Actually, when Apple shipped the first superdrives, you could get a Powermac with the superdrive, for LESS, than if you purchased a superdrive seperately(I remember this being a big deal, and it was announced as such, and I checked dvd-r drives at the time and they were several thousand dollars).
of course a few months later, they were not.
No.
I was at the MacWorld 2001 Keynote where the Superdrive was unveiled in the PM G4733, and the computerwas definitely not less expensive than the same drive for $599 (plus $159 enclosure) that you could get on the show floor. The computer was about $3300 reasonably spec'ed.
Blu-Ray is a non-issue right now for %99.8 of mac users.
How about Apple getting agressive.
Make iMacs Dual Core 1.8 and 2.2Ghz
The Powermacs can be
2.2
2.4
2.8 Dual Core
The only G4 based computers should be Mac mini, Powerbooks and eMacs full stop.
No G5 based system should be single core. Bah forget Blu-Ray we need some number crunching power if we're to deal with HD Steve.
I have a fundemental problem with the intro $499 mac mini having almost the same processor speed as the fastest powerbooks available. I noticed this a few weeks ago when I purchased a new powerbook for my wife. I figure apple should be able to figure out how to stick that 2ghz Freescale chip in there at the very least. Not even going to mention the absence of a possible G5 chip...doh, guess I just did.\
I agree. I think this is much more interesting than Blu-Ray right now. Unfortunately, I don't see it happen this year. However, I believe that the pressure from the x86 makers and vendors will make the dual core chips to trickle down to consumer space (G5 iMac) sooner than later (hopes for next year).
I tend to agree that this is a much more crucial topic. With the increased interest in Apple right now hardware is a critical place to close the deal. If Apple expects to increase market share I strongly feel they need to remain on the cutting edge in hardware and not just software. I tend to feel that thats why all of these financial advisors are suggesting that Apples largest area of growth over the next year (aside from iPod sales) is in their software. If this issue is still a result of IBM's problems then perhaps its time to consider new alternatives. I think a dual-core G5 would be just the trick to get me off the fense.
This would be rather disappointing in light of all the recent rumors....and I think if true this would mean Apple is still using the 970FX with 512K L2. I'm also disappointed to see the iMac GPU may not be updated.
That seems like a serious stop-gap solution. Desperate I dare say.
Would Apple dare to release these PowerMacs and then present an, eventual, G5MP PowerMac already at WWDC in June, just 2 months after this (rumored) update?
We're in the market for an HDTV editing station, and we need to get the toppest notch stuff Apple can throw out at us ASAP.
edit. seems TS is pretty sure it will be the MP after all!!!
Quote:
Sources were unable to confirm at this time whether the systems will sport the dual-core PowerPC 970MP processor or the single-core PowerPC 970GX, although unconfirmed notes point to the PowerPC 970MP. The second core would deliver performance gains far greater than the 200-300MHz bumps each processor is receiving alone with the update.
I'd be discouraged if it were not for this one ray of hope. AMD and intel are both anouncing there dual core chips on the 18th and 20th (or there abouts) it would be clasic apple to be the "first" with a quad and get the added headlines by anouncing on the 17th!!! Please God!
They have released two revisions within the space of 2/3 months before. I can't remember which machine it was and i'm too tired to go searching at the moment. Anyone know off the top of their head?
Two revisions could be a possibility. Although I think a HD device with wireless/video G5 iPods (that 'talk' to each other)are likely to be the WWDC show stealers.
edit. seems TS is pretty sure it will be the MP after all!!!
Perhaps the 512k L2 cache reported by TS was just a typo? The specs given by TS just seemed to contradict their statement about the 970MP being used in this latest update.
Perhaps the 512k L2 cache reported by TS was just a typo? The specs given by TS just seemed to contradict their statement about the 970MP being used in this latest update.
Yea I thought the MP and GX both had 1MB L2 cache? LOL It's probably just a FX with dual radiators. And what the heck is a Radeon 9650? I'm thinking that its slightly better than a 9600 and slightly worse than a 9700? These updates are crap but at least it means my current PowerMac is still in the line up
That seems like a serious stop-gap solution. Desperate I dare say.
