a SGI/Shake user looking to migrate to Apple. Think they're going to worry about paying $10k for a GPUL Powermac/Shake bundle? Nope</strong><hr></blockquote>
So that's why SGI is making a killing on their workstation business and cornering the market while HP, IBM and Dell are struggling to sell Intel workstations.
I never said that. The GPUL is more akin to a Xeon than a P4(which doesn't even do SMP)
Wormboy...just because you can run Blast on your Notebook doesn't mean the workstation maket is finished. Make your living doing so and things change.
I believe Amorph has the right idea. It depend on if Apple has the option of Single and Dual Cores. Dual Cores will be Workstation level IMO with beefy mobos. Your opinions are just as valid as mine. We'll all know in a year!!
1. We don't even know for sure if this GPUL is going to be used in a Mac. Heck we don't even know if it is really called GPUL!
2. If in deed this GPUL is going to be used in new Macs then what makes you think it will be a workstation class processor? And if it will not be out till the end of 03 then imagine how far behind we will be. This CPU will probable hardly catch us up to the PC world.
3. Apple is already behind we need to catch up not just charge more money for good workstation class machines (even if they are workstations type chips). What apple needs to do is come out with a workstation class machine and charge the same prices as they do for the PowerMac. As well they need to bundle all of those Apps they bought with this new PowerMac.
4. Apple now has the best OS on the market. I have worked with many computers. I put a PC together this weekend. All sort of high speed stuff (Rambus 800mhz, 2.4Ghz P4, 10,000 RPM HD ect) I put windows XP on it...this was a mistake! First it wasn't any faster than our Powermac 867. I don't know about speed tests but just using the computer it didn't do anything faster. I couldn't tell that it had all that cool fast shit by using it. But I can tell you that XP crashed twice in 2 hours time. So sure it wasn't any faster than my powermac but it costs only 1400$. Now granted I built it myself but even if I had bought one it would have been cheaper by at least 500$. This is apples problem: A new PowerMac can hold it own with all the fancy PC shit but it cost a lot more.
\t
\tNow there is another little interesting fact hidden in here. Our PowerMac has, as you all know, 133Mhz Ram and bus, a 867Mhz G4 ect, so how can it hold it own against the PC I put together? The only answer is that all that fancy high speed stuff doesn't really make much of a difference doing normal things. Or is it the OS?
5. In the past apple has been ahead of the x86 side with their PowerMacs or at least even. Now they are behind because you have to pay
500-1000 more to get an apple that will do the same thing as a PC can. Apple will either have to lower prices or get some new tech. Will they lower prices or do they have something to give us? Cause we all know that the PowerMacs are not selling.
6. I believe that if apple plans to bring in another 5% they will need to compete with all the PCs price/performance wise. People have to buy one first before they can see how great the OS is, although the apple stores do help present the OS. So apple needs something solid to advertise beyond design because that is all you can tell about the OS or computer from an add. You can't see how it works.. see what I mean? Apple has everything in the right place so that is they release a really good CPU people will start switching. I think steve knows this... he isn't stupid. I would imagine if apple is serious about Getting 10% they will release this GPUL as soon as they can and make a big deal about it.
7. So to sum up all of my words: Apple will release this GPUL in the next 6 months ( think February). It will be in the regular PowerMac line and the Xserve. The prices will be the same and we will most likely see a new case design. Then they will but dual G4s in all the iMac flat panels( the G4 only costs about 90$ per chip) and single G4s in the emacs. This will bring apple back up to even in the consumer and ahead in the Pro market. AND THEY WILL GET THEIR 10% as fast as you can say GPUL!!!!
8. If they don't release this GPUL till end of next year then why even bother. We will be so far behind apple will be in the dumps again. And you have to question how many more people like Steve are out there to try to make it work again. Steve will not lose this fight!!!!! If there is any hope for apple we will see it in february!!!
AND THATS ALL FOLKS!
[ 09-22-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
That is, you have a 20cm3 (8") basic box, all most people have to buy. Specs something like this:
AGP Slot (7x7" instead of 9x5" standard)
3x RAM Slots (DDR (QDR?) DIMMs)
ApplePI Slot (for one or two GPULs)
Hard Drive (3 1/2")
Optical Drive (Laptop-size Tray loading)
Then you can buy CD/DVD add ons, hard drive add ons, and PCI(-express) add ons.
The Cube 2 could use 10GB Ethernet with Rendevous to connect to the add ons.
The Cube 2 and add ons would be stackable, with the Cube on top, functioning as a heat chimney.
That's the only way I could see The Return of the Cube?.
IBM is making the GPUL to replace the 604e in entry level servers and desktops. IBM will also want a non-palladium chip ready to go for its business customers.
It will be cheap enough and cool enough for Apple. Similar market, except Apple doesn't charge (as) huge premiums.
Barto