i would exept one gig procesers and then an expensive option of the dual. not so sure about the bigger monitor either. Hopeful. . . i need to stop being so pessimistic
Much, much hotter G4's could go into the iMac, but duals would be counter-intuitive. The all dual pro models do however open the door for faster iMac speeds. It'd probably be a simpler affair to bump the bus speed up to 133, spec a MB of L3, and CPU speeds between 800-1.2Ghz for the iMacs. The L3 cache alone would account for a significant speed boost, and it appears that about 1-1.2Ghz is the point beyond which it doesn't makes sense to push faster CPUs on the 133 bus. If powermacs get something better they could even take the bus speed to 166, but ALL the powermacs would have to be on that speed (at least).
One really good improvement to the iMac motherboard would be to move both RAM slots to the user accessible underside and the airport into the same position as on the eMac (if only to make room for the two slots.) Furthermore, they should really both be DIMMS and not force users into the extra expense of so-dimms. It could be a power consideration that forced them to err on the side of caution, but they've had a year to play with the design and some small layout adjustments are in order, besides a healthy spec bump.
I don't think you'll ever see duals in anything but a powermac. You might see dual 'cores' but that'll be a long while after the powermacs get them (if they get them).
Part of me thinks that there will be next gen CPU's from both Moto and IBM in 2003. With IBM supplying dual-core 64 bit power as per current rumor, and moto supplying small cool, single-core G5 variations, possibly with performance not much more than the current G4, but with a faster FSB and a smaller process.
<strong>Part of me thinks that there will be next gen CPU's from both Moto and IBM in 2003. With IBM supplying dual-core 64 bit power as per current rumor, and moto supplying small cool, single-core G5 variations, possibly with performance not much more than the current G4, but with a faster FSB and a smaller process.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's quite likely - it won't be the first time Apple has used different processors to differentiate the lines (... 030/040, 68k/PPC, 603/604, G3/G4... G5/GPUL).
I don't think any of the i- or e-machnine(s) will get dual processors. I don't even think Apple wants to use dual processors. They only do it to make up for the Ghz loss.
If they could, I think they would skip dual processors and lower the prices (maybe keep dual on the fastest PowerMac).
I don't think any of the i- or e-machnine(s) will get dual processors. I don't even think Apple wants to use dual processors. They only do it to make up for the Ghz loss.
If they could, I think they would skip dual processors and lower the prices (maybe keep dual on the fastest PowerMac).
I dont agree with you on Apple not wanting to make MP systems. Apple has been working on MP systems for a long time, they just didnt have an OS that really took advantage of them. Now that they do have that OS they are ready to take advantage of marketing this ability. I also seem to remember that when the G4 spec was bieng put together IBM wanted to put multiple cores on the G4 and omit the SMD, so it has been in the works for a long time. Also remember that DayStar designed software/hardware modifications to allow MP systems back in the Clone days. Again the main limitation was the OS.
I do agree that MP systems are unlikely to make it into the iMac iBook or eMac, and probably not into the PowerBook either. They would be too hot and use too much power. Apple might be able to put a lower cost/power multi-core chip into these systems sometime in the future, say 2-4 years out, but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for them. But who knows, Steve might suprise us.
<strong>My god you people and your 19" iMac speculations!
THERE IS NO 19" iMAC!!!!!
Could it possibly be that Apple is revising it's display lineup to focus on the "hole" that exists between the 17" display and the 22" cinema display?
How about 17, 19, 22, 23 inch cinema-aspect displays folks?
Geez...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It makes more sense to me to go with the following:
15" 19" 23"
that way you dont loose the bottom end, you dont loose the high end, and there is enough size difference to differentiate the products. Apple probably cant put out a 17" LCD for $499 which seems to be the entry price that Apple wants for their monitor offerings, so they need to keep the 15" around. 22" is redundant if the high end is 23", they are both wide screen. I could see keeping the 22" if the next up was 24-27" but not 23". I think that the mid range should move to the 19", it is 4" larger than the bottom end, and 4" smaller than the high end, and fits nicely in the middle in price as well.
