The other issues revolve around known heat issues with the 970FX. Yes it is an improvement over the 970 but that really isn't saying much.
[/snip]
I'm confused...don't high-clocked P4's dissipate something in the range of 80-100watts? (with new 90nm prescotts well over 100 watts!) link
aren't the 970's more like 50-60 watts @ 1.8-2.0GHz, and the 970fx's more like 20-30 watts (in the 1.8-2.2 range)? why is it that considered a "heat issue"? link
seriously...sure Apple loves to over-engineer things sometimes, like throwing 68 "silent" fans into an enclosure instead of two of three normal fans, or packing 240 pounds of chocolate pudding into an 8" cube, but how is a damn fast, 64bit, vector-hound like the 970fx a "known heat issue" when dissipating 24 odd watts at 2.0 GHz?!
I would say that being seriously interested in Tiger's 64 bit features and owning a G3 (or even G4) are mutually exclusive. And I believe that the "bloat" in tiger will be handled, in large part, by the GPU. And if you're still kicking on a Rev A white iBook, maybe it's time to upgrade...
I agree, and more importantly, what "64 bit features" are we talking about? does anyone here honestly think that a "64 bit OS" is going to make any difference to the average user? ok, how about the average "prosumer"? I really don't think so. Yeah, it is good, and will be used in a handful of (really important) applications. but those will be 99.9999999% limited to enterprise stuff. the whole addressable RAM arguement is mostly vapor, as has been pointed out by several others here in the past, and has little to do with the 64 bitness of the OS in the way Apple has been talking about Tiger.
anyway, back on topic...I think the iMac will get a 970fx as soon as Apple/IBM can deliver the parts. Power/Heat will NOT be an issue for a consumer desktop like the iMac, especially since it is highly likely that the next rev will be in a new form factor, which I'm sure will address whatever cooling needs to be done.
It seems that the biggest question is what will the form factor be, in terms of size, shape, headless, etc. And part of that will include the degree of upgradeability. Jobs has ALWAYS had a preference towards AIO, non-upgradeable...let's just hope Ives et al can talk a little bit of sense into him.
aren't the 970's more like 50-60 watts @ 1.8-2.0GHz, and the 970fx's more like 20-30 watts (in the 1.8-2.2 range)? why is it that considered a "heat issue"? link
The problem with the 970FX is not heat per se, but heat density. Check out the numbers posted in this thread.
The heat could be due to components other than the CPU itself, such as the front-side bus.
yeah, that's been mentioned before, and I don't mean to shoot you down so quick, but I really don't see that being an issue either. Even if we assumed the chip dissipated half of what the 970fx itself does, (which is highly unlikely considering they're both 90nm parts, the bus being half the speed, and the equations not being linear) that would be something like another 12 or 13 watts...on a seperate chip! even if you had to guess at 45 watts combined for 2+GHz cpu, 1+GHz fsb, that's less than half of what a P4 dissipates, and it's spread across two chips.
again, i'm not trying to be a pain or anything, but I really don't get how anyone can say power/heat issues are stopping a single 970fx from going into a consumer Mac.
Apple would not "transition from the current iMac line to an all-new iMac line" just to stick a faster G4 in it and then call it "our next generation iMac."
I would say that being seriously interested in Tiger's 64 bit features and owning a G3 (or even G4) are mutually exclusive. And I believe that the "bloat" in tiger will be handled, in large part, by the GPU. And if you're still kicking on a Rev A white iBook, maybe it's time to upgrade...
Lets see i have been running a 1.47 with 2 mbs of L3 in a quicksilver for a year now. In fact i also have a gig of ram and geforce3 and my machine thats 3 years old will match or exceed any single current G4 machine being produced by Apple. This is Apples whole problem, now lets see what was imac? oh yeah a 1.25 with no L3 and a fx5200 I know what my machine can do and it smokes iMac and yes its still a just adequate machine to game on or anything else.. Thinking a 64 bit tiger is going to do well on G4 is like thinking Jag is going to do well on a G3... yes i have a G3 iMac! (still works) Tiger will want a 64 bit machine to stretch its legs watch and see.