Would Apple dare to release these PowerMacs and then present an, eventual, G5MP PowerMac already at WWDC in June, just 2 months after this (rumored) update?
Yes it does, and no way would Apple release a powerMac two months after a powerMac.
Perhaps the 512k L2 cache reported by TS was just a typo? The specs given by TS just seemed to contradict their statement about the 970MP being used in this latest update.
But it isn't just the cache that doesn't mesh with the MP; the FSB figures are screwy too and therefore it's highly unlikely that these are dual core. That said, TS is also the site that told us Apple would be previewing some of their hot new ProApps on the 17th to broadcast professionals. IMO, Apple, OR ANYBODY ELSE, would be ashamed to demo their new stuff on such anemic machines to professionals who will also be looking at dual core Opteron's. Hence, TS' info is unreliable (for whatever reason) OR incomplete (no Pro line news).
Of course if I'm wrong and TS is right on all counts we have another problem: IBM. Why can this company produce a 250 gflop Cell with 9 friggin cores and not a lousy dual? Eh? Did Steve piss somebody off??
But it isn't just the cache that doesn't mesh with the MP; the FSB figures are screwy too and therefore it's highly unlikely that these are dual core. That said, TS is also the site that told us Apple would be previewing some of their hot new ProApps on the 17th to broadcast professionals. IMO, Apple, OR ANYBODY ELSE, would be ashamed to demo their new stuff on such anemic machines to professionals who will also be looking at dual core Opteron's. Hence, TS' info is unreliable (for whatever reason) OR incomplete (no Pro line news).
Of course if I'm wrong and TS is right on all counts we have another problem: IBM. Why can this company produce a 250 gflop Cell with 9 friggin cores and not a lousy dual? Eh? Did Steve piss somebody off??
What's screwy with the FSB speeds? They are 1:2 just as they should be for a PowerMac. The only off thing is the cache size.
As for chip speeds. Cell is radically simpler circuitry with shorter traces to boot. No mystery why that tech scales farther than a complex OoO chip.
What's screwy with the FSB speeds? They are 1:2 just as they should be for a PowerMac. The only off thing is the cache size.
As for chip speeds. Cell is radically simpler circuitry with shorter traces to boot. No mystery why that tech scales farther than a complex OoO chip.
You are correct on the FSB. Was referring to a post I'd read which gave wrong info - sorry, my bad.
On IBM... this smacks of Moto days (if in fact the MP is still unavailable in quantity). And didn't we get a promise from them the Power5 would be available end of '04? Not to mention in June '03 an IBM spokesman was responsible for the Infamous Promise that has caused SJ so much grief. Somebody's draggin their feet and I can't fathom why it would be Apple.
You are correct on the FSB. Was referring to a post I'd read which gave wrong info - sorry, my bad.
On IBM... this smacks of Moto days (if in fact the MP is still unavailable in quantity). And didn't we get a promise from them the Power5 would be available end of '04? Not to mention in June '03 an IBM spokesman was responsible for the Infamous Promise that has caused SJ so much grief. Somebody's draggin their feet and I can't fathom why it would be Apple.
How does this smak of Moto? G4500 sat completely static for almost 26 months (including the diasterous 3 month regression of 10%). G5 jumped 25% in 9 months, and is set for the next jump. Intel has the same or very slightly smaller percentage speed jump over the total 22 month period. So if G5 gets to 2.7 it is 35% in 22 months, P4 ~25% in the same period.
Not close at all, actually gaining on the competition. Just not as fast as unreasonable rumor mongers would like.
Comments
Originally posted by The General
Actually, when Apple shipped the first superdrives, you could get a Powermac with the superdrive, for LESS, than if you purchased a superdrive seperately(I remember this being a big deal, and it was announced as such, and I checked dvd-r drives at the time and they were several thousand dollars).
of course a few months later, they were not.
No.
I was at the MacWorld 2001 Keynote where the Superdrive was unveiled in the PM G4733, and the computerwas definitely not less expensive than the same drive for $599 (plus $159 enclosure) that you could get on the show floor. The computer was about $3300 reasonably spec'ed.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Blu-Ray is a non-issue right now for %99.8 of mac users.
