What are the next big steps for Apple's hardware line-up?
This is what I think for the Powermac and iMac:
Powermac - 3Ghz G5, 16X dual-write DVD-R/RW
iMac - 2Ghz G5, 8X DVD-R/RW, 128MB video memory
I think the eMac and iBook will continue without much drastic change and the Powerbook will get one more G4 bump and then an entry-level low-heat G5. What do you guys think?
Powermac - 3Ghz G5, 16X dual-write DVD-R/RW
iMac - 2Ghz G5, 8X DVD-R/RW, 128MB video memory
I think the eMac and iBook will continue without much drastic change and the Powerbook will get one more G4 bump and then an entry-level low-heat G5. What do you guys think?
Comments
For me the next big step has to be neither of the above as they are not revolutionary. The next big step has to be multi-cored processors, 2006/7 I guess.
Originally posted by xflare
The new eMac, whenever it arrives needs more than just a small speedbump to the G4 processor - if that's all it ends up getting it really wont be good value for money at all and I wouldn't ever consider getting one.
I don't believe that they will switch the eMac to G5 in the very near future. The gap between eMac (currently 1.25GHz), iMac (1.6 and 1.8 GHz) and PowerMac (1.8 to 2x2.5 GHz) would be too small to justify a price differences of more than 2,000 US$.
My estimate is that Apple will wait until they can offer the next speedbump for the PowerMac (e.g. 2-2.8GHz?) and the iMac (1.8-2.0 GHz?) and only then will introduce the G5 to the eMac (1.6 GHz?).
But I could as well be completely wrong...
BTW: does anyone have a qualified guess of WHEN the next PowerMac speed bump might happen?
Originally posted by Gulliver
I don't believe that they will switch the eMac to G5 in the very near future. The gap between eMac (currently 1.25GHz), iMac (1.6 and 1.8 GHz) and PowerMac (1.8 to 2x2.5 GHz) would be too small to justify a price differences of more than 2,000 US$.
My estimate is that Apple will wait until they can offer the next speedbump for the PowerMac (e.g. 2-2.8GHz?) and the iMac (1.8-2.0 GHz?) and only then will introduce the G5 to the eMac (1.6 GHz?).
But I could as well be completely wrong...
BTW: does anyone have a qualified guess of WHEN the next PowerMac speed bump might happen?
And does anyone have a guess for when the next iMac bump is going to happen? I know it won't be till 2005, but I think I'm waiting for rev B.
As for the Next Big Step, I don't have a guess but wish it would be a whole new Macintosh for $999, that would kick start market share.
1.4 GHz FSB
8 total DDR2 PC2-4200 or PC2-5400 slots
1 16xPCI Express slot (maybe 2...)
3 PCI-X slots
4 total SATA-2 connectors
16xDVD-R drive
The memory is still a bit expensive (PC2-4200 runs about double the cost of PC-3200 currently), but with the newer P4 boards taking DDR-2, and Apple coming forward with it in their machine in however long, I think the price will be closer to 3200 prices.
I just can't (well I can) imagine them letting this get away from them like everything else has.
Originally posted by onlooker
You are aware that taking the back seat, and not offering a dual graphics card option will trounce the PowerMac in just about every performance test by a staggering amount. Although in this case Apple will pull another staging of BS on stage, and say "we can beat it with one." (yea right) Sure the system will be an unfair comparison because it has 2 high performance graphics cards, but the point is Apple would finally be exclaiming that it's just not able to compete here. Although that much has become evident.
I just can't (well I can) imagine them letting this get away from them like everything else has.
Is there any advantage to having 2 graphics card slots, other than for gaming? Is there any professional application advantage? This is an honest question (I don't know), and would love to know. I had always thought it was an advantage for gamers, and didn't think it would become all that prevalent on every PC motherboard under the sun (Dell and HP), just the "uber" do-it-yourself gamer boards. I guess all it comes down to is cost. If it is not too expensive to slap on 2 16x slots, then why not?
It had just seemed to me that this was going to become more of a thing for the "feature whore", rather than a real world benefit.
I don't think SLI is going to be a big hit initially. It's too niche. But eventually it'll be something that Apple will have to investigate.
PCI Express is very important. Apple needs to move here quickly.
I don't think SLI is going to be a big hit initially.
I heard on the vine that Alienware is selling them like Mad.
I thought I read in here once that having All PCI-E slots was less expensive than PCI-X. It could have been someone talking out of their backside, but that is why I don't see it as that big of a deal because the price wasn't an issue. It's too bad they are not backward compatible with PCI, or PCI-X. If that were the case it would be in every system. Now if Apple wanted to innovate something that would have been a pretty good idea AFAIAC.
