I apologize for delaying the new iMacs. I just received my brand new dual 1.8ghz PowerMac and I am so sorry for using up an additional 1.8 ghz G5 chip.
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...
the 12 inch Powerbook doesn't have gigabit which makes me skeptical apple will include it on the iMac. But, it could happen
and your comment about setting the price too high is off....hopefully. I think, based on Apple's own comments that price will be one of the biggest selling points.
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.
I don't think they will be able to shoehorn those hot blooded 130nm G5s into a sleek iMac case -- current PowerMacs need nine (!) fans to cool them down! I bet they will stick with 90nm versions of 1.8/2.0 GHz G5s which will allow easier cooling -- and which also explains the delay of the new iMac. Besides, I don't think that Gigabit Ethernet will be an issue, since those cards generate additional heat, too.
The impression that I'm getting (water cooling, comments from IBM etc.) is that 90nm isn't resulting in the heat savings that they thought it would. Is this just because, although the power consumption has dropped, the heat is being generated over a smaller area?
Apple is likely to tout gigabit if they add it to the iMac3(which they should). The iMac3 is going to be using a similar G5 mobo which means the same controller as the Powermacs is likely. So basically they'd have to "cripple" the controller on the iMac to support only 100T max. Today when Gigabit is on a $150 Taiwanese mobo I think it's silly to have a computer $1000+ without gigabit. Say I want to use Xgrid functions in a few years. I'd like to have all peer computers on gb for maximum speed.
The impression that I'm getting (water cooling, comments from IBM etc.) is that 90nm isn't resulting in the heat savings that they thought it would. Is this just because, although the power consumption has dropped, the heat is being generated over a smaller area?
That's exactly it. With the 970, the problem was heat. With the 970fx, the problem is heat density.
Liquid cooling is better suited to coping with high heat density than air cooling is, so I expect a lot of piping and wicking in the new iMac, and a back panel that doubles as a huge radiator.
Icurrent PowerMacs need nine (!) fans to cool them down!
No they don't.
Apple needs 9 fans to cool them quietly.
I'm not saying that the iMac should be loud, but there are somethings it won't need, like SATA hard drives. It could even have a slower FSB, say 1/4 the speed of the processor instead of 1/2. I've heard that the system controller actually generates more heat than the 970, so reducing its frequency should help with heat.
Anyone here think those mistakenly posted PowerMac pictures were actually test boxen with the new iMac motherboard in it? If so, maybe we'll see the "PowerMac Mini" come September.
I'm starting to wonder if the new iMac's description (read: boring) will incorporate that "color changing" technology that apple patented a while back... Maybe the physical layout and design aren't all that fancy, but it lights up and stuff...
Anyway, AI: post the frickin' sketch or shut up about it already
Since some have already termed the new iMac "ugly" sight unseen, a sketch would simply confirm their opinions. A sketch cannot properly represent the subtleties of the design. It never did so when other CPU's were "leaked" and it won't this time. In person, the product has always looked better. But, there are those who are simply clairvoyant and can pass judgment. More power to them, but they need a dose of reality. We'll know soon enough kiddies.
Anyone here think those mistakenly posted PowerMac pictures were actually test boxen with the new iMac motherboard in it? If so, maybe we'll see the "PowerMac Mini" come September.
If you are talking about those coloured cube shaped machines, they were a mock-up. If you are not then which pic's are you talking about? Link please.
Since some have already termed the new iMac "ugly" sight unseen, a sketch would simply confirm their opinions. A sketch cannot properly represent the subtleties of the design. It never did so when other CPU's were "leaked" and it won't this time. In person, the product has always looked better. But, there are those who are simply clairvoyant and can pass judgment. More power to them, but they need a dose of reality. We'll know soon enough kiddies.
I don't think AppleInsider really has a sketch. They keep mentioning they have one yet never post it. I think they are just saying that so that when a sketch does make an appearance (on another rumor site) they can say they had it all along. Prove me wrong Appleinsider. Prove me wrong.
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.
Of course it seems nobody can convince all those paranoid Mac users of this. There is still alot of confusion on the subject.
No, only the 2.5 Ghz model uses the 90nm chips. The 1.8 and 2.0 GHz models use the 130nm. This has been confirmed by Tom Boger and others at Apple as well as people running tests on the machines themselves.
The two lower-end PowerMacs may use the 130 chips, but their supply is still constrained according to the conference call. So IBM is having trouble with both 90 and 130 chips?
