...which will be completely washed out by the pent up demand for new powermacs in the prosumer/science-engineering/ and gaming markets...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where's the "pent-up" demand? People can just go out and buy these things now.
I'm not going to try to guess the markets that Apple sells into - but no one buys a Mac for games.
<strong>The thing I don't get (or remember) is when machine came out that couldn't boot System 6, and only System 7, did people sh*t their pants like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's not nearly the same thing. AFAIR the first machines that couldn't boot 6.x were Quadras (700 & 900). The ransition from 6 to 7 wasn't about compatibility, it was just about "more ram". Most applications "just worked" and people got on with it - next to nothing was broken.
People aren't now complaining about being able to boot 6-8 because 9.x is just the ongoing development of those systems, X is a definite break.
And as such it breaks plenty of things - things that never got broken in the past.
The Classic layer is pretty good, but it isn't perfect. I know this isn't an issue for you, but it's an issue for many people.
Why do you think there's only around 10% of users currently using X? Because their hardware can't run it? No. If we look at the life of a Mac as being five years (approx) we've had G3s+ for four of those five years. This implies that 80% of the userbase has an X capable machine... and over 80% of them have chosen not to use it.
There are as many reasons not to go there as there are Mac users - don't assume that because it doesn't effect you that it doesn't effect others, and that they don't have good reasons for not wanting to go to X.
When asked if Apple would seek an alternative to Motorola's PowerPC, namely chips from Intel, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company first had to finish the transition to Mac OS X: "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.
<strong>When asked if Apple would seek an alternative to Motorola's PowerPC, namely chips from Intel, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company first had to finish the transition to Mac OS X: "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So MWSF 2003 will be the official end to the OS X transition.
Clive, the powermacs are clearly nearing the end of their current incarnation. Simply looking at product cycles will tell you that. But in this case it is painfully obvious that the current motherboard is a transition motherboard. Many people have this perception, and this there is a pent up demand for the perceived major upgrade that "just around the corner". But yes, it is a guessing game isn't it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no? And if there will be new computers (across the line hopfully would just be so damn sexy!) do you know how awesome it would be to have an Apple running OS X fast, I mean faster then OS 9 runs on the new high end PM's?! I don't care if I lose classic to get this!
-Apple normally does this so tell me what you think but wouldn't new processors mean new cases? (iMac is fairly new design, along with the new PM's...doesn't apple normally change this to seperate it from previous models?)
<strong>Clive, the powermacs are clearly nearing the end of their current incarnation...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I can't see it. "Just around the corner" will be just around the corner forever. I gave up guessing what software or hardware vendors would be doing in six month's time a long time ago - just deal with what you have now.
In all the time I've been using Macs I don't recall seeing motherboard switches within six months, which is what you seem to be suggesting - ie we're going to get another board and a new chip in January?
I'll be a sceptic, but I don't see this happening until the middle of next year - 9-12 month's away.
The best hope seems to be this chip IBM is announcing next month - but that's going to be a year to 18 month's away from production.
Ok, live in hope, I live in hope, but January's just about four month's away... we'll see what happens then?
Wow, my first thread and many great responses! (wipes tear from eye)
I find it interesting that discussion as centered on changes to the firmware to disable OS 9 booting. That certainly is hardware related, but I was thinking more about the actual specs of future machines. Will Apple be even more motivated to provide killer hardware in the January time frame in order to justify OS X only booting? Don't get me wrong, I think this policy is necessary, and I'm pleased that Steve's giving five month's notice to customers and developers.
My big concern is the Power Mac line. Right now a Quark or music pro has no reason to use OS X or buy a current Power Mac. That's a double whammy that Apple must fix soon.
With the dual 1.25 not even shipping yet, I originally thought a Power Mac revision at MWSF was too optimistic, but now I think a major update is required. Can Steve really go on stage and say "Hey, professional customers! We're leaving our Power Mac line unchanged except that we're taking away the ability to boot into 9. I know that Quark 6 isn't out yet and who knows when Pro Tools will be OS X native, but won't you buy one anyway?"