How about Apple getting agressive.
Make iMacs Dual Core 1.8 and 2.2Ghz
The Powermacs can be
2.2
2.4
2.8 Dual Core
The only G4 based computers should be Mac mini, Powerbooks and eMacs full stop.
No G5 based system should be single core. Bah forget Blu-Ray we need some number crunching power if we're to deal with HD Steve.
I have a fundemental problem with the intro $499 mac mini having almost the same processor speed as the fastest powerbooks available. I noticed this a few weeks ago when I purchased a new powerbook for my wife. I figure apple should be able to figure out how to stick that 2ghz Freescale chip in there at the very least. Not even going to mention the absence of a possible G5 chip...doh, guess I just did.
Originally posted by PB
I agree. I think this is much more interesting than Blu-Ray right now. Unfortunately, I don't see it happen this year. However, I believe that the pressure from the x86 makers and vendors will make the dual core chips to trickle down to consumer space (G5 iMac) sooner than later (hopes for next year).
I tend to agree that this is a much more crucial topic. With the increased interest in Apple right now hardware is a critical place to close the deal. If Apple expects to increase market share I strongly feel they need to remain on the cutting edge in hardware and not just software. I tend to feel that thats why all of these financial advisors are suggesting that Apples largest area of growth over the next year (aside from iPod sales) is in their software. If this issue is still a result of IBM's problems then perhaps its time to consider new alternatives. I think a dual-core G5 would be just the trick to get me off the fense.
Maybe I can send a minion instead. Muahahaha.
Hmm.. any takers if someone from my company can't go?
Originally posted by ZO
Hmm.. any takers if someone from my company can't go?
Can I fly out from Zurich instead of Paris?
Originally posted by philby
Can I fly out from Zurich instead of Paris?
Can you believe Lufthansa bought Swiss? Swiss Air should have never invested in those French, Belgium Airlines. Stupid frogs ....
Dual-2GHz
- 512K L2 cache per processor
- Dual 1GHz frontside buses
- 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (4GB max.)
- 160GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
- 128MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9600 video card
Dual-2.3GHz
- 512K L2 cache per processor
- Dual 1.15GHz frontside buses
- 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (8GB max.)
- 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
- 128MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9600 video card
Dual-2.7GHz
- 512K L2 cache per processor
- Dual 1.35GHz frontside buses
- 512MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM (8GB max.)
- 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive
- 256MB DDR SDRAM ATI Radeon 9650 video card
This would be rather disappointing in light of all the recent rumors....and I think if true this would mean Apple is still using the 970FX with 512K L2. I'm also disappointed to see the iMac GPU may not be updated.
Originally posted by FireDancer
I'm also disappointed to see the iMac GPU may not be updated.
Try again
That seems like a serious stop-gap solution. Desperate I dare say.
Would Apple dare to release these PowerMacs and then present an, eventual, G5MP PowerMac already at WWDC in June, just 2 months after this (rumored) update?
We're in the market for an HDTV editing station, and we need to get the toppest notch stuff Apple can throw out at us ASAP.
edit. seems TS is pretty sure it will be the MP after all!!!
Sources were unable to confirm at this time whether the systems will sport the dual-core PowerPC 970MP processor or the single-core PowerPC 970GX, although unconfirmed notes point to the PowerPC 970MP. The second core would deliver performance gains far greater than the 200-300MHz bumps each processor is receiving alone with the update.
Two revisions could be a possibility. Although I think a HD device with wireless/video G5 iPods (that 'talk' to each other)are likely to be the WWDC show stealers.
Try again
Sorry....21 years of education and I still can't read.....go figure
edit. seems TS is pretty sure it will be the MP after all!!!
Perhaps the 512k L2 cache reported by TS was just a typo? The specs given by TS just seemed to contradict their statement about the 970MP being used in this latest update.
Originally posted by FireDancer
Perhaps the 512k L2 cache reported by TS was just a typo? The specs given by TS just seemed to contradict their statement about the 970MP being used in this latest update.
