When is it not obvious that something faster is in the pipeline?
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have picked my words more carefully. My point was not what was in the "pipeline" i.e. on the drawing boards that would theoretically be manufactured in the future, but what was already shipping in other computers.
When a 1.42GHz G4 is already in shipping machines, that the best Apple is willing to put in an iMac is a chip only about 2/3 the speed means that we're buying a machine hobbled in the most important component.
All I was trying to say was - "don't hobble the CPU speed in these machines because it leads to diminished sales in the Consumer market" and "don't worry about putting the best chip in iMacs because the pro machines are differentiated by virtue of having 2 of these processors, expandability, multiple monitors, etc.."
Your suggestion that I just buy whatever is the best that Apple offers at a given time is respectfully rejected on the grounds that Apple can put together a better offer using a non-obsolete CPU. There is no way a Consumer computer that costs twice what the typical computer does should have anything but the best components in it and the iMac suits that bill except for the CPU - the most important component.
When I bought my last iMac, a 400DV Grape model, the MHz on the Powermac was only 100MHz greater (25% as opposed to 42% and dual) and the computer didn't even require contemplating an upgrade for over a year. (don't get me started on G3 vs. G4 because at the time there was very little a G4 gave to OS 9 and consumer apps).
With OS X, we need as fast a processor as we can get because, frankly, OS X is dog slow at a lot of the more common things like clicking on menus, launching applications, creating new documents, etc...
So I'll keep waiting until I can buy an iMac which draws on the better quality CPUs available to apple.
And the economical justification for doing this to put in a rare, hot CPU into a costly machine for six months is...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Presumably they already did a redesign to put in DDR, airport ex, ATA100 and bluetooth. I guess we agree that the real reason is cost, not heat... Having an iMac that can deal with more heat is never a bad thing, no matter what's going to go in there in 6-12 months.
However, I don't think anyone has gotten their DP1.42's yet? Must be a hard chip to track down, especially in the numbers Apple would need for the iMac. Still, a 1.25 with even just 512KB of L3 (rather than 1 or 2 MB) would have pushed the iMac along nicely.
Single G4s will never really make OS X fly the way 9 did so to bring GUI snap! to the iMac they can use the 970 in single CPUs to give a nice speed advantage to the towers with dual CPUs.
The iMac might go through one lame speed bump ( like towers recently did) But the 970 will migrate from the towers to the iMacs much faster than the G4 migrated to iMac.
Remember at the time replacing a 500 MHz G3 with a 500 Mhz G4 costed more money and more heat and gave no performance benefists outside AV that really was supported by very few applications. Replacing a 1 GHz G4 with a 1 GHz 970 will give more than twise the the integer performance and 4 times the FPu performance (as I recall, anyhow a real substantial boost).So as opposed to the G3-G4 jump they really have a reason for the change.
BTW does the very high bus speed need that very expensive memory modules has to be used?
Could you guys come to your senses about the processors with OS X? I am running OS X Jaguar with a G3/300, 192 MB RAM, and a 6 GB HD. And you know what? It runs just fine. A single G4/800 is more than good enough for the prosumer buyer.
<strong>Could you guys come to your senses about the processors with OS X? I am running OS X Jaguar with a G3/300, 192 MB RAM, and a 6 GB HD. And you know what? It runs just fine. A single G4/800 is more than good enough for the prosumer buyer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Presumably they already did a redesign to put in DDR, airport ex, ATA100 and bluetooth. I guess we agree that the real reason is cost, not heat... Having an iMac that can deal with more heat is never a bad thing, no matter what's going to go in there in 6-12 months.
However, I don't think anyone has gotten their DP1.42's yet? Must be a hard chip to track down, especially in the numbers Apple would need for the iMac. Still, a 1.25 with even just 512KB of L3 (rather than 1 or 2 MB) would have pushed the iMac along nicely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac typically gets architectural features as hand-me-downs from the PowerMac line. The iMac isn't likely to get the 970 right away because of its higher power/heat requirements, and the motherboards & chipsets will probably be more expensive. If Apple gets aggressive with the RAM architecture as well then that would be a barrier to entry for the iMac. For some time, at least, the iMac will most likely continue to use the G4. Hopefully the 7457 will arrive sooner rather than later to improve performance and cost.