I think that you need to almost double your wattage figures but that isn't really the issue. Think about shoving a 30 or 60 watt light bulb into a iMac enclosure and try to maintain the low noise level Apples strives for. Or do the same thing in a small form factor iMac replacement. Remember you will also have this box populated with a modern GPU which will also be hot.
Now realize that even though we have almost cut the power disapated in half with the 90nm chips the power density has gone up so what ever cooling system is in this system has to be more aggressive than would first be assumed.
It is interesting tonote that Intel is very aware of their heat problems also. Thus their interest in Dothan as the core to base future hardware on.
Heat is only an issue with respect to Apple because they pride themselves on having quite machines. They also like the idea that their machines are energy efficient. I'm sure that if noise wasn't an issue Apple would be more willing to release hardware based on the 970.
Quote:
Originally posted by concentricity
I'm confused...don't high-clocked P4's dissipate something in the range of 80-100watts? (with new 90nm prescotts well over 100 watts!) link
aren't the 970's more like 50-60 watts @ 1.8-2.0GHz, and the 970fx's more like 20-30 watts (in the 1.8-2.2 range)? why is it that considered a "heat issue"? link
seriously...sure Apple loves to over-engineer things sometimes, like throwing 68 "silent" fans into an enclosure instead of two of three normal fans, or packing 240 pounds of chocolate pudding into an 8" cube, but how is a damn fast, 64bit, vector-hound like the 970fx a "known heat issue" when dissipating 24 odd watts at 2.0 GHz?!
Is it only me - or has the iMac line lost its way.
The first iMac was the answer to a question:
"What is the easiest box to buy if I want to get online. "
It was a very simple my-first-computer. It had the appliance functionality of the first Mac and was cheap and cheerful.
The second iMac lost its way. It was an "advanced consumer PC" a BMW 3 series to the first iMac's "VW Beetle". It was underpowered and expensive. So perhaps a BMW with a little engine...
Apple needs to clearly identify markets and go after them vigorously.
The Powermac has a clear demographic. The product is good.
The other markets are.
1) Games PC - forget it - it now cannot happen.
2) Family PC - Internet, Homework Email, ease of use.
- Apple should OWN this market. But the WalMart factor is the problem This is a price sensitive market and cheap PCs are going to win every time. We ain't gonna spend $1500 so granny can Email us.
3) Advanced Design PCs. Video editing, Stylish design - Power and some upgradability. Apple's home turf. A real BMW media engine.
If Apple wishes to be agressive - I think it needs two products.
The iMac - A low price point PC aimed at the mass market. A screenless, keyboardless iBook would be my choice of design. A silent white slab would offer numerous advantages over a noisy tin box.
The Mac. - Anniversary year. It returns. A much higher price point. A fully tricked-out machine which out of the box will do everything. Targetted at professionals and prosumer market. My personal take would be a screenless aluminium enclosure looking like a PS2 re-designed by god. the Perfect visual complement to the new screens. Either dual processors - or single G5.
This is not unique to this thread, but I think a lot of people in the mac-fora universe are talking out of their asses when it comes to 970 power/heat characteristics. You don't know what it takes to cool them. I don't know either. People cite some IBM Microprocessor forum numbers, but there's no way those were anything more than an optimistic advertorial slant on a new design. The chip hasn't appeared in any commercial application without one mother of a heat sink/exchanger on it. That should indicate the true characteristics of the chip.
All that said, iMac is a desktop, and with no battery drain or weight issues to handle, I know that Apple can tackle the problem in an efficient way.
don't know if this is totally relevant to the conversation. but a while ago i mentioned to some friends about tiger and its 64bit capabilities, and they though that was great. i know they don't really know what makes it great. but then i remembered how the entire video game industry would use these figures to tout the power of next generation consoles, directly in their marketing campaigns. so yes, i think the average consumer, even though they might not really know what the hell this all means, will definitely respond to a 64bit architecture. remember the sega genesis?
You are corect if one takes a look at IBM's typical heat disapation numbers you can be easly misled into believing that simple heat sinking is all that is required. On the other hand Apples heat sinking can equally confuse the issue as they obviously have goals beyond heat removal.
The problem with IBM's numbers is the typical figure, it does appear that one has to design for 2X this value. That is not especially bad, but the issue is significant in the CURRENT iMAC.
