He said the ones that IBM was having trouble with were the 1.8's, 2.0's and also the 2.5's. So it's either the 1.8's or the 2.0's.
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips. Obviously they are in serious trouble if both chip lines are problematic for them. It also means we are back to square one in terms of what chips the iMac will have. It could be 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 from either the 130nm or 90nm lines. Although 90nm would make more sense considering the new design, I think the new iMacs will have the 130nm chips.
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips. Obviously they are in serious trouble if both chip lines are problematic for them. It also means we are back to square one in terms of what chips the iMac will have. It could be 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 from either the 130nm or 90nm lines. Although 90nm would make more sense considering the new design, I think the new iMacs will have the 130nm chips.
Maybe the controller chip on all models is 90nm and that is why they are all delayed.
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips.
I thought I had seen confirmation that all of the new dual Power Macs use the 90nm chips. Don't ask me for a link. I don't remember where I saw it and could be mistaken.
I think it's fantastic that Apple is giving us news on upcoming products BTW.
Yeh, thank god the Apple Exec's have large stock options, with the threat of analysts slamming the short term forecasts - gee i wonder if that had anything to do with it?
- three basic configurations based on screen size and processor speed.
- G5 (of course) 1.6 / 1.8 / 2.0 GHz
- memory 256 / 256 / 512 Mb with maximum of 2 Gb
- single disk 80 / 80 / 160 Gb with 160 & 250 Gb optional
- network 10/100 Mb/s on all models
- 2 x Firewire 400, 3 x USB 2.0, Firewire 800 - not likely
- Combo Drive on low-end model, SuperDrive 8x on other models, horizontal mounting
- display 17" / 20" / 20" with 23" to replace high-end 20" configuration within 6 months
- BlueTooth keyboard and mouse as configurable item
- AirPort Express orderable as add-on item, standard in high-end model
- stereo analog audio in/out
- 56K V.92 modem optional - when was the last time you used one?
As for the form factor, rumours abound about a vertical pizza box behind the monitor. Take a Sun SPARCstation Voyager, a new Apple Cinema Display and apply some Apple Industrial design.
I thought I had seen confirmation that all of the new dual Power Macs use the 90nm chips. Don't ask me for a link. I don't remember where I saw it and could be mistaken.
It was in an Apple document that stated that the three new PM's were 90nm.
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips. Obviously they are in serious trouble if both chip lines are problematic for them. It also means we are back to square one in terms of what chips the iMac will have. It could be 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 from either the 130nm or 90nm lines. Although 90nm would make more sense considering the new design, I think the new iMacs will have the 130nm chips.
If I read it correctly, it just means that IBM still has problems with anything 90nm. Though current PowerMacs 1.8/2.0GHz are running older 130nm chips, it does make sense to transfer them to 90nm too. But, seeing that 90nm chips have poorer than desired yields and almost all 90nm G5 @ <2.5GHz are stockpiled for iMacs, this transition is also being delayed. In other words, Apple has enough complications arising from IBM's manufacturing issues to admit that publicly. However, all is not lost. Remember the dark ages of Motorola, when Apple did their best to conceal the origin of similar problems? I guess because they weren't sure at all of what would become of them in a year. Now Apple is much more optimistic.
If I read it correctly, it just means that IBM still has problems with anything 90nm. Though current PowerMacs 1.8/2.0GHz are running older 130nm chips, it does make sense to transfer them to 90nm too. But, seeing that 90nm chips have poorer than desired yields and almost all 90nm G5 @ <2.5GHz are stockpiled for iMacs,this transition is also being delayed. In other words, Apple has enough complications arising from IBM's manufacturing issues to admit that publicly. However, all is not lost. Remember the dark ages of Motorola, when Apple did their best to conceal the origin of similar problems? I guess because they weren't sure at all of what would become of them in a year. Now Apple is much more optimistic.
I think you mean PowerMacs?
The iMac could be the reason the 1.8, and 2.0 PowerMacs are still using the 130nm processors. They could be holding those back from the powerMac line to put into the iMac to give these products an update sooner.