An alternate size range that I think would work better, if they could get the prices down to these levels:
I see what you are saying. Perhaps I was unclear in my haste:
Here's what the lineup is:
$599 15(normal)
$999 17(normal)
$2499 22(cinema)
$3499 23(cinemaHD)
Here's what I think it will be:
$699 17(cinema)
$999 19(cinema)
$3199 23(cinemaHD)
the 22" will continue to be sold at a discount until existing inventory runs out.
In addition: NO 19" iMac, NO DP-iMac.
What the hell are consumers going to do with the extra processor? Cook eggs on it? The most we will see with the iMac for some time is modest speed and HD increases. Period.
If Apple could get the 17" down to $599 then I could see dropping the 15", if not they should keep the 15" and drop the price. 17" LCD's are approaching $500 on the low end, and Apple is slow to adjust their priceing.
I could see a DP but not in the near future. That seems to be the differentiating feature between pro and consumer markets.
Unless Apple surprises us with a G5 or some other super processor, it'll stay single for a while yet. Besides we're only at 800mhz. Lots of room to grow to 1.25 GHz in the G4 line.
As far as 19", do you really see such a huge screen floating on an arm? While technically possible, it'll probably look out of scale and not really attractive. Again it's an issue of consumer vs pro markets and 19 inches is usually reserved for pros.
I'd love to see a dual-processor iMac. If the forthcoming chips really kick the PowerMac's performance into fire-breathing workstation territory then it would be a great move by Apple.
Consumers don't tend to need raw power, but they would certainly appreciate the silk-smooth way that OS X runs on two processors. It would be a great antidote to the consumer burnout over processor speed: Instead of concentrating on raw power, Apple could advertise that their twin G4s made using the iMac silky smooth and responsive.
I was thinking that 2003 would bring not one, but two new processors for the mac. A G4 replacement and a G3 replacement from IBM and mot respectively (effectively switching roles) that was untill recent comments about Moto's lack of speed (from an Apple exec). Now I dunno.
At the very least Apple could use the opportunity to offer similar speeds as the PM line-up, but just using one CPU instead. Some L3 on the superdrive models wouldn't hurt either, just a MB like the PB's.
I dont agree with you on Apple not wanting to make MP systems. Apple has been working on MP systems for a long time, they just didnt have an OS that really took advantage of them. Now that they do have that OS they are ready to take advantage of marketing this ability. I also seem to remember that when the G4 spec was bieng put together IBM wanted to put multiple cores on the G4 and omit the SMD, so it has been in the works for a long time. Also remember that DayStar designed software/hardware modifications to allow MP systems back in the Clone days. Again the main limitation was the OS.
I do agree that MP systems are unlikely to make it into the iMac iBook or eMac, and probably not into the PowerBook either. They would be too hot and use too much power. Apple might be able to put a lower cost/power multi-core chip into these systems sometime in the future, say 2-4 years out, but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for them. But who knows, Steve might suprise us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just think that when (if) Apple (Motorola/IBM) get back on their feet they will probably ditch the second processor on two of the three PowerMac's to lower the prices.
I don't think they will give up the MP-idea completely when they have been working so hard making it work good, but it will not be necessery on all machines.
What the hell are consumers going to do with the extra processor? Cook eggs on it? The most we will see with the iMac for some time is modest speed and HD increases. Period.
Later.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is the eggs run off before they get cooked, and then it's such a mess to clean up, if you insist on cooking eggs on your mac, use an XServe??and a skillet
I just think that when (if) Apple (Motorola/IBM) get back on their feet they will probably ditch the second processor on two of the three PowerMac's to lower the prices.
I don't think they will give up the MP-idea completely when they have been working so hard making it work good, but it will not be necessery on all machines.
The performance gains, both percieved and real, that OS X recieves from MP systems will hopefully keep them in the PowerMac line-up. If Apple can design lower cost, lower power solution for the consumer models then they should put them in these systems as well. MP systems are better at multi-taking (downloading new MP3 files, rendering an iMovie, working on a word document at the same time), and as we move more and more to the "digital Hub" the benefits of this will be more apparent.