By now it should be fairly obvious to everyone that the current iMac is going the way of the DODO. If Apple is going 64 bit in the iMac replacement, then they will have to address the heat issue. Call it heat desnisty if you want, that just adds more color to the description of the problem.
Part of the issue may be expectations here. I for one simply do not see any iMac replacement being successful with a processor that runs at less than 2GHz on either a G4 or G5 platform. That 2GHz machine should be the entry level machine too.
There is little point in Apple releasing sub 2GHz iMac3's, as that is one of the current iMacs failings in the market place. No matter how well they try to market them, the number one issue will be the lack of real world performnace. Performance for the dollars spent is the biggest problem the current iMacs have, it would be silly to repeat that problem on new hardware.
So the issue becomes how does Apple deliver a 970FX or whatever, running at >= 2GHz, in a consumer platform and cool it. That is attending to the heat density issue and the noise limits Apple will put on the machine. It is not likely to happen in the iMac enclosure as it stands today. It may be that the delay is in part addressing the heat issue of a 970 or it may be an entirely different architecture that is the hold up. The point is Apple has the ability to address the heat issue from a number of different avenues including not using the 970FX.
Unfortunately Apple has not said what specifically is causing the current delay. While delivery issues with the 970FX MAY be involved it is a stretch to say that is all there is to the delay until we know more.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
This is not unique to this thread, but I think a lot of people in the mac-fora universe are talking out of their asses when it comes to 970 power/heat characteristics. You don't know what it takes to cool them. I don't know either. People cite some IBM Microprocessor forum numbers, but there's no way those were anything more than an optimistic advertorial slant on a new design. The chip hasn't appeared in any commercial application without one mother of a heat sink/exchanger on it. That should indicate the true characteristics of the chip.
All that said, iMac is a desktop, and with no battery drain or weight issues to handle, I know that Apple can tackle the problem in an efficient way.
Well that is one aspect to the perception of 64 bit technology. I believe on the other hand that a great many people, that really should know better, are truely underestimating the importance of 64 bit technology. It offers to free development for a very long time into the future.
Now a days it is nothing to startup a desk top application that needs more than 512Megs of ram all to its own and works perceptibly better with even more ram. These are in many cases professional applications and are far removed form the world of databases. Databases being one of the justifications for 64 bit. When many present day 32 bit OS split the 4 GB address space in two, it does not take long to run into memory restrictions. So there are real demands with respect to applications used on current PC platforms.
Move away from current PC applicaitons and look at many of the workstation applications, you will find that the only thing that keeps many of these from moving to PC platforms is addressable memory. Electronic Design Automaiton is just one field that would love lower cost PC type hardware to run their applications on. So this is another significant reason that demand for 64 bits is being driven.
Of course databases are everybodys favorite 64 bit excuse so that is reason number 3.
Games are being grossly underestimated. Lets face it we are a long way from the type of virtual reality seen in Star Trek. In a couple of years this could be the biggest driver of 64 bit systems and memory sales. Games are hugely underestimated with respect to adoption of 64 bit technology. It is almost a given that the big winners here will be new comers to the market. So reason #4 is games.
The PC world will quickly transition to SMP in one form or another. Limited address space will impact the performance of these systems. So reason #5.
There are probally many other good sound reasons for the transition to 64 bit technology. Yeah it won't happen all at once but I suspect it will be quicker than many will want to admit to. The industry is full of people and organizations that could not see past present technology and realize the potential of new and future technology. Some of those organizations quickly die off or go through periods of struggle to adapt. I suspect that many putting up resistance to 64 bit technology will soon find themsleves struggling to adapt.
Thanks
dave
Quote:
Originally posted by ouroboros
don't know if this is totally relevant to the conversation. but a while ago i mentioned to some friends about tiger and its 64bit capabilities, and they though that was great. i know they don't really know what makes it great. but then i remembered how the entire video game industry would use these figures to tout the power of next generation consoles, directly in their marketing campaigns. so yes, i think the average consumer, even though they might not really know what the hell this all means, will definitely respond to a 64bit architecture. remember the sega genesis?