I thought this was a imac thread? anways G4 R I P ! Apple took way to long to dump this ever slow cpu. 11/2 years ago they sold dual 1.42 G4s in Powermac. now Moto (freescale) has it all the way up to let me see 1.5? Apple has been getting killed by Pcs for years due to them staying with this thing. Its Great Apple said new iMac will be a G5. We still have many zealots saying how great G4 is and blah blah blah almost as if they want apple to keep it slow. Moto screwed Apple far to long because Apple said no to the moto clones. G4 good riddence and Apple has almost kicked their sorry arses out the door! I would have loved to been the fly on the wall when Steve told Moto we need a sportscar not a Tonka toy. Moto sucks and has sucked for years. sorry but it needed to be said. now iMac can have some performance.
I'm glad to hear that I was wrong about the new iMac having a G4, but now my suspicion is that the design won't change all that much. And that's OK, it's a good design. I'd guess that the pricing may go up, at least for a while.
As for the concerns about repair, 20 min to change the battery is actually pretty good. You should be pleased, iDunno. The battery is not something that needs to be changed very often.
As for the concerns about repair, 20 min to change the battery is actually pretty good. You should be pleased, iDunno. The battery is not something that needs to be changed very often.
I agree. While it's not as easy as changing parts in a tower or a beige machine, you have to give up something for a nice design in an AIO form factor.
I bet it won't be long before we see the "unreleased" sketch on the net.
I predict we'll see Gigabit Ethernet in the iMac. It's not very useful in general but it's in Powerbooks, Powermacs, and it's quickly becoming standard on PC motherboards. The cost difference isn't huge, this is a backwards compatible improvement, and it wouldn't be the first time Apple sets a new standard in connectivity by having Gb Ethernet in every system sold (yes, I think it's coming to iBooks as well). Think Firewire, USB, etc.
And unfortunately, I think Apple will set the price of the iMac to such a level it needs all the selling points it can get...
Comments
Originally posted by iDunno
Maybe it will be the 1.6 chip from the RevA PM's.
iDunno
Because thoes are not on the 90nm process and would run too hot.
Macaddict16
Originally posted by NittanyLionTosh
He said the ones that IBM was having trouble with were the 1.8's, 2.0's and also the 2.5's. So it's either the 1.8's or the 2.0's.
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips. Obviously they are in serious trouble if both chip lines are problematic for them. It also means we are back to square one in terms of what chips the iMac will have. It could be 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 from either the 130nm or 90nm lines. Although 90nm would make more sense considering the new design, I think the new iMacs will have the 130nm chips.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips. Obviously they are in serious trouble if both chip lines are problematic for them. It also means we are back to square one in terms of what chips the iMac will have. It could be 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 from either the 130nm or 90nm lines. Although 90nm would make more sense considering the new design, I think the new iMacs will have the 130nm chips.
Maybe the controller chip on all models is 90nm and that is why they are all delayed.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips.
I thought I had seen confirmation that all of the new dual Power Macs use the 90nm chips. Don't ask me for a link. I don't remember where I saw it and could be mistaken.
Originally posted by onlooker
I think it's fantastic that Apple is giving us news on upcoming products BTW.
Yeh, thank god the Apple Exec's have large stock options, with the threat of analysts slamming the short term forecasts - gee i wonder if that had anything to do with it?
- three basic configurations based on screen size and processor speed.
- G5 (of course) 1.6 / 1.8 / 2.0 GHz
- memory 256 / 256 / 512 Mb with maximum of 2 Gb
- single disk 80 / 80 / 160 Gb with 160 & 250 Gb optional
- network 10/100 Mb/s on all models
- 2 x Firewire 400, 3 x USB 2.0, Firewire 800 - not likely
- Combo Drive on low-end model, SuperDrive 8x on other models, horizontal mounting
- display 17" / 20" / 20" with 23" to replace high-end 20" configuration within 6 months
- BlueTooth keyboard and mouse as configurable item
- AirPort Express orderable as add-on item, standard in high-end model
- stereo analog audio in/out
- 56K V.92 modem optional - when was the last time you used one?
As for the form factor, rumours abound about a vertical pizza box behind the monitor. Take a Sun SPARCstation Voyager, a new Apple Cinema Display and apply some Apple Industrial design.