Yea I thought the MP and GX both had 1MB L2 cache? LOL It's probably just a FX with dual radiators. And what the heck is a Radeon 9650? I'm thinking that its slightly better than a 9600 and slightly worse than a 9700? These updates are crap but at least it means my current PowerMac is still in the line up
Originally posted by ZO
That seems like a serious stop-gap solution. Desperate I dare say.
Would Apple dare to release these PowerMacs and then present an, eventual, G5MP PowerMac already at WWDC in June, just 2 months after this (rumored) update?
Yes it does, and no way would Apple release a powerMac two months after a powerMac.
Originally posted by FireDancer
Perhaps the 512k L2 cache reported by TS was just a typo? The specs given by TS just seemed to contradict their statement about the 970MP being used in this latest update.
But it isn't just the cache that doesn't mesh with the MP; the FSB figures are screwy too and therefore it's highly unlikely that these are dual core. That said, TS is also the site that told us Apple would be previewing some of their hot new ProApps on the 17th to broadcast professionals. IMO, Apple, OR ANYBODY ELSE, would be ashamed to demo their new stuff on such anemic machines to professionals who will also be looking at dual core Opteron's. Hence, TS' info is unreliable (for whatever reason) OR incomplete (no Pro line news).
Of course if I'm wrong and TS is right on all counts we have another problem: IBM. Why can this company produce a 250 gflop Cell with 9 friggin cores and not a lousy dual? Eh? Did Steve piss somebody off??
Originally posted by Dave J
But it isn't just the cache that doesn't mesh with the MP; the FSB figures are screwy too and therefore it's highly unlikely that these are dual core. That said, TS is also the site that told us Apple would be previewing some of their hot new ProApps on the 17th to broadcast professionals. IMO, Apple, OR ANYBODY ELSE, would be ashamed to demo their new stuff on such anemic machines to professionals who will also be looking at dual core Opteron's. Hence, TS' info is unreliable (for whatever reason) OR incomplete (no Pro line news).
Of course if I'm wrong and TS is right on all counts we have another problem: IBM. Why can this company produce a 250 gflop Cell with 9 friggin cores and not a lousy dual? Eh? Did Steve piss somebody off??
What's screwy with the FSB speeds? They are 1:2 just as they should be for a PowerMac. The only off thing is the cache size.
As for chip speeds. Cell is radically simpler circuitry with shorter traces to boot. No mystery why that tech scales farther than a complex OoO chip.
Originally posted by Hiro
What's screwy with the FSB speeds? They are 1:2 just as they should be for a PowerMac. The only off thing is the cache size.
As for chip speeds. Cell is radically simpler circuitry with shorter traces to boot. No mystery why that tech scales farther than a complex OoO chip.
You are correct on the FSB. Was referring to a post I'd read which gave wrong info - sorry, my bad.
On IBM... this smacks of Moto days (if in fact the MP is still unavailable in quantity). And didn't we get a promise from them the Power5 would be available end of '04? Not to mention in June '03 an IBM spokesman was responsible for the Infamous Promise that has caused SJ so much grief. Somebody's draggin their feet and I can't fathom why it would be Apple.
Originally posted by Dave J
You are correct on the FSB. Was referring to a post I'd read which gave wrong info - sorry, my bad.
On IBM... this smacks of Moto days (if in fact the MP is still unavailable in quantity). And didn't we get a promise from them the Power5 would be available end of '04? Not to mention in June '03 an IBM spokesman was responsible for the Infamous Promise that has caused SJ so much grief. Somebody's draggin their feet and I can't fathom why it would be Apple.
How does this smak of Moto? G4500 sat completely static for almost 26 months (including the diasterous 3 month regression of 10%). G5 jumped 25% in 9 months, and is set for the next jump. Intel has the same or very slightly smaller percentage speed jump over the total 22 month period. So if G5 gets to 2.7 it is 35% in 22 months, P4 ~25% in the same period.
Not close at all, actually gaining on the competition. Just not as fast as unreasonable rumor mongers would like.