Part of the issue may be expectations here. I for one simply do not see any iMac replacement being successful with a processor that runs at less than 2GHz on either a G4 or G5 platform. That 2GHz machine should be the entry level machine too.
I can't see the entry-level iMac having a higher frequency than the entry-level Power Mac... Has Apple ever done this in the past?
Apple has had G3 iMacs at about the same speed as G4 powermacs and sold boat loads of iMacs but then they stopped it with LCD iMac( Apples biggest mistake) and this runs off consumers who can go out and buy a Pc for the price of iMac that will match Powermac performance. Apple has a nice long history of crippling iMac and then wondering why no one wants one. they do it with the cpu -speed and then they remove L3, they do it with the videoCHIP they give it a lame mx or fx5200 and again wonder why no one wants one. Apple has for years used low end old technology and then wrap it up in fancy clothes and ask top dollar. I expect to see this again because Jobs is still running the show. I bet a newer G4 or a 1.6 G5 and poor videoChip(not card) it will again have some fancy clothes but no real substance and the consumer will see right through it again. This is Jobs standard operating procedure when it comes to its consumer line. fancy clothes and old stale hardware and ask top dollar. Anyone expecting a sub $1000 imac will be very dissapointed.
Is it only me - or has the iMac line lost its way.
The first iMac was the answer to a question:
"What is the easiest box to buy if I want to get online. "
...
The other markets are.
1) Games PC - forget it - it now cannot happen.
2) Family PC - Internet, Homework Email, ease of use.
- Apple should OWN this market. But the WalMart factor is the problem This is a price sensitive market and cheap PCs are going to win every time. We ...
Great post, Carniphage. Very thought-provoking.
You know what's happening these days... Console games are getting ethernet ports and internet connections - and ASCII keyboards. I think the Xbox can do web and email. From there, it's only a short step to add a simple word processor, and voila - the needs of 90% of home computer users are fully met.
As you say, there's no point in chasing the gamer market or the home computer market.
There is another market you haven't mentioned, and that's the corporate desktop. That's pretty much owned by Dell and HP, but it's still a big opportunity. Apple can boast a better TCO, simpler installation and support, smaller desktop footprint, and so on. Configurations are standardized, and support costs per machine are much lower. With the viruses, high licensing costs, and high support costs, Windows is vulnerable in the corporate market. That's the market the iMac should be built for.
Here is what I'm thinking about iMac v3 for a better success than v2.
First - > lower price.
Second -> no screen... no need to have another AIO there is the eMac. I'm hoping that Apple will market the v3 like a Windows Media Center but on steroids. You can plug it to your Digital/Analog screen or TV without a fuss...
The v3 is to the stereo/video/pc what the iPod is for the walkman... (maybe the v3 must have an Airport/AirTunes integrated with some kind of bluetooth remote too).
Third -> A full AGP8x / PCI express slot for upgrading the graphic card !
Even if consumers don't upgrade it, it's a sell point (look at Shuttle). Hoping that Apple will propose at least 2 options of GPU.
Four -> A G5 is necessary... even at 1.6 GHz... alone for a 800 MHz FSB. Applications like iPhoto, iDVD, Quartz, Games, etc. eat that bandwidth for lunch.... so please no G4 it's so 1999.
Comments
Originally posted by wizard69
[snip]
The other issues revolve around known heat issues with the 970FX. Yes it is an improvement over the 970 but that really isn't saying much.
[/snip]
I'm confused...don't high-clocked P4's dissipate something in the range of 80-100watts? (with new 90nm prescotts well over 100 watts!) link
aren't the 970's more like 50-60 watts @ 1.8-2.0GHz, and the 970fx's more like 20-30 watts (in the 1.8-2.2 range)? why is it that considered a "heat issue"? link
seriously...sure Apple loves to over-engineer things sometimes, like throwing 68 "silent" fans into an enclosure instead of two of three normal fans, or packing 240 pounds of chocolate pudding into an 8" cube, but how is a damn fast, 64bit, vector-hound like the 970fx a "known heat issue" when dissipating 24 odd watts at 2.0 GHz?!
I guess I just don't get it...