Sun SPARCstation Voyager
http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub...n_Voyager.html
http://www.milestonesolutions.com/voyager/
Originally posted by iDave
I thought I had seen confirmation that all of the new dual Power Macs use the 90nm chips. Don't ask me for a link. I don't remember where I saw it and could be mistaken.
It was in an Apple document that stated that the three new PM's were 90nm.
http://images.apple.com/powermac/pdf...P_06092004.pdf
http://images.apple.com/powermac/pdf...O_06162004.pdf
I believe it is the first PDF.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
It was in an Apple document that stated that the three new PM's were 90nm.
http://images.apple.com/powermac/pdf...P_06092004.pdf
http://images.apple.com/powermac/pdf...O_06162004.pdf
I believe it is the first PDF.
that makes no mention that all models use the 90 nm. it has already been said by an apple rep and proven by users that the 90nm is only on the 2.5Ghz.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
He said the 1.8 and 2.0 PowerMacs would be in limited supply in addition to the 2.5 model due to IBM's chip problems. The 2.5 is a 90nm chip but both the 1.8 and 2.0 are 130nm chips. Obviously they are in serious trouble if both chip lines are problematic for them. It also means we are back to square one in terms of what chips the iMac will have. It could be 1.6, 1.8 or 2.0 from either the 130nm or 90nm lines. Although 90nm would make more sense considering the new design, I think the new iMacs will have the 130nm chips.
If I read it correctly, it just means that IBM still has problems with anything 90nm. Though current PowerMacs 1.8/2.0GHz are running older 130nm chips, it does make sense to transfer them to 90nm too. But, seeing that 90nm chips have poorer than desired yields and almost all 90nm G5 @ <2.5GHz are stockpiled for iMacs, this transition is also being delayed. In other words, Apple has enough complications arising from IBM's manufacturing issues to admit that publicly. However, all is not lost. Remember the dark ages of Motorola, when Apple did their best to conceal the origin of similar problems? I guess because they weren't sure at all of what would become of them in a year. Now Apple is much more optimistic.
Originally posted by costique
If I read it correctly, it just means that IBM still has problems with anything 90nm. Though current PowerMacs 1.8/2.0GHz are running older 130nm chips, it does make sense to transfer them to 90nm too. But, seeing that 90nm chips have poorer than desired yields and almost all 90nm G5 @ <2.5GHz are stockpiled for iMacs, this transition is also being delayed. In other words, Apple has enough complications arising from IBM's manufacturing issues to admit that publicly. However, all is not lost. Remember the dark ages of Motorola, when Apple did their best to conceal the origin of similar problems? I guess because they weren't sure at all of what would become of them in a year. Now Apple is much more optimistic.
I think you mean PowerMacs?
The iMac could be the reason the 1.8, and 2.0 PowerMacs are still using the 130nm processors. They could be holding those back from the powerMac line to put into the iMac to give these products an update sooner.
Originally posted by a_greer
When will we see pics of the iMac 3?
On August 30th or thereabout
As for the concerns about repair, 20 min to change the battery is actually pretty good. You should be pleased, iDunno. The battery is not something that needs to be changed very often.
Originally posted by cubist
As for the concerns about repair, 20 min to change the battery is actually pretty good. You should be pleased, iDunno. The battery is not something that needs to be changed very often.
I agree. While it's not as easy as changing parts in a tower or a beige machine, you have to give up something for a nice design in an AIO form factor.
I bet it won't be long before we see the "unreleased" sketch on the net.
Originally posted by rwmarejka
- 56K V.92 modem optional - when was the last time you used one?
Good Poll Question. Faxing!! Just wish AutoAnswer was easier to turn off and on. TG for applescript.
Originally posted by cubist
I'm glad to hear that I was wrong about the new iMac having a G4, but now my suspicion is that the design won't change all that much.
The design ought to be completely different!
From the iMac info on the Apple Store:
"Apple has stopped taking orders for the current iMac as we begin the transition from the current iMac line to an all-new iMac line."
If the design would not change much, it would not qualify as "all-new".
And unfortunately, I think Apple will set the price of the iMac to such a level it needs all the selling points it can get...