Hmmm, I'm pleased at the vast reduction in chip size and power use.
However, with a chip controller running at upto 1.4 gig, surely we could be seeing 2.8 gig 970fxs?
And surely at that speed they'd still be far off the cheynobal heat signature of Prescott..?
Is the system controller holding back the 970 fx higher speed grades?
2.5 is a nice bump. That's an extra 1 gig extra over the current dual 2 gig. And you get extra bandwidth.
But I was kinda hoping for 2.6 or 2.8.
Still, it's very exciting news. It really puts it to Intel and AMD. IBM is running the Pentium 4 down. At 2.5 gig, we're only 700 mhz behind! A year ago? Apple was 1.6 gig behind!!! That's one hell of a claw back. Steve was right when he said Apple would make up the ground and close the gap.
And aren't AMD dependent on IBM for the 0.09 process? Aren't AMD only set to deliver the 0.09 by 2nd half 2004?
I read Intel have put back the 4 gig Prescott to early 2005! If Apple can deliver 3.2 gig Power 5 derived 970fxs by September and Intel are stuck on 3.6 gig...then the gap is closed to 400mhz! Astounding if it comes to pass! Then you got the system bandwidth.
The G5 is going to be the Pentium 5 slayer!
Lemon Bon Bon
Sorry to say but Dell is taking orders on notebooks that have either a 3.4ghz prescott, or a 3.4ghz extreme edition chip. that is a notebook.
I am trying still to find out if the 3.4's are shipping yet, I only found 4 places with a boxed version listed. Two said call, the other two would let me order and said nothing about delayed shipping. So now if I add that up correctly, in 14 months Intel has moved up a whole 400mhz in CPU speed and 267mhz in FSB. Intel has had a bad year.
True, but Apple needs to drop the bomb and end this game.
That's just empty rhetoric. Dell won't surrender just because Apple excells at industrial and technical design. If that was the case then Dell would have caved a long time ago. Apple having a faster laptop won't scare Dell either. Dell competes more with HP, Gateway and no-name brands, than does it with Apple. And Dell's preffered means of competing isn't design or even power. Dell competes with price. Something that Apple, for the most part, doesn't.
That's just empty rhetoric. Dell won't surrender just because Apple excells at industrial and technical design. If that was the case then Dell would have caved a long time ago. Apple having a faster laptop won't scare Dell either. Dell competes more with HP, Gateway and no-name brands, than does it with Apple. And Dell's preffered means of competing isn't design or even power. Dell competes with price. Something that Apple, for the most part, doesn't.
Not Dell giving up but Apple customers. The PB's are getting too far behind. I bought a PB because it was better than anything I could get on the PC side for the same money. That gap is closed, The PB's look too expensive for what you get comparred to similar priced items on the PC side. I am ready to replace my PB, but I will not replace it with two year old technology at premium prices.
This is really exciting!!! What would realistically hold Apple back from dropping a low-power chip into the PowerBooks? I mean, it seems they've built up the PB infrastructure for this since the introduction of the new aluminum chassis last year.
C'ommon PowerBook G5...C'ommon PowerBook G5....C'ommon PowerBook G5! (Hmm...haven't seen Spaceballs in a while, which was actually the first movie I watched on *this* PowerBook).
This is really exciting!!! What would realistically hold Apple back from dropping a low-power chip into the PowerBooks?
What holds them back? Hmm, let's see: (1) contract(s) with Motorola--do we know anything on this? All Apple machines have still G4, except one (well, two), after what, 7-8 months from the G5 introduction; (2) stock of G4 processors--again, what do we know? (3) the feeling (in Apple's part) that the Powerbooks are powerful enough and doing well against the competition. Isn't surprising that Apple still reports the performance of the Powerbooks in Quake? What about compare the most powerful Powerbook with the most powerful Athlon-64 or [email protected] PC laptop in UT2004? Not that it is a fair comparison, but I want simply to say that Quake fps are pointless today (not so of course if we compare with previous generation Powerbooks), and the fact Apple still insits is an indication that they don't get right the performance gap between Powerboks and powerful PC laptops.
It could be whatever from the above, and even something more escaping now my attention, even if a G5 Powerbook is technologically realistic right now.