Presumably they already did a redesign to put in DDR, airport ex, ATA100 and bluetooth. I guess we agree that the real reason is cost, not heat... Having an iMac that can deal with more heat is never a bad thing, no matter what's going to go in there in 6-12 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR tends to run cooler; the rest don't add any significant heat, and they're presumably available in quantity, so they have none of the problems that a 1.42GHz 7455 likely presents.
I'm not agreeing that cost is an issue rather than heat. I'm saying that cost and availability and heat combine to make accomodating the 1.42GHz 7455 unpalatable. If you really want to pin me to cost, I'll admit that the cost of accomodating the problem of the fastest 7455 would be prohibitive. But Mr. Price At All Costs should have no trouble agreeing with that. Doubtless Apple was hoping that Mot would get the 7457 done by now. Whoops. As it is, I predict no iMac upgrade before it is.
[quote]Originally posted by vr6.1:
<strong>All I was trying to say was - "don't hobble the CPU speed in these machines because it leads to diminished sales in the Consumer market" and "don't worry about putting the best chip in iMacs because the pro machines are differentiated by virtue of having 2 of these processors, expandability, multiple monitors, etc.."
Your suggestion that I just buy whatever is the best that Apple offers at a given time is respectfully rejected on the grounds that Apple can put together a better offer using a non-obsolete CPU. There is no way a Consumer computer that costs twice what the typical computer does should have anything but the best components in it and the iMac suits that bill except for the CPU - the most important component.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Define "non-obsolete." The G4s in the iMacs certainly are not. Are all the PCs shipping with 2.5GHz P4s obsolete now that there's a 3.06GHz P4?
[quote]<strong>When I bought my last iMac, a 400DV Grape model, the MHz on the Powermac was only 100MHz greater (25% as opposed to 42% and dual) and the computer didn't even require contemplating an upgrade for over a year. (don't get me started on G3 vs. G4 because at the time there was very little a G4 gave to OS 9 and consumer apps).</strong><hr></blockquote>
At the time, Apple couldn't go above 500MHz, so that doesn't really hold: Everything was scrunched together because they had no choice.
[quote]<strong>With OS X, we need as fast a processor as we can get because, frankly, OS X is dog slow at a lot of the more common things like clicking on menus, launching applications, creating new documents, etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problems at all on my 450MHz G4 Cube. I did stuff 1GB of RAM into it, though, and I heartily recommend doing that. IMO RAM is more important than CPU for OS X, because of the extent to which OS X uses RAM - especially as a means to avoid using the incredibly slow hard drive. You tend to get markedly better results from speeding up the slowest components of a system than you do out of making the fastest component even faster. With insufficient RAM, a 1.42GHz G4 would simply twiddle its thumbs faster.
If IBM or Apple could adapt the G3 to the 970's bus architecture (adding DDR RAM, AltiVec, and a fast bus) then the iMac could have a G3!
Except, it would be much faster than the current G3 or even G4, with a decent bus arch. It would also presumably have lower power consumption than the G4, making it ideal for laptops.
Define "non-obsolete." The G4s in the iMacs certainly are not. Are all the PCs shipping with 2.5GHz P4s obsolete now that there's a 3.06GHz P4?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, I begin with "I should have chosen my words more carefully" because this is more an argument of semantics than substance.
In a world where you can get a computer with a 2.5GHz P4 for under $1000 and a 3GHz PC for under $1500, yes a 1GHz processor in an $1500 computer is obsolete (or for a more appropriate term - non-competitive).
This is especially true if Apple has access to 1.25GHz chips (half the speed of the slowest P4) or 1.42GHz chips (almost half the speed of the fastest P4s).
Lastly the % difference between 2.5GHz and 3GHz is only 25%, not the 42% between a 1GHz and 1.42GHz.