The only way out of this mess is for Steve to announce the following:
The next generation Power Mac. (Whatever it is, IBM Power4 derivative, .09 process Mot chip, etc.) Steve must make this machine truly drool worthy to stamp out all allegiance to OS 9. The pro user response must be "I'm not really ready to move to OS X full-time, but I just have to have that new Power Mac".
Apple branded Logic 6. I know 5.3 just came out, but the interface needs some serious improvement in order to push this as THE audio solution for X.
Quark 6 shipping date announcement with lots of on stage hugging between Steve and Quark management.
<strong>Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where'd you get this crap from!? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
This announcement is politics for Apple, they're just trying to get that switch rate up (from 9 to X) - if they had this great hardware in the pipeline they'd say it out straight, wouldn't they?
[quote] In all the time I've been using Macs I don't recall seeing motherboard switches within six months, which is what you seem to be suggesting - ie we're going to get another board and a new chip in January? <hr></blockquote>
Well it happened with the last big transition between G3 and G4. Yikes! was introduced on Aug. 31, 1999 and was discontinued on Dec 02, 1999. It lasted three months. In that case the processor was continued and the motherboard was revamped. In todays machine we are looking at a motherboard that will be largely with us for some time but the processor module will be replaced (along presumably with it's pokey backside cache).
[quote] Yikes was just (basically) the Yosemite (B&W) board, Sawtooth was the real new board - but only available on the higher-edn machines.
<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But note that Yikes was a G4 and the B&W was a G3. Yikes was a transition machine that crossed the G4 from the old motherboard to the new motherboard. The current Speedhole machine is a motherboard that will trasnsition the current processor techology to the next generation. Or at least that is how I see it.
Yikes was just (basically) the Yosemite (B&W) board, Sawtooth was the real new board - but only available on the higher-edn machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The current PM motherboard isnt a new motherboard either, it was introduced with the Xserve a few months ago, and from what I have read it is basiclly a UMA 1.75 with a work-around to get DDR support for a processor which does not support it (UMA 1 bieng the original G3, 1.25 Yikes, 1.5 Sawtooth...) Apple has probably been working on a UMA 2 for some time, though it has probably changed in specs since they started working on it.
[quote] The current PM motherboard isnt a new motherboard either, it was introduced with the Xserve a few months ago, and from what I have read it is basiclly a UMA 1.75 with a work-around to get DDR support for a processor which does not support it (UMA 1 bieng the original G3, 1.25 Yikes, 1.5 Sawtooth...) Apple has probably been working on a UMA 2 for some time, though it has probably changed in specs since they started working on it.
<hr></blockquote>
Hmm, well, my understanding is that the DDR support isn't there for the processor at all, since the processor is connected to the Northbridge "thingy" by a single pumped MPX bus that will never be double pumped. It seems to me that the DDR is there for the rest of the system to not compete with the SDR CPU and it's access to RAM. The way I see it, Apple plans on replacing the CPU and FSB all in one go, as a module, and that will complete the transition of the motherboard to the mythical UMA2.
I used the word "thingy" to describe Northbridge, because Apple has been pulling more and more IO off of Southbridge and hanging those things directly off of the controller, to the point where southbridge is almost gone. And without a south... um... what does north mean??
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But note that Yikes was a G4 and the B&W was a G3. Yikes was a transition machine that crossed the G4 from the old motherboard to the new motherboard. The current Speedhole machine is a motherboard that will trasnsition the current processor techology to the next generation. Or at least that is how I see it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Yikes and Sawtooth came at the same time - the Yikes board went in the entry level machine and the Sawtooth went in the other two processor speeds. Yikes wasn't a transition model, it *was* the Yosemite board with a G4 in it. It was only there for reasons of a price break - ie the Yikes configured machine was cheaper.
The current board in the G4s *cannot* be the same as the Xserve, because the Xserver PCI slots are not on the board itself - just look at the photographs at Apple's site.