What holds them back? Hmm, let's see: (1) contract(s) with Motorola--do we know anything on this?
I doubt Apple would feel obliged to stick to this contract in light of Moto's obvious inability to fulfil their part (G4's have not seen a major revision since about 2 years). They'd rather contest the thing in court.
It could also be a marketing decision - reportedly their PowerBook sales have skyrocketed 93% over the last 12 month. We here may think they are outdated and behind their time, but obviously a lot of customers think different. Apple could want not to fuel the desktop-notebook transition even more because their manufacturer might not be able to ramp up production even faster. Or their margin on a G4 PowerBook (with "old" CPU, mainboard and ASICS that have long been paid for) could be higher than on a G5 PowerBook even if this would sell for a premium. So they could have decided to milk the G4 PB design for one last round while sales are high before refreshing the line.
Stop comparing the PowerBooks to machines based on the latest Athlon64 or high clock rate P4 processors. Those machines are not the target market Apple is after -- the power consumption and heat issues limits their true usefulness. If you want to compare the PowerBooks to something look at the latest Centrino machines.
... If you want to compare the PowerBooks to something look at the latest Centrino machines.
Yes, and that's the problem. The latest Centrinos are starting to look pretty good in comparison to the Powerbook.
ThinkPad X Series
from
$1,349.00
IBM_Web_Price*
Ultimate mobility in a versatile ultraportable
Starting at 2.7 lb2 and less than 1" thin
Available with Microsoft®_Windows®_XP
Long standard battery life up to 7.5 hours6 (select models)
Integrated IBM 11a/b/g Wi-Fi®_wireless10 (select models)
Supports optional IBM ThinkPad UltraBase for easy expansion
Select models available with Intel®_CentrinoTM_mobile technology
I have an older ThinkPad T20 and have been impressed with it's build quality and general reliability, even W2K on it has been reliable for it's limited usage, so this is what Powerbooks are up against in the market.
The only reason a Powerbook will be my next purchase is OSX.
You dare ask for that again? It happened once, and Apple bit the bullet on it. It was called the cube. Everybody cried about a headless Mac. Apple Gave them one, and not enough sold. Bottom line. Forget it. If I were Apple I wouldn't make that mistake twice.
You dare ask for that again? It happened once, and Apple bit the bullet on it. It was called the cube. Everybody cried about a headless Mac. Apple Gave them one, and not enough sold. Bottom line. Forget it. If I were Apple I wouldn't make that mistake twice.
It was the high price + low performance that killed the product
Apple did not attempt to gain market share with the Cube. What they tried to appeal to was that segment of any market that is always willing to pay to much for a prodcut so as to feed their ego. The cube was not marketed as a low cost machine, nor was it a machine that would appeal to people looking for reasnable performance for their computing dollar.
Apple simply has not delivered what its users have been asking for for some time now. The Cube failed for the same reason that the IMac is failing now. It is not a question of people not wanting a small form factor machine - small form factor is the hottest segment of the PC market right now - it is a question of wanting good value for your money. When Apple can deliver such a machine they will sell like hot cakes.
Apples mistakes from my perspective are simply a matter of being out of touch with part of their customer base. To address that issue they need to look at what people want for them and to find a way to deliver it at a reasonable price. Many people have no need for a PowerMac and its expense, find a way to deliver 95% of the compute performance of a single processor PowerMac in a low cost design and it will sell.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
You dare ask for that again? It happened once, and Apple bit the bullet on it. It was called the cube. Everybody cried about a headless Mac. Apple Gave them one, and not enough sold. Bottom line. Forget it. If I were Apple I wouldn't make that mistake twice.
It was the high price + low performance that killed the product
Let me add "it was the high cost". Apple couldn't price it low enough versus the towers because of the cost. I bought one a few months ago, and it's beautiful! The FP iMac is a little like the cube - they are costly to produce, thus their price. If there is a new "Macintosh", I hope it is priced less than the PowerMac. Ives needs to come up with a beautiful low cost design, that can produce a high profit margin Macintosh with a G5 that is <$1000, with at least an upgradeable graphics card.
Comments
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
'Okay, we used the best Intel compilers...so we used the best IBM compilers for our chip...and guess what...'