Originally posted by discstickers
I would say that being seriously interested in Tiger's 64 bit features and owning a G3 (or even G4) are mutually exclusive. And I believe that the "bloat" in tiger will be handled, in large part, by the GPU. And if you're still kicking on a Rev A white iBook, maybe it's time to upgrade...
I agree, and more importantly, what "64 bit features" are we talking about? does anyone here honestly think that a "64 bit OS" is going to make any difference to the average user? ok, how about the average "prosumer"? I really don't think so. Yeah, it is good, and will be used in a handful of (really important) applications. but those will be 99.9999999% limited to enterprise stuff. the whole addressable RAM arguement is mostly vapor, as has been pointed out by several others here in the past, and has little to do with the 64 bitness of the OS in the way Apple has been talking about Tiger.
anyway, back on topic...I think the iMac will get a 970fx as soon as Apple/IBM can deliver the parts. Power/Heat will NOT be an issue for a consumer desktop like the iMac, especially since it is highly likely that the next rev will be in a new form factor, which I'm sure will address whatever cooling needs to be done.
It seems that the biggest question is what will the form factor be, in terms of size, shape, headless, etc. And part of that will include the degree of upgradeability. Jobs has ALWAYS had a preference towards AIO, non-upgradeable...let's just hope Ives et al can talk a little bit of sense into him.
Originally posted by concentricity
aren't the 970's more like 50-60 watts @ 1.8-2.0GHz, and the 970fx's more like 20-30 watts (in the 1.8-2.2 range)? why is it that considered a "heat issue"? link
The problem with the 970FX is not heat per se, but heat density. Check out the numbers posted in this thread.
Originally posted by BRussell
The heat could be due to components other than the CPU itself, such as the front-side bus.
yeah, that's been mentioned before, and I don't mean to shoot you down so quick, but I really don't see that being an issue either. Even if we assumed the chip dissipated half of what the 970fx itself does, (which is highly unlikely considering they're both 90nm parts, the bus being half the speed, and the equations not being linear) that would be something like another 12 or 13 watts...on a seperate chip! even if you had to guess at 45 watts combined for 2+GHz cpu, 1+GHz fsb, that's less than half of what a P4 dissipates, and it's spread across two chips.
again, i'm not trying to be a pain or anything, but I really don't get how anyone can say power/heat issues are stopping a single 970fx from going into a consumer Mac.
Think about it.
Reference: http://www.apple.com/imac/
Originally posted by discstickers
I would say that being seriously interested in Tiger's 64 bit features and owning a G3 (or even G4) are mutually exclusive. And I believe that the "bloat" in tiger will be handled, in large part, by the GPU. And if you're still kicking on a Rev A white iBook, maybe it's time to upgrade...
Lets see i have been running a 1.47 with 2 mbs of L3 in a quicksilver for a year now. In fact i also have a gig of ram and geforce3 and my machine thats 3 years old will match or exceed any single current G4 machine being produced by Apple. This is Apples whole problem, now lets see what was imac? oh yeah a 1.25 with no L3 and a fx5200
Now realize that even though we have almost cut the power disapated in half with the 90nm chips the power density has gone up so what ever cooling system is in this system has to be more aggressive than would first be assumed.
It is interesting tonote that Intel is very aware of their heat problems also. Thus their interest in Dothan as the core to base future hardware on.
Heat is only an issue with respect to Apple because they pride themselves on having quite machines. They also like the idea that their machines are energy efficient. I'm sure that if noise wasn't an issue Apple would be more willing to release hardware based on the 970.
Originally posted by concentricity
I'm confused...don't high-clocked P4's dissipate something in the range of 80-100watts? (with new 90nm prescotts well over 100 watts!) link
aren't the 970's more like 50-60 watts @ 1.8-2.0GHz, and the 970fx's more like 20-30 watts (in the 1.8-2.2 range)? why is it that considered a "heat issue"? link
seriously...sure Apple loves to over-engineer things sometimes, like throwing 68 "silent" fans into an enclosure instead of two of three normal fans, or packing 240 pounds of chocolate pudding into an 8" cube, but how is a damn fast, 64bit, vector-hound like the 970fx a "known heat issue" when dissipating 24 odd watts at 2.0 GHz?!
I guess I just don't get it...