As far as "transition" goes, there's half a chance that the current G4 board could end up with a G5 on it - but if you think that's going to happen in January... I think you're wrong.
That's the Apple announcement of the G4s. Read the fourth paragraph.
"The new PowerMac G4..."
Notice how it talks about the specs of the "top two standard" machines, and their motherboard architecture? That's because the entry level machine had a different board, the "G3 board with a G4 on it" - the G3 board was called Yosemite, the version with the G4 on it was called "Yikes" - notice how they both begin with "Y"?
Sawtooth was the board in the two higher config machines.
G4/350 (Sawtooth) quietly introduced 1999.12.01 at $1,599; discontinued 2000.02.16.
G4/400 (Sawtooth) introduced 1999.10.13 at US$2,499
G4/450 introduced 1999.08.31 at US$2,499
G4/500 introduced 1999.08.31; available 2000.02.16 at US$3,499
*******
All the above models are Sawtooth, they are all on the Sawtooth page - the distinction is that these machines were "announced" 31/08/1999, but did not "ship" until the date in October shown because of the downgrade fiasco mentioned above.
Well, it looks like you're right! I guess I was confused by the later than expected releases and subsequent down clocking of the original sawtooth boards.
All of which is beside the point. This all came up because I pointed out that Yikes! only lasted 3 months. Which it did. So there is a president for short model turnover times. Which brings us back to the salient point. The recent upgrades do not constitute sufficient evidence that a new CPU/FSB module can't be dropped in the existing motherboard. If I were to guess, I would say it's more likely to happen at the developer conference, but it could happen in SF. I suppose the model most in need of a refresh at SF is the Tibook, but unless this chip is a low power .09 micron G5 from motorola, I would find a TiBook unveiling highly unlikely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no? . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe some misunderstood your question. You may be thinking this could mean a new processor is coming that only runs OS X. No. Any new processor will have the same instruction set. It may mean all new motherboards will be different, so OS 9 will not boot. Likely, Apple does not mean all Macs shipped in 2003, but just new hardware as it is introduced.
Comments
<strong>
...which will be completely washed out by the pent up demand for new powermacs in the prosumer/science-engineering/ and gaming markets...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where's the "pent-up" demand? People can just go out and buy these things now.
I'm not going to try to guess the markets that Apple sells into - but no one buys a Mac for games.
<strong>The thing I don't get (or remember) is when machine came out that couldn't boot System 6, and only System 7, did people sh*t their pants like this?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because it's not nearly the same thing. AFAIR the first machines that couldn't boot 6.x were Quadras (700 & 900). The ransition from 6 to 7 wasn't about compatibility, it was just about "more ram". Most applications "just worked" and people got on with it - next to nothing was broken.
People aren't now complaining about being able to boot 6-8 because 9.x is just the ongoing development of those systems, X is a definite break.
And as such it breaks plenty of things - things that never got broken in the past.
The Classic layer is pretty good, but it isn't perfect. I know this isn't an issue for you, but it's an issue for many people.
Why do you think there's only around 10% of users currently using X? Because their hardware can't run it? No. If we look at the life of a Mac as being five years (approx) we've had G3s+ for four of those five years. This implies that 80% of the userbase has an X capable machine... and over 80% of them have chosen not to use it.
There are as many reasons not to go there as there are Mac users - don't assume that because it doesn't effect you that it doesn't effect others, and that they don't have good reasons for not wanting to go to X.
<strong>When asked if Apple would seek an alternative to Motorola's PowerPC, namely chips from Intel, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company first had to finish the transition to Mac OS X: "Then we'll have options, and we like to have options," he said.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So MWSF 2003 will be the official end to the OS X transition.
And games? You're right. What was I thinking...
-Apple normally does this so tell me what you think but wouldn't new processors mean new cases? (iMac is fairly new design, along with the new PM's...doesn't apple normally change this to seperate it from previous models?)