Ugliest goddamned page they've ever had.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Hmmm, I'm pleased at the vast reduction in chip size and power use.
However, with a chip controller running at upto 1.4 gig, surely we could be seeing 2.8 gig 970fxs?
And surely at that speed they'd still be far off the cheynobal heat signature of Prescott..?
Is the system controller holding back the 970 fx higher speed grades?
2.5 is a nice bump. That's an extra 1 gig extra over the current dual 2 gig. And you get extra bandwidth.
But I was kinda hoping for 2.6 or 2.8.
Still, it's very exciting news. It really puts it to Intel and AMD. IBM is running the Pentium 4 down. At 2.5 gig, we're only 700 mhz behind! A year ago? Apple was 1.6 gig behind!!! That's one hell of a claw back. Steve was right when he said Apple would make up the ground and close the gap.
And aren't AMD dependent on IBM for the 0.09 process? Aren't AMD only set to deliver the 0.09 by 2nd half 2004?
I read Intel have put back the 4 gig Prescott to early 2005! If Apple can deliver 3.2 gig Power 5 derived 970fxs by September and Intel are stuck on 3.6 gig...then the gap is closed to 400mhz! Astounding if it comes to pass! Then you got the system bandwidth.
The G5 is going to be the Pentium 5 slayer!
Lemon Bon Bon
Sorry to say but Dell is taking orders on notebooks that have either a 3.4ghz prescott, or a 3.4ghz extreme edition chip. that is a notebook.
http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1pa...650&l=en&s=dhs
I am trying still to find out if the 3.4's are shipping yet, I only found 4 places with a boxed version listed. Two said call, the other two would let me order and said nothing about delayed shipping. So now if I add that up correctly, in 14 months Intel has moved up a whole 400mhz in CPU speed and 267mhz in FSB. Intel has had a bad year.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Sorry to say but Dell is taking orders on notebooks that have either a 3.4ghz prescott, or a 3.4ghz extreme edition chip. that is a notebook.
http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1pa...650&l=en&s=dhs
at 9+ lbs and 2" thick - that is NO notebook, hehe (:
shipping mid to late March from the looks of it.
Originally posted by Conner
at 9+ lbs and 2" thick - that is NO notebook, hehe (:
True, but Apple needs to drop the bomb and end this game.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
True, but Apple needs to drop the bomb and end this game.
That's just empty rhetoric. Dell won't surrender just because Apple excells at industrial and technical design. If that was the case then Dell would have caved a long time ago. Apple having a faster laptop won't scare Dell either. Dell competes more with HP, Gateway and no-name brands, than does it with Apple. And Dell's preffered means of competing isn't design or even power. Dell competes with price. Something that Apple, for the most part, doesn't.
Originally posted by KANE
That's just empty rhetoric. Dell won't surrender just because Apple excells at industrial and technical design. If that was the case then Dell would have caved a long time ago. Apple having a faster laptop won't scare Dell either. Dell competes more with HP, Gateway and no-name brands, than does it with Apple. And Dell's preffered means of competing isn't design or even power. Dell competes with price. Something that Apple, for the most part, doesn't.
Not Dell giving up but Apple customers. The PB's are getting too far behind. I bought a PB because it was better than anything I could get on the PC side for the same money. That gap is closed, The PB's look too expensive for what you get comparred to similar priced items on the PC side. I am ready to replace my PB, but I will not replace it with two year old technology at premium prices.
C'ommon PowerBook G5...C'ommon PowerBook G5....C'ommon PowerBook G5! (Hmm...haven't seen Spaceballs in a while, which was actually the first movie I watched on *this* PowerBook).
Originally posted by fred_lj
This is really exciting!!! What would realistically hold Apple back from dropping a low-power chip into the PowerBooks?
What holds them back? Hmm, let's see: (1) contract(s) with Motorola--do we know anything on this? All Apple machines have still G4, except one (well, two), after what, 7-8 months from the G5 introduction; (2) stock of G4 processors--again, what do we know? (3) the feeling (in Apple's part) that the Powerbooks are powerful enough and doing well against the competition. Isn't surprising that Apple still reports the performance of the Powerbooks in Quake? What about compare the most powerful Powerbook with the most powerful Athlon-64 or [email protected] PC laptop in UT2004? Not that it is a fair comparison, but I want simply to say that Quake fps are pointless today (not so of course if we compare with previous generation Powerbooks), and the fact Apple still insits is an indication that they don't get right the performance gap between Powerboks and powerful PC laptops.