No, only the 2.5 Ghz model uses the 90nm chips. The 1.8 and 2.0 GHz models use the 130nm. This has been confirmed by Tom Boger and others at Apple as well as people running tests on the machines themselves.
Can we have a link or something, I have yet to see anything that says the 1.8 and 2.0 are not 90nm chips?
The two lower-end PowerMacs may use the 130 chips, but their supply is still constrained according to the conference call. So IBM is having trouble with both 90 and 130 chips?
That is what I don't get, how could a chip(130nm) that has not had any manufacturing pitfalls all of a sudden have them.
Comments
I'll try not to let it happen I the future.
P.S. Halo is scary good on this machine!
Originally posted by Gon
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...
the 12 inch Powerbook doesn't have gigabit which makes me skeptical apple will include it on the iMac. But, it could happen
and your comment about setting the price too high is off....hopefully. I think, based on Apple's own comments that price will be one of the biggest selling points.
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.
I don't think they will be able to shoehorn those hot blooded 130nm G5s into a sleek iMac case -- current PowerMacs need nine (!) fans to cool them down! I bet they will stick with 90nm versions of 1.8/2.0 GHz G5s which will allow easier cooling -- and which also explains the delay of the new iMac. Besides, I don't think that Gigabit Ethernet will be an issue, since those cards generate additional heat, too.
Originally posted by dfryer
The impression that I'm getting (water cooling, comments from IBM etc.) is that 90nm isn't resulting in the heat savings that they thought it would. Is this just because, although the power consumption has dropped, the heat is being generated over a smaller area?
That's exactly it. With the 970, the problem was heat. With the 970fx, the problem is heat density.
Liquid cooling is better suited to coping with high heat density than air cooling is, so I expect a lot of piping and wicking in the new iMac, and a back panel that doubles as a huge radiator.
Originally posted by Yankeedoodle
Icurrent PowerMacs need nine (!) fans to cool them down!
No they don't.
Apple needs 9 fans to cool them quietly.
I'm not saying that the iMac should be loud, but there are somethings it won't need, like SATA hard drives. It could even have a slower FSB, say 1/4 the speed of the processor instead of 1/2. I've heard that the system controller actually generates more heat than the 970, so reducing its frequency should help with heat.
Anyway, AI: post the frickin' sketch or shut up about it already
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Anyone here think those mistakenly posted PowerMac pictures were actually test boxen with the new iMac motherboard in it? If so, maybe we'll see the "PowerMac Mini"
If you are talking about those coloured cube shaped machines, they were a mock-up. If you are not then which pic's are you talking about? Link please.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Since some have already termed the new iMac "ugly" sight unseen, a sketch would simply confirm their opinions. A sketch cannot properly represent the subtleties of the design. It never did so when other CPU's were "leaked" and it won't this time. In person, the product has always looked better. But, there are those who are simply clairvoyant and can pass judgment. More power to them, but they need a dose of reality. We'll know soon enough kiddies.
I don't think AppleInsider really has a sketch. They keep mentioning they have one yet never post it. I think they are just saying that so that when a sketch does make an appearance (on another rumor site) they can say they had it all along. Prove me wrong Appleinsider. Prove me wrong.
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.
Yes, AppleInsider in fact confirmed this in one of their articles: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=508
Go to the bottom of the article.
Of course it seems nobody can convince all those paranoid Mac users of this. There is still alot of confusion on the subject.
Originally posted by Leonard
Yes, AppleInsider in fact confirmed this in one of their articles: http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=508
Go to the bottom of the article.
Of course it seems nobody can convince all those paranoid Mac users of this. There is still alot of confusion on the subject.
No, only the 2.5 Ghz model uses the 90nm chips. The 1.8 and 2.0 GHz models use the 130nm. This has been confirmed by Tom Boger and others at Apple as well as people running tests on the machines themselves.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
No, only the 2.5 Ghz model uses the 90nm chips. The 1.8 and 2.0 GHz models use the 130nm. This has been confirmed by Tom Boger and others at Apple as well as people running tests on the machines themselves.
Can we have a link or something, I have yet to see anything that says the 1.8 and 2.0 are not 90nm chips?
Originally posted by BRussell
The two lower-end PowerMacs may use the 130 chips, but their supply is still constrained according to the conference call. So IBM is having trouble with both 90 and 130 chips?
That is what I don't get, how could a chip(130nm) that has not had any manufacturing pitfalls all of a sudden have them.