<strong>Clive, the powermacs are clearly nearing the end of their current incarnation...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I can't see it. "Just around the corner" will be just around the corner forever. I gave up guessing what software or hardware vendors would be doing in six month's time a long time ago - just deal with what you have now.
In all the time I've been using Macs I don't recall seeing motherboard switches within six months, which is what you seem to be suggesting - ie we're going to get another board and a new chip in January?
I'll be a sceptic, but I don't see this happening until the middle of next year - 9-12 month's away.
The best hope seems to be this chip IBM is announcing next month - but that's going to be a year to 18 month's away from production.
Ok, live in hope, I live in hope, but January's just about four month's away... we'll see what happens then?
I find it interesting that discussion as centered on changes to the firmware to disable OS 9 booting. That certainly is hardware related, but I was thinking more about the actual specs of future machines. Will Apple be even more motivated to provide killer hardware in the January time frame in order to justify OS X only booting? Don't get me wrong, I think this policy is necessary, and I'm pleased that Steve's giving five month's notice to customers and developers.
My big concern is the Power Mac line. Right now a Quark or music pro has no reason to use OS X or buy a current Power Mac. That's a double whammy that Apple must fix soon.
With the dual 1.25 not even shipping yet, I originally thought a Power Mac revision at MWSF was too optimistic, but now I think a major update is required. Can Steve really go on stage and say "Hey, professional customers! We're leaving our Power Mac line unchanged except that we're taking away the ability to boot into 9. I know that Quark 6 isn't out yet and who knows when Pro Tools will be OS X native, but won't you buy one anyway?"
The only way out of this mess is for Steve to announce the following:
The next generation Power Mac. (Whatever it is, IBM Power4 derivative, .09 process Mot chip, etc.) Steve must make this machine truly drool worthy to stamp out all allegiance to OS 9. The pro user response must be "I'm not really ready to move to OS X full-time, but I just have to have that new Power Mac".
Apple branded Logic 6. I know 5.3 just came out, but the interface needs some serious improvement in order to push this as THE audio solution for X.
Quark 6 shipping date announcement with lots of on stage hugging between Steve and Quark management.
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Ensign Pulver ]</p>
<strong>Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where'd you get this crap from!? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
This announcement is politics for Apple, they're just trying to get that switch rate up (from 9 to X) - if they had this great hardware in the pipeline they'd say it out straight, wouldn't they?
(Of course they wouldn't)
Well it happened with the last big transition between G3 and G4. Yikes! was introduced on Aug. 31, 1999 and was discontinued on Dec 02, 1999. It lasted three months. In that case the processor was continued and the motherboard was revamped. In todays machine we are looking at a motherboard that will be largely with us for some time but the processor module will be replaced (along presumably with it's pokey backside cache).
<strong>
Well it happened with the last big transition between G3 and G4. Yikes!...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yikes was just (basically) the Yosemite (B&W) board, Sawtooth was the real new board - but only available on the higher-edn machines.
<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But note that Yikes was a G4 and the B&W was a G3. Yikes was a transition machine that crossed the G4 from the old motherboard to the new motherboard. The current Speedhole machine is a motherboard that will trasnsition the current processor techology to the next generation. Or at least that is how I see it.
<strong>
Yikes was just (basically) the Yosemite (B&W) board, Sawtooth was the real new board - but only available on the higher-edn machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The current PM motherboard isnt a new motherboard either, it was introduced with the Xserve a few months ago, and from what I have read it is basiclly a UMA 1.75 with a work-around to get DDR support for a processor which does not support it (UMA 1 bieng the original G3, 1.25 Yikes, 1.5 Sawtooth...) Apple has probably been working on a UMA 2 for some time, though it has probably changed in specs since they started working on it.
