<strong>i'm sorry but i just cant get convinced by your arguments.
Had Apple a G5 running at 2ghz would we see dual towers? i doubt so. Anyhow, that dual thing is not going to fit inside a titanium. Apple laptops used to be the fastest ever. they're no longer are.
apple (moto) has a cpu problem. i dont mind if it's mhz or bitwide related, it's a problem anyway. this is a fact.
the duals are just another smoke curtain, for the second time.
Why dont we have duals/quads G5 instead of the same old 2-3 year old tecnology?
Why didnt Apple announced the new towers at the expo? because everybody expected more (new generation mobo and cpu).</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's a fact that megahertz wise the Apples are slower but we aren't comparing the same chip architecture now are we?
It's obvious that Motorla cannot extend the financial and Technical resources to develop a processor that keeps up with Intel/AMD but in the meantime Apple does have to stay close. Dual procs allow them to do that.
YOU and a few others here are the ones believing in blown up specifications. What don't you understand about the clocking ability of a 7 stage pipleline versus 22 stages. You are NOT going to see a G4 processor running close to that frequency. Dual Proc have been a way to circumvent this problem somewhat but they've never been a smokescreen.
When you get your Engineering degree then maybe we'll listen to your rants but right now you're expecting Apple to spin Gold from yarn an that's just not going to happen.
Even for a Processor neophyte like myself I see huge holes in your logic. Complain about the lack of DDR if you will but designwise the G4 processor is a nice efficient chip and I'm sick of listening to people with no technical acumen spout off about stuff that's beyond their comprehension /rant.
Maybe everybody (us) wanted a speed bump, because it was since January, so Apple did that today.
Now the ibook and powerbook and iMac will get a update in January at the earliest. G4 across the range and then a new G5 for the powermacs. From IBM because MOTO has dedicated the name G5 to a communication chip. IBM will discuus it at the MIcro? in october.
These look great! Just to let anyone in college know, the entry-level model for educational buyers only has changed from the 733 to the 867, again without L3 cache. Meh.
I think it's a good idea for them to be all dual processors. Duals are so much better for heavy design work and stuff and graphics companies need them. Apple's giving them what they need. Sure, the speed increase isn't as enormously huge as many people wanted, but 250MHz is nothing to sneeze at. That's the largest increase since the 500 --> 733 jump, which was a very major jump. I think it's also the largest jump in terms of MHz that Apple's ever done, though there were likely some greater jumps proportionally in the past (for example, 8 MHz --> 16 MHz, a 100% jump).
The new systems should've had the Apollo 7470. That would've made a huge difference. AGP8X would've been good too, but of course Apple has Always been behind on AGP.
<strong>Had Apple had a G5 running at 2ghz have'd we seen dual towers? i doubt so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably not, since the processor would make dual configurations cost prohibitive.
The dual processor strategy was dubious under OS 9, but under OS X it's a no-brainer. Frankly, I'd take two 1.2 GHz G5s on a fat pipe before a single 2GHz G5.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:
<strong>The new systems should've had the Apollo 7470.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While it could be argued that the original dual Powermacs running OS 9 were a smokescreen, saying that of the new dual systems is wrong.
OS X will fly on these Powermacs, and I don't know about other people, but I tend to multi-task on my Powermac. For multitasking, duals are better than a single fast CPU, unless that single fast CPU is a real monster.
Also, MANY more apps are optimized for dual CPUs now compared to when the dual 500s were introduced. If you're using an app optimized for duals, then you will not believe that the new Powermacs are smokescreens.
But I do agree with you on the concern of Apple dropping duals as soon as they move to the Power 5 and have competitive MHz. I'd rather see Apple keep the duals with the Power 5 and smear Wintel's feces into their face.
<strong>But I do agree with you on the concern of Apple dropping duals as soon as they move to the Power 5 and have competitive MHz. I'd rather see Apple keep the duals with the Power 5 and smear Wintel's feces into their face.</strong><hr></blockquote>
as soon as apple gets some really competitive cpu (just if that happens someday again) they'll drop the duals but for the BTO.
BTO is reasonable. G4s are cheap now, but the next gen CPU from IBM will probably start off fairly expensive. Of course Apple will make it a BTO item, or only put it in the high end.
My concern is that they won't even offer duals as a BTO option when the Power 5 arrives because of supply problems. But then this isn't Moto, so maybe we're in for a treat.
<strong>..just like when moto was stuck at G4@500mhz, and there was no other way but to put two cpus in the more expensive towers to make people think 2x500=1000 (less than the mhz speed of pcs at that time).
Then apple marketing worked hard to get us believe: "two brains are better than one".
Well, we all know that's not true.
Neither i was it before nor it's going to be this time.
And remember that when moto past the 500mhz Duals disappear from the line? (except