Originally posted by Aurora
Tiger will want a 64 bit machine to stretch its legs watch and see.
Tiger won't give a crap whether the machine is 64 bit or not. Clearly you've never seen Solaris.
The first iMac was the answer to a question:
"What is the easiest box to buy if I want to get online. "
It was a very simple my-first-computer. It had the appliance functionality of the first Mac and was cheap and cheerful.
The second iMac lost its way. It was an "advanced consumer PC" a BMW 3 series to the first iMac's "VW Beetle". It was underpowered and expensive. So perhaps a BMW with a little engine...
Apple needs to clearly identify markets and go after them vigorously.
The Powermac has a clear demographic. The product is good.
The other markets are.
1) Games PC - forget it - it now cannot happen.
2) Family PC - Internet, Homework Email, ease of use.
- Apple should OWN this market. But the WalMart factor is the problem This is a price sensitive market and cheap PCs are going to win every time. We ain't gonna spend $1500 so granny can Email us.
3) Advanced Design PCs. Video editing, Stylish design - Power and some upgradability. Apple's home turf. A real BMW media engine.
If Apple wishes to be agressive - I think it needs two products.
The iMac - A low price point PC aimed at the mass market. A screenless, keyboardless iBook would be my choice of design. A silent white slab would offer numerous advantages over a noisy tin box.
The Mac. - Anniversary year. It returns. A much higher price point. A fully tricked-out machine which out of the box will do everything. Targetted at professionals and prosumer market. My personal take would be a screenless aluminium enclosure looking like a PS2 re-designed by god. the Perfect visual complement to the new screens. Either dual processors - or single G5.
Carni.
All that said, iMac is a desktop, and with no battery drain or weight issues to handle, I know that Apple can tackle the problem in an efficient way.
You are corect if one takes a look at IBM's typical heat disapation numbers you can be easly misled into believing that simple heat sinking is all that is required. On the other hand Apples heat sinking can equally confuse the issue as they obviously have goals beyond heat removal.
The problem with IBM's numbers is the typical figure, it does appear that one has to design for 2X this value. That is not especially bad, but the issue is significant in the CURRENT iMAC.
By now it should be fairly obvious to everyone that the current iMac is going the way of the DODO. If Apple is going 64 bit in the iMac replacement, then they will have to address the heat issue. Call it heat desnisty if you want, that just adds more color to the description of the problem.
Part of the issue may be expectations here. I for one simply do not see any iMac replacement being successful with a processor that runs at less than 2GHz on either a G4 or G5 platform. That 2GHz machine should be the entry level machine too.
There is little point in Apple releasing sub 2GHz iMac3's, as that is one of the current iMacs failings in the market place. No matter how well they try to market them, the number one issue will be the lack of real world performnace. Performance for the dollars spent is the biggest problem the current iMacs have, it would be silly to repeat that problem on new hardware.
So the issue becomes how does Apple deliver a 970FX or whatever, running at >= 2GHz, in a consumer platform and cool it. That is attending to the heat density issue and the noise limits Apple will put on the machine. It is not likely to happen in the iMac enclosure as it stands today. It may be that the delay is in part addressing the heat issue of a 970 or it may be an entirely different architecture that is the hold up. The point is Apple has the ability to address the heat issue from a number of different avenues including not using the 970FX.
Unfortunately Apple has not said what specifically is causing the current delay. While delivery issues with the 970FX MAY be involved it is a stretch to say that is all there is to the delay until we know more.
Dave
Originally posted by Matsu
This is not unique to this thread, but I think a lot of people in the mac-fora universe are talking out of their asses when it comes to 970 power/heat characteristics. You don't know what it takes to cool them. I don't know either. People cite some IBM Microprocessor forum numbers, but there's no way those were anything more than an optimistic advertorial slant on a new design. The chip hasn't appeared in any commercial application without one mother of a heat sink/exchanger on it. That should indicate the true characteristics of the chip.
All that said, iMac is a desktop, and with no battery drain or weight issues to handle, I know that Apple can tackle the problem in an efficient way.