<hr></blockquote>
Hmm, well, my understanding is that the DDR support isn't there for the processor at all, since the processor is connected to the Northbridge "thingy" by a single pumped MPX bus that will never be double pumped. It seems to me that the DDR is there for the rest of the system to not compete with the SDR CPU and it's access to RAM. The way I see it, Apple plans on replacing the CPU and FSB all in one go, as a module, and that will complete the transition of the motherboard to the mythical UMA2.
I used the word "thingy" to describe Northbridge, because Apple has been pulling more and more IO off of Southbridge and hanging those things directly off of the controller, to the point where southbridge is almost gone. And without a south... um... what does north mean??
<strong>
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But note that Yikes was a G4 and the B&W was a G3. Yikes was a transition machine that crossed the G4 from the old motherboard to the new motherboard. The current Speedhole machine is a motherboard that will trasnsition the current processor techology to the next generation. Or at least that is how I see it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Yikes and Sawtooth came at the same time - the Yikes board went in the entry level machine and the Sawtooth went in the other two processor speeds. Yikes wasn't a transition model, it *was* the Yosemite board with a G4 in it. It was only there for reasons of a price break - ie the Yikes configured machine was cheaper.
The current board in the G4s *cannot* be the same as the Xserve, because the Xserver PCI slots are not on the board itself - just look at the photographs at Apple's site.
As far as "transition" goes, there's half a chance that the current G4 board could end up with a G5 on it - but if you think that's going to happen in January... I think you're wrong.
Next Spring at the earliest.
It's a matter of public record.
The dates are all listed at lowendmac.com
<strong>It's a matter of public record.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's a matter of public record:
\t<a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/aug/31powermac.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/aug/31powermac.html</a>;
That's the Apple announcement of the G4s. Read the fourth paragraph.
"The new PowerMac G4..."
Notice how it talks about the specs of the "top two standard" machines, and their motherboard architecture? That's because the entry level machine had a different board, the "G3 board with a G4 on it" - the G3 board was called Yosemite, the version with the G4 on it was called "Yikes" - notice how they both begin with "Y"?
Sawtooth was the board in the two higher config machines.
Now read the announcement from 2 December 1999:
\t<a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/dec/02g4display.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/dec/02g4display.html</a>;
What is the significant feature of this announcement?
1 Rage 128 cards all round
2 the lowened (downgraded to 350MHz from the previous announcment) machine now has "the same architecture" as the other two machines.
Read about the 400-350 downgrade here:
<a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/oct/13g4.html"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/oct/13g4.html</a>;
So, who's right, me or low-end Mac?
Actually, I just read the low-end Mac page, it's not them that's wrong, it's you who cannot read:
<a href="http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g4saw.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/g4saw.shtml</a>;
******
G4/350 (Sawtooth) quietly introduced 1999.12.01 at $1,599; discontinued 2000.02.16.
G4/400 (Sawtooth) introduced 1999.10.13 at US$2,499
G4/450 introduced 1999.08.31 at US$2,499
G4/500 introduced 1999.08.31; available 2000.02.16 at US$3,499
*******
All the above models are Sawtooth, they are all on the Sawtooth page - the distinction is that these machines were "announced" 31/08/1999, but did not "ship" until the date in October shown because of the downgrade fiasco mentioned above.
-- Clive
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
All of which is beside the point. This all came up because I pointed out that Yikes! only lasted 3 months. Which it did. So there is a president for short model turnover times. Which brings us back to the salient point. The recent upgrades do not constitute sufficient evidence that a new CPU/FSB module can't be dropped in the existing motherboard. If I were to guess, I would say it's more likely to happen at the developer conference, but it could happen in SF. I suppose the model most in need of a refresh at SF is the Tibook, but unless this chip is a low power .09 micron G5 from motorola, I would find a TiBook unveiling highly unlikely.
<strong>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no? . . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe some misunderstood your question. You may be thinking this could mean a new processor is coming that only runs OS X. No. Any new processor will have the same instruction set. It may mean all new motherboards will be different, so OS 9 will not boot. Likely, Apple does not mean all Macs shipped in 2003, but just new hardware as it is introduced.
[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: firelark ]</p>