Originally posted by xflare
The new eMac, whenever it arrives needs more than just a small speedbump to the G4 processor - if that's all it ends up getting it really wont be good value for money at all and I wouldn't ever consider getting one.
The eMac is dirt cheap, and a 1.5 G4 would be more than good enough for it and for most of the tasks buyers of an eMac would need!
Originally posted by xflare
The new eMac, whenever it arrives needs more than just a small speedbump to the G4 processor - if that's all it ends up getting it really wont be good value for money at all and I wouldn't ever consider getting one.
Yep the eMac needs a significant speed boost. I do have a suspicion that Apple will keep 32 bit processors in it for a while though. Thus the next boost (update) for the eMac will come in the spring when Freescales new G4 follow on is ready for production.
Beyond that it needs a better GPU, which hopefully is a bit better than the 5200 which will be rather old by spring.
Right now the issue with the processor is partly gated by IBM simply being able to meet all of Apples needs. It would be nice if the machine is 64 bit but not required. I suspect that Apple knows this and will pad production with 32 bit processors for awhile until the 970 situation stabilizes. A G4 with an integrated memory controller will be a significant performance boost, probally good for atleast a couple of years.
Dave
Originally posted by onlooker
I just can't (well I can) imagine them letting this get away from them like everything else has.
Any company that would put a 5200 into a high end computer and keep a straight face either is totally out of touch or masters for milking the consumer. $15 dollars worth of GPU belong in something like the eMac not a iMac and certainly not in a Tower at the prices Apple is asking.
The problem is that Apple doesn't seem to get this so I'm not sure they even know what SLI is. You would think the moment PowerMac sales bit the dust they would have done something to correct the problem. Nope in traditional Apple fashion they will ride the crashing sales out until the next refresh. That refresh will be carefully crafted to hook the gullible and uninformed but hey is that a surprise to anybody?
I really don't know anymore what or who Apple is targetting anymore with their new machines. I do know one thing thoug, they can't seem to align production capacity, pricing and functionality with respect to anything the consumer would want.
It is interesting though that Apple seems to have iMac production issues. Seems they might not have enough for the holidays. I have to wonder if there are that many people taking the bait in this country or is it just a carefully crafted shortage to spur interest. Color me cynical but do people really have that much money to throw away on such a machine?
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by s.metcalf
The eMac is dirt cheap, and a 1.5 G4 would be more than good enough for it and for most of the tasks buyers of an eMac would need!
Here we go again, I have to wonder why you, or any one, can be so sure about the needs of every single eMac buyer. Second the eMac is inexpensive as far as Apple products go but I wouldn't call it dirt cheap.
There is a market in this world for computing hardware that is stagnet. The market that the eMac is targeted at is not, since it has not had a reasonable performance boost in some time the eMac could use a very fast G4. Or better, the reality is that there is lots of room above the machine know, so additional performance will not hurt.
Dave
Originally posted by onlooker
I thought I read in here once that having All PCI-E slots was less expensive than PCI-X. It could have been someone talking out of their backside, but that is why I don't see it as that big of a deal because the price wasn't an issue. It's too bad they are not backward compatible with PCI, or PCI-X. If that were the case it would be in every system. Now if Apple wanted to innovate something that would have been a pretty good idea AFAIAC.
There is a couple of things that come into play with respect to costs. First PCI-E slots come in different widths, widths as in communications channels so to speak. So you have the potential for very small slots for some I/O needs. Thus an all PCI-E machine could have a number of 16X slots along with 1X slots and possibly something in between.
While it would be hard for some one not in the industry to project costs, the reality is that the connectors are smaller. So there is a savings in physical size along with a significant savings in motherboard area. Like all things new the actual cost of the connectors might be more but the production costs of having them on the motherboard should be less than the old connectors.
In any event there really is nothing for anybody to worry about. The old PCI-X slots can remain on the motherboard along side any number of PCI-E slots. The only limitation is in case size and layout issues. In effect one could drop the AGP port on the North Bridge and replace it with a few PCI-E channels.
For Apple I would suspect that it would be hard for them to justify a chip set specifically built to support SLI. Rather what they might do is to implement several 16X channels and very fast DMA between them. A general purpose solution that can do things beyond SLI is the better avenue to take. Of course one big Graphics card with two GPU's on it would probally do high performance graphics one better.
Dave
Personally I don't think Apple should cripple it's consumer models just because the pro models are underperforming. Maybe Apple needs to distinguish the Powerbook and iBook with something other than processor speeds (e.g. better screen, more standard RAM, bigger drives).