I'm still looking for 100% confirmation that the chips in the 'new' lower end G5s are 970FXs.
They aren't. If they were, they would need liquid cooling just like the 2.5. This is because the surface area of the 90NM chips is too small for conventional heat sinks.
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument. When polled 97% of Mac users said they never used the second bay, and or didn't actually need it. I cant find it in my search, but I did read that. I think it's a matter of only 3% of actual customers that would like a second optical drive should just get an external rather than make the other 97% of users pay for the inconvenience, and extra expense of having the internal. I have a second optical drive (external) The only time I use it now (it collects dust) is to see if there is something wrong with a disc that is not coming up in my first drive. Basically I used it twice, and it was a fairly pointless purchase. I could have saved myself the $120.00
my 2¢
97% of mac users dont own PowerMacs. That number is meaningless and pulled out of your ass anyway
Really! You are talking of IBM expectations not Apple's. Remember Apple is not IBMs only customer. IBM uses these chips for some of their own systems. As I explained, there's anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Apple did have access to enough processors (especially the lower rated ones).
Yield translates absolutely to cost. IBM's problem was yields considerably below expectations. That means a higher than expected cost per processor and a constrained supply.
IBM does use 970s, but not in quantities that would be more than a blip in Apple's orders.
Quote:
Where do you think most assembled BTO macs fail QA at boot?
Does it matter? What matters is that it's much cheaper, simpler, and more reliable to test a complete system than an incomplete system.
If you don't know where most fail, then you can't assume.
Quote:
I've heard of MANY cases of BTO DOAs.
There is no reason they can't ship a barebones BTO Mac.
Things happen. And there are absolutely valid reasons why they can't ship a stripped Mac. You just don't agree with them, or dismiss them.
Quote:
It certainly will. Hopefully they will fail so badly that the next real revision will be sooner rather than later.
Doesn't really matter. The next revision will come when it comes, and if the current revision doesn't do well, Apple will spend the next conference call or two explaining weak PowerMac sales to analysts. The revisions they have planned are planned way in advance, and although they can make some relatively last minute changes, things like the northbridge are planned carefully and locked down early, because they're major (1+ year) projects with grave penalties for failure.
If you don't believe me, look at iMac updates over the last two years. The quality or market acceptance of an update does nothing at all to hasten the next one. They come when they're ready, and not before.
So many of us are telling you all that you should temper your thoughts about the real world impact of the next revision. Look at the recently announced Intel chipset. PCIe, DDR2, SATA RAID yet no perceptable speed advantage over the previous chipset.
PCIe is not going to make your graphics card go much faster. Bandwidth is not the limitation.
DDR2 is not going to substantially increase your speed until we get to the 667mhz version and the chipset that can utilize this bandwidth.
More than ever all computer users need to assess what real world benefits they have and stop delaying and start creating. Geeks obsess over the specs. Creative types obsess over getting work done.
People would have to be crazy for not liking the Dual 2.5 model. It has power to burn.
I don't see liquid cooling as an improvement. it's not something that makes me more productive. It's done out of necessity.
I disagree half way,
Apple won't use fans on heatsinks, its too noisy I guess... who knows. But liquid cooling is going to do nothing but cool a hot system (making your parts last longer) and quiet down your system. Most pc's out there are so f'n loud unless they have water cooling... I'm actually suprised apple went to water cooling.
I do agree that it may have been necessary, we don't know that for sure though. Maybe these chips are running around 35deg celsius though. If thats the case than I don't think it was necessary for heat reasons. If they are running 45deg and higher, then yes... definitely required. Whatever gets the job done to make these machines faster though.
I don't understand why everyone is bitching before the damn machine is released, unless you're bitching about it not being released yet
No one knows how well this machine runs yet, it could totally spank Opterons, etc. Not many chips out there are running at 90nm... Fastest bus out there by 250mhz... or is it 450mhz? Thats a huge jump in that alone. Why don't you wait for benchmarks before you start saying how slow the machine is.
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument. When polled 97% of Mac users said they never used the second bay, and or didn't actually need it. I cant find it in my search, but I did read that. I think it's a matter of only 3% of actual customers that would like a second optical drive should just get an external rather than make the other 97% of users pay for the inconvenience, and extra expense of having the internal. I have a second optical drive (external) The only time I use it now (it collects dust) is to see if there is something wrong with a disc that is not coming up in my first drive. Basically I used it twice, and it was a fairly pointless purchase. I could have saved myself the $120.00
my 2¢
I use dual drives daily, It just depends on the person. But its nice to have more than 700mb sitting in your drive, Sometimes I have video backed up on 3-4 discs...while one is copying I switch the other drive, If external cases were a bit cheaper I'd agree. But like someone pointed out, too many pro users have some sort of back up drive to rule it out. If they did this they could add more bays for hard drives at the same time, It's coming eventually. I had to mod my 2001 quicksilver so I could put another optical drive in it. (the 2nd optical drive bay was only 3.5). So I hacksawed it so I could fit a superdrive in there as well. Worked like a charm. This hack was on xlr8yourmac.com so obviously people wanted it bad enough.
Comments
Originally posted by Avon B7
I'm still looking for 100% confirmation that the chips in the 'new' lower end G5s are 970FXs.
They aren't. If they were, they would need liquid cooling just like the 2.5. This is because the surface area of the 90NM chips is too small for conventional heat sinks.