Comments
One really good improvement to the iMac motherboard would be to move both RAM slots to the user accessible underside and the airport into the same position as on the eMac (if only to make room for the two slots.) Furthermore, they should really both be DIMMS and not force users into the extra expense of so-dimms. It could be a power consideration that forced them to err on the side of caution, but they've had a year to play with the design and some small layout adjustments are in order, besides a healthy spec bump.
I don't think you'll ever see duals in anything but a powermac. You might see dual 'cores' but that'll be a long while after the powermacs get them (if they get them).
Part of me thinks that there will be next gen CPU's from both Moto and IBM in 2003. With IBM supplying dual-core 64 bit power as per current rumor, and moto supplying small cool, single-core G5 variations, possibly with performance not much more than the current G4, but with a faster FSB and a smaller process.
[ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>Part of me thinks that there will be next gen CPU's from both Moto and IBM in 2003. With IBM supplying dual-core 64 bit power as per current rumor, and moto supplying small cool, single-core G5 variations, possibly with performance not much more than the current G4, but with a faster FSB and a smaller process.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think that's quite likely - it won't be the first time Apple has used different processors to differentiate the lines (... 030/040, 68k/PPC, 603/604, G3/G4... G5/GPUL).
Dual processors? No.
I don't think any of the i- or e-machnine(s) will get dual processors. I don't even think Apple wants to use dual processors. They only do it to make up for the Ghz loss.
If they could, I think they would skip dual processors and lower the prices (maybe keep dual on the fastest PowerMac).
[ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: Fobie ]</p>
<strong>iMac with a 19" screen? Yes.
Dual processors? No.
I don't think any of the i- or e-machnine(s) will get dual processors. I don't even think Apple wants to use dual processors. They only do it to make up for the Ghz loss.
If they could, I think they would skip dual processors and lower the prices (maybe keep dual on the fastest PowerMac).
[ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: Fobie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont agree with you on Apple not wanting to make MP systems. Apple has been working on MP systems for a long time, they just didnt have an OS that really took advantage of them. Now that they do have that OS they are ready to take advantage of marketing this ability. I also seem to remember that when the G4 spec was bieng put together IBM wanted to put multiple cores on the G4 and omit the SMD, so it has been in the works for a long time. Also remember that DayStar designed software/hardware modifications to allow MP systems back in the Clone days. Again the main limitation was the OS.
I do agree that MP systems are unlikely to make it into the iMac iBook or eMac, and probably not into the PowerBook either. They would be too hot and use too much power. Apple might be able to put a lower cost/power multi-core chip into these systems sometime in the future, say 2-4 years out, but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for them. But who knows, Steve might suprise us.
THERE IS NO 19" iMAC!!!!!
Could it possibly be that Apple is revising it's display lineup to focus on the "hole" that exists between the 17" display and the 22" cinema display?
How about 17, 19, 22, 23 inch cinema-aspect displays folks?
Geez...
<strong>My god you people and your 19" iMac speculations!
THERE IS NO 19" iMAC!!!!!
Could it possibly be that Apple is revising it's display lineup to focus on the "hole" that exists between the 17" display and the 22" cinema display?
How about 17, 19, 22, 23 inch cinema-aspect displays folks?
Geez...</strong><hr></blockquote>
It makes more sense to me to go with the following:
15" 19" 23"
that way you dont loose the bottom end, you dont loose the high end, and there is enough size difference to differentiate the products. Apple probably cant put out a 17" LCD for $499 which seems to be the entry price that Apple wants for their monitor offerings, so they need to keep the 15" around. 22" is redundant if the high end is 23", they are both wide screen. I could see keeping the 22" if the next up was 24-27" but not 23". I think that the mid range should move to the 19", it is 4" larger than the bottom end, and 4" smaller than the high end, and fits nicely in the middle in price as well.