Now a days it is nothing to startup a desk top application that needs more than 512Megs of ram all to its own and works perceptibly better with even more ram. These are in many cases professional applications and are far removed form the world of databases. Databases being one of the justifications for 64 bit. When many present day 32 bit OS split the 4 GB address space in two, it does not take long to run into memory restrictions. So there are real demands with respect to applications used on current PC platforms.
Move away from current PC applicaitons and look at many of the workstation applications, you will find that the only thing that keeps many of these from moving to PC platforms is addressable memory. Electronic Design Automaiton is just one field that would love lower cost PC type hardware to run their applications on. So this is another significant reason that demand for 64 bits is being driven.
Of course databases are everybodys favorite 64 bit excuse so that is reason number 3.
Games are being grossly underestimated. Lets face it we are a long way from the type of virtual reality seen in Star Trek. In a couple of years this could be the biggest driver of 64 bit systems and memory sales. Games are hugely underestimated with respect to adoption of 64 bit technology. It is almost a given that the big winners here will be new comers to the market. So reason #4 is games.
The PC world will quickly transition to SMP in one form or another. Limited address space will impact the performance of these systems. So reason #5.
There are probally many other good sound reasons for the transition to 64 bit technology. Yeah it won't happen all at once but I suspect it will be quicker than many will want to admit to. The industry is full of people and organizations that could not see past present technology and realize the potential of new and future technology. Some of those organizations quickly die off or go through periods of struggle to adapt. I suspect that many putting up resistance to 64 bit technology will soon find themsleves struggling to adapt.
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by ouroboros
don't know if this is totally relevant to the conversation. but a while ago i mentioned to some friends about tiger and its 64bit capabilities, and they though that was great. i know they don't really know what makes it great. but then i remembered how the entire video game industry would use these figures to tout the power of next generation consoles, directly in their marketing campaigns. so yes, i think the average consumer, even though they might not really know what the hell this all means, will definitely respond to a 64bit architecture. remember the sega genesis?
Originally posted by wizard69
Part of the issue may be expectations here. I for one simply do not see any iMac replacement being successful with a processor that runs at less than 2GHz on either a G4 or G5 platform. That 2GHz machine should be the entry level machine too.
I can't see the entry-level iMac having a higher frequency than the entry-level Power Mac... Has Apple ever done this in the past?
Originally posted by Carniphage
Is it only me - or has the iMac line lost its way.
The first iMac was the answer to a question:
"What is the easiest box to buy if I want to get online. "
...
The other markets are.
1) Games PC - forget it - it now cannot happen.
2) Family PC - Internet, Homework Email, ease of use.
- Apple should OWN this market. But the WalMart factor is the problem This is a price sensitive market and cheap PCs are going to win every time. We ...
Great post, Carniphage. Very thought-provoking.
You know what's happening these days... Console games are getting ethernet ports and internet connections - and ASCII keyboards. I think the Xbox can do web and email. From there, it's only a short step to add a simple word processor, and voila - the needs of 90% of home computer users are fully met.
As you say, there's no point in chasing the gamer market or the home computer market.
There is another market you haven't mentioned, and that's the corporate desktop. That's pretty much owned by Dell and HP, but it's still a big opportunity. Apple can boast a better TCO, simpler installation and support, smaller desktop footprint, and so on. Configurations are standardized, and support costs per machine are much lower. With the viruses, high licensing costs, and high support costs, Windows is vulnerable in the corporate market. That's the market the iMac should be built for.
First - > lower price.
Second -> no screen... no need to have another AIO there is the eMac. I'm hoping that Apple will market the v3 like a Windows Media Center but on steroids. You can plug it to your Digital/Analog screen or TV without a fuss...
The v3 is to the stereo/video/pc what the iPod is for the walkman... (maybe the v3 must have an Airport/AirTunes integrated with some kind of bluetooth remote too).
Third -> A full AGP8x / PCI express slot for upgrading the graphic card !
Even if consumers don't upgrade it, it's a sell point (look at Shuttle). Hoping that Apple will propose at least 2 options of GPU.
Four -> A G5 is necessary... even at 1.6 GHz... alone for a 800 MHz FSB. Applications like iPhoto, iDVD, Quartz, Games, etc. eat that bandwidth for lunch.... so please no G4 it's so 1999.
my 2 euros cents