So, if you remove the semantics around "obsolete" and replace that word with "competitive" or "appropriate" or "possible" you get my real meaning - although I suspect that you did get my meaning from my previous post .
Comments
iBook - 1.2/1.4 GHz 970
pBook - 1.4/1.6 GHz 970
iMac - 1.4/1.6 GHz 970
POWERMac - 1.8/2.2/2.5 GHz Dual 970
[/WildOptimisticSpeculation]
<strong>
When is it not obvious that something faster is in the pipeline?
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I should have picked my words more carefully. My point was not what was in the "pipeline" i.e. on the drawing boards that would theoretically be manufactured in the future, but what was already shipping in other computers.
When a 1.42GHz G4 is already in shipping machines, that the best Apple is willing to put in an iMac is a chip only about 2/3 the speed means that we're buying a machine hobbled in the most important component.
All I was trying to say was - "don't hobble the CPU speed in these machines because it leads to diminished sales in the Consumer market" and "don't worry about putting the best chip in iMacs because the pro machines are differentiated by virtue of having 2 of these processors, expandability, multiple monitors, etc.."
Your suggestion that I just buy whatever is the best that Apple offers at a given time is respectfully rejected on the grounds that Apple can put together a better offer using a non-obsolete CPU. There is no way a Consumer computer that costs twice what the typical computer does should have anything but the best components in it and the iMac suits that bill except for the CPU - the most important component.
When I bought my last iMac, a 400DV Grape model, the MHz on the Powermac was only 100MHz greater (25% as opposed to 42% and dual) and the computer didn't even require contemplating an upgrade for over a year. (don't get me started on G3 vs. G4 because at the time there was very little a G4 gave to OS 9 and consumer apps).
With OS X, we need as fast a processor as we can get because, frankly, OS X is dog slow at a lot of the more common things like clicking on menus, launching applications, creating new documents, etc...
So I'll keep waiting until I can buy an iMac which draws on the better quality CPUs available to apple.
<strong>
And the economical justification for doing this to put in a rare, hot CPU into a costly machine for six months is...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Presumably they already did a redesign to put in DDR, airport ex, ATA100 and bluetooth. I guess we agree that the real reason is cost, not heat... Having an iMac that can deal with more heat is never a bad thing, no matter what's going to go in there in 6-12 months.
However, I don't think anyone has gotten their DP1.42's yet? Must be a hard chip to track down, especially in the numbers Apple would need for the iMac. Still, a 1.25 with even just 512KB of L3 (rather than 1 or 2 MB) would have pushed the iMac along nicely.
The iMac might go through one lame speed bump ( like towers recently did) But the 970 will migrate from the towers to the iMacs much faster than the G4 migrated to iMac.
Remember at the time replacing a 500 MHz G3 with a 500 Mhz G4 costed more money and more heat and gave no performance benefists outside AV that really was supported by very few applications. Replacing a 1 GHz G4 with a 1 GHz 970 will give more than twise the the integer performance and 4 times the FPu performance (as I recall, anyhow a real substantial boost).So as opposed to the G3-G4 jump they really have a reason for the change.
BTW does the very high bus speed need that very expensive memory modules has to be used?
<strong>Could you guys come to your senses about the processors with OS X? I am running OS X Jaguar with a G3/300, 192 MB RAM, and a 6 GB HD. And you know what? It runs just fine. A single G4/800 is more than good enough for the prosumer buyer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It works even better with a decent video card.
<strong>Presumably they already did a redesign to put in DDR, airport ex, ATA100 and bluetooth. I guess we agree that the real reason is cost, not heat... Having an iMac that can deal with more heat is never a bad thing, no matter what's going to go in there in 6-12 months.
However, I don't think anyone has gotten their DP1.42's yet? Must be a hard chip to track down, especially in the numbers Apple would need for the iMac. Still, a 1.25 with even just 512KB of L3 (rather than 1 or 2 MB) would have pushed the iMac along nicely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iMac typically gets architectural features as hand-me-downs from the PowerMac line. The iMac isn't likely to get the 970 right away because of its higher power/heat requirements, and the motherboards & chipsets will probably be more expensive. If Apple gets aggressive with the RAM architecture as well then that would be a barrier to entry for the iMac. For some time, at least, the iMac will most likely continue to use the G4. Hopefully the 7457 will arrive sooner rather than later to improve performance and cost.