An alternate size range that I think would work better, if they could get the prices down to these levels:
17"- $499
20" $999
23"-$2499 ($1999 would be better)
I see what you are saying. Perhaps I was unclear in my haste:
Here's what the lineup is:
$599 15(normal)
$999 17(normal)
$2499 22(cinema)
$3499 23(cinemaHD)
Here's what I think it will be:
$699 17(cinema)
$999 19(cinema)
$3199 23(cinemaHD)
the 22" will continue to be sold at a discount until existing inventory runs out.
In addition: NO 19" iMac, NO DP-iMac.
What the hell are consumers going to do with the extra processor? Cook eggs on it? The most we will see with the iMac for some time is modest speed and HD increases. Period.
Later.
<strong>
Here's what I think it will be:
$699 17(cinema)
$999 19(cinema)
$3199 23(cinemaHD)
Later.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple could get the 17" down to $599 then I could see dropping the 15", if not they should keep the 15" and drop the price. 17" LCD's are approaching $500 on the low end, and Apple is slow to adjust their priceing.
Unless Apple surprises us with a G5 or some other super processor, it'll stay single for a while yet. Besides we're only at 800mhz. Lots of room to grow to 1.25 GHz in the G4 line.
As far as 19", do you really see such a huge screen floating on an arm? While technically possible, it'll probably look out of scale and not really attractive. Again it's an issue of consumer vs pro markets and 19 inches is usually reserved for pros.
I couldn't agree more.
[ 10-03-2002: Message edited by: Composer ]</p>
Consumers don't tend to need raw power, but they would certainly appreciate the silk-smooth way that OS X runs on two processors. It would be a great antidote to the consumer burnout over processor speed: Instead of concentrating on raw power, Apple could advertise that their twin G4s made using the iMac silky smooth and responsive.
Or something like that.
At the very least Apple could use the opportunity to offer similar speeds as the PM line-up, but just using one CPU instead. Some L3 on the superdrive models wouldn't hurt either, just a MB like the PB's.
They are too slow.
<strong>
I dont agree with you on Apple not wanting to make MP systems. Apple has been working on MP systems for a long time, they just didnt have an OS that really took advantage of them. Now that they do have that OS they are ready to take advantage of marketing this ability. I also seem to remember that when the G4 spec was bieng put together IBM wanted to put multiple cores on the G4 and omit the SMD, so it has been in the works for a long time. Also remember that DayStar designed software/hardware modifications to allow MP systems back in the Clone days. Again the main limitation was the OS.
I do agree that MP systems are unlikely to make it into the iMac iBook or eMac, and probably not into the PowerBook either. They would be too hot and use too much power. Apple might be able to put a lower cost/power multi-core chip into these systems sometime in the future, say 2-4 years out, but I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for them. But who knows, Steve might suprise us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just think that when (if) Apple (Motorola/IBM) get back on their feet they will probably ditch the second processor on two of the three PowerMac's to lower the prices.
I don't think they will give up the MP-idea completely when they have been working so hard making it work good, but it will not be necessery on all machines.
[ 10-07-2002: Message edited by: Fobie ]</p>
<strong>
In addition: NO 19" iMac, NO DP-iMac.
What the hell are consumers going to do with the extra processor? Cook eggs on it? The most we will see with the iMac for some time is modest speed and HD increases. Period.
Later.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem is the eggs run off before they get cooked, and then it's such a mess to clean up, if you insist on cooking eggs on your mac, use an XServe??and a skillet
<strong>
I just think that when (if) Apple (Motorola/IBM) get back on their feet they will probably ditch the second processor on two of the three PowerMac's to lower the prices.
I don't think they will give up the MP-idea completely when they have been working so hard making it work good, but it will not be necessery on all machines.
[ 10-07-2002: Message edited by: Fobie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The performance gains, both percieved and real, that OS X recieves from MP systems will hopefully keep them in the PowerMac line-up. If Apple can design lower cost, lower power solution for the consumer models then they should put them in these systems as well. MP systems are better at multi-taking (downloading new MP3 files, rendering an iMovie, working on a word document at the same time), and as we move more and more to the "digital Hub" the benefits of this will be more apparent.