Originally posted by mattyj
The Powermacs do not have pro video cards.
I would also imagine that Tiger, is the first version of OSX that is mature enough for Apple to start writing pro drivers for.
Originally posted by onlooker
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument. When polled 97% of Mac users said they never used the second bay, and or didn't actually need it. I cant find it in my search, but I did read that. I think it's a matter of only 3% of actual customers that would like a second optical drive should just get an external rather than make the other 97% of users pay for the inconvenience, and extra expense of having the internal. I have a second optical drive (external) The only time I use it now (it collects dust) is to see if there is something wrong with a disc that is not coming up in my first drive. Basically I used it twice, and it was a fairly pointless purchase. I could have saved myself the $120.00
my 2¢
97% of mac users dont own PowerMacs. That number is meaningless and pulled out of your ass anyway
Originally posted by Avon B7
Really! You are talking of IBM expectations not Apple's. Remember Apple is not IBMs only customer. IBM uses these chips for some of their own systems. As I explained, there's anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Apple did have access to enough processors (especially the lower rated ones).
Yield translates absolutely to cost. IBM's problem was yields considerably below expectations. That means a higher than expected cost per processor and a constrained supply.
IBM does use 970s, but not in quantities that would be more than a blip in Apple's orders.
Where do you think most assembled BTO macs fail QA at boot?
Does it matter? What matters is that it's much cheaper, simpler, and more reliable to test a complete system than an incomplete system.
If you don't know where most fail, then you can't assume.
I've heard of MANY cases of BTO DOAs.
There is no reason they can't ship a barebones BTO Mac.
Things happen. And there are absolutely valid reasons why they can't ship a stripped Mac. You just don't agree with them, or dismiss them.
It certainly will. Hopefully they will fail so badly that the next real revision will be sooner rather than later.
Doesn't really matter. The next revision will come when it comes, and if the current revision doesn't do well, Apple will spend the next conference call or two explaining weak PowerMac sales to analysts. The revisions they have planned are planned way in advance, and although they can make some relatively last minute changes, things like the northbridge are planned carefully and locked down early, because they're major (1+ year) projects with grave penalties for failure.
If you don't believe me, look at iMac updates over the last two years. The quality or market acceptance of an update does nothing at all to hasten the next one. They come when they're ready, and not before.
So many of us are telling you all that you should temper your thoughts about the real world impact of the next revision. Look at the recently announced Intel chipset. PCIe, DDR2, SATA RAID yet no perceptable speed advantage over the previous chipset.
PCIe is not going to make your graphics card go much faster. Bandwidth is not the limitation.
DDR2 is not going to substantially increase your speed until we get to the 667mhz version and the chipset that can utilize this bandwidth.
More than ever all computer users need to assess what real world benefits they have and stop delaying and start creating. Geeks obsess over the specs. Creative types obsess over getting work done.
People would have to be crazy for not liking the Dual 2.5 model. It has power to burn.
Originally posted by applenut
was that part of your "i want to ram it up Jobs' ass" graduation speech?
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Nope, and I got a 110 out of 100 on that speech. It was actually a part of a George Carlin stand up routine, you son of a bitch.
Why isn't anyone else laughing at this shit?
Sometimes I love this place. applenut, I love you man. Macintosh, that's the closest I've come to changing my sig in a while. Love the last line.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
I don't see liquid cooling as an improvement. it's not something that makes me more productive. It's done out of necessity.
I disagree half way,
Apple won't use fans on heatsinks, its too noisy I guess... who knows. But liquid cooling is going to do nothing but cool a hot system (making your parts last longer) and quiet down your system. Most pc's out there are so f'n loud unless they have water cooling... I'm actually suprised apple went to water cooling.
I do agree that it may have been necessary, we don't know that for sure though. Maybe these chips are running around 35deg celsius though. If thats the case than I don't think it was necessary for heat reasons. If they are running 45deg and higher, then yes... definitely required. Whatever gets the job done to make these machines faster though.
No one knows how well this machine runs yet, it could totally spank Opterons, etc. Not many chips out there are running at 90nm... Fastest bus out there by 250mhz... or is it 450mhz? Thats a huge jump in that alone. Why don't you wait for benchmarks before you start saying how slow the machine is.
Originally posted by onlooker
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument. When polled 97% of Mac users said they never used the second bay, and or didn't actually need it. I cant find it in my search, but I did read that. I think it's a matter of only 3% of actual customers that would like a second optical drive should just get an external rather than make the other 97% of users pay for the inconvenience, and extra expense of having the internal. I have a second optical drive (external) The only time I use it now (it collects dust) is to see if there is something wrong with a disc that is not coming up in my first drive. Basically I used it twice, and it was a fairly pointless purchase. I could have saved myself the $120.00
my 2¢
I use dual drives daily, It just depends on the person. But its nice to have more than 700mb sitting in your drive, Sometimes I have video backed up on 3-4 discs...while one is copying I switch the other drive, If external cases were a bit cheaper I'd agree. But like someone pointed out, too many pro users have some sort of back up drive to rule it out. If they did this they could add more bays for hard drives at the same time, It's coming eventually. I had to mod my 2001 quicksilver so I could put another optical drive in it. (the 2nd optical drive bay was only 3.5). So I hacksawed it so I could fit a superdrive in there as well. Worked like a charm. This hack was on xlr8yourmac.com so obviously people wanted it bad enough.