<strong>
Presumably they already did a redesign to put in DDR, airport ex, ATA100 and bluetooth. I guess we agree that the real reason is cost, not heat... Having an iMac that can deal with more heat is never a bad thing, no matter what's going to go in there in 6-12 months.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR tends to run cooler; the rest don't add any significant heat, and they're presumably available in quantity, so they have none of the problems that a 1.42GHz 7455 likely presents.
I'm not agreeing that cost is an issue rather than heat. I'm saying that cost and availability and heat combine to make accomodating the 1.42GHz 7455 unpalatable. If you really want to pin me to cost, I'll admit that the cost of accomodating the problem of the fastest 7455 would be prohibitive. But Mr. Price At All Costs should have no trouble agreeing with that.
[quote]Originally posted by vr6.1:
<strong>All I was trying to say was - "don't hobble the CPU speed in these machines because it leads to diminished sales in the Consumer market" and "don't worry about putting the best chip in iMacs because the pro machines are differentiated by virtue of having 2 of these processors, expandability, multiple monitors, etc.."
Your suggestion that I just buy whatever is the best that Apple offers at a given time is respectfully rejected on the grounds that Apple can put together a better offer using a non-obsolete CPU. There is no way a Consumer computer that costs twice what the typical computer does should have anything but the best components in it and the iMac suits that bill except for the CPU - the most important component.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Define "non-obsolete." The G4s in the iMacs certainly are not. Are all the PCs shipping with 2.5GHz P4s obsolete now that there's a 3.06GHz P4?
[quote]<strong>When I bought my last iMac, a 400DV Grape model, the MHz on the Powermac was only 100MHz greater (25% as opposed to 42% and dual) and the computer didn't even require contemplating an upgrade for over a year. (don't get me started on G3 vs. G4 because at the time there was very little a G4 gave to OS 9 and consumer apps).</strong><hr></blockquote>
At the time, Apple couldn't go above 500MHz, so that doesn't really hold: Everything was scrunched together because they had no choice.
[quote]<strong>With OS X, we need as fast a processor as we can get because, frankly, OS X is dog slow at a lot of the more common things like clicking on menus, launching applications, creating new documents, etc...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no problems at all on my 450MHz G4 Cube. I did stuff 1GB of RAM into it, though, and I heartily recommend doing that. IMO RAM is more important than CPU for OS X, because of the extent to which OS X uses RAM - especially as a means to avoid using the incredibly slow hard drive. You tend to get markedly better results from speeding up the slowest components of a system than you do out of making the fastest component even faster. With insufficient RAM, a 1.42GHz G4 would simply twiddle its thumbs faster.
Except, it would be much faster than the current G3 or even G4, with a decent bus arch. It would also presumably have lower power consumption than the G4, making it ideal for laptops.
<strong>
Define "non-obsolete." The G4s in the iMacs certainly are not. Are all the PCs shipping with 2.5GHz P4s obsolete now that there's a 3.06GHz P4?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, I begin with "I should have chosen my words more carefully" because this is more an argument of semantics than substance.
In a world where you can get a computer with a 2.5GHz P4 for under $1000 and a 3GHz PC for under $1500, yes a 1GHz processor in an $1500 computer is obsolete (or for a more appropriate term - non-competitive).
This is especially true if Apple has access to 1.25GHz chips (half the speed of the slowest P4) or 1.42GHz chips (almost half the speed of the fastest P4s).
Lastly the % difference between 2.5GHz and 3GHz is only 25%, not the 42% between a 1GHz and 1.42GHz.
So, if you remove the semantics around "obsolete" and replace that word with "competitive" or "appropriate" or "possible" you get my real meaning - although I suspect that you did get my meaning from my previous post .