It could be whatever from the above, and even something more escaping now my attention, even if a G5 Powerbook is technologically realistic right now.
Originally posted by PB
What holds them back? Hmm, let's see: (1) contract(s) with Motorola--do we know anything on this?
I doubt Apple would feel obliged to stick to this contract in light of Moto's obvious inability to fulfil their part (G4's have not seen a major revision since about 2 years). They'd rather contest the thing in court.
It could also be a marketing decision - reportedly their PowerBook sales have skyrocketed 93% over the last 12 month. We here may think they are outdated and behind their time, but obviously a lot of customers think different. Apple could want not to fuel the desktop-notebook transition even more because their manufacturer might not be able to ramp up production even faster. Or their margin on a G4 PowerBook (with "old" CPU, mainboard and ASICS that have long been paid for) could be higher than on a G5 PowerBook even if this would sell for a premium. So they could have decided to milk the G4 PB design for one last round while sales are high before refreshing the line.
Originally posted by Programmer
... If you want to compare the PowerBooks to something look at the latest Centrino machines.
Yes, and that's the problem. The latest Centrinos are starting to look pretty good in comparison to the Powerbook.
ThinkPad X Series
from
$1,349.00
IBM_Web_Price*
Ultimate mobility in a versatile ultraportable
Starting at 2.7 lb2 and less than 1" thin
Available with Microsoft®_Windows®_XP
Long standard battery life up to 7.5 hours6 (select models)
Integrated IBM 11a/b/g Wi-Fi®_wireless10 (select models)
Supports optional IBM ThinkPad UltraBase for easy expansion
Select models available with Intel®_CentrinoTM_mobile technology
I have an older ThinkPad T20 and have been impressed with it's build quality and general reliability, even W2K on it has been reliable for it's limited usage, so this is what Powerbooks are up against in the market.
The only reason a Powerbook will be my next purchase is OSX.
Originally posted by rickag
my hope a headless iMac
You dare ask for that again? It happened once, and Apple bit the bullet on it. It was called the cube. Everybody cried about a headless Mac. Apple Gave them one, and not enough sold. Bottom line. Forget it. If I were Apple I wouldn't make that mistake twice.
Originally posted by onlooker
You dare ask for that again? It happened once, and Apple bit the bullet on it. It was called the cube. Everybody cried about a headless Mac. Apple Gave them one, and not enough sold. Bottom line. Forget it. If I were Apple I wouldn't make that mistake twice.
It was the high price + low performance that killed the product
Apple simply has not delivered what its users have been asking for for some time now. The Cube failed for the same reason that the IMac is failing now. It is not a question of people not wanting a small form factor machine - small form factor is the hottest segment of the PC market right now - it is a question of wanting good value for your money. When Apple can deliver such a machine they will sell like hot cakes.
Apples mistakes from my perspective are simply a matter of being out of touch with part of their customer base. To address that issue they need to look at what people want for them and to find a way to deliver it at a reasonable price. Many people have no need for a PowerMac and its expense, find a way to deliver 95% of the compute performance of a single processor PowerMac in a low cost design and it will sell.
Dave
Originally posted by onlooker
You dare ask for that again? It happened once, and Apple bit the bullet on it. It was called the cube. Everybody cried about a headless Mac. Apple Gave them one, and not enough sold. Bottom line. Forget it. If I were Apple I wouldn't make that mistake twice.
Originally posted by Leonis
It was the high price + low performance that killed the product
Let me add "it was the high cost". Apple couldn't price it low enough versus the towers because of the cost. I bought one a few months ago, and it's beautiful! The FP iMac is a little like the cube - they are costly to produce, thus their price. If there is a new "Macintosh", I hope it is priced less than the PowerMac. Ives needs to come up with a beautiful low cost design, that can produce a high profit margin Macintosh with a G5 that is <$1000, with at least an upgradeable graphics card.
Originally posted by ShallowThroat
soooo...tuesday, then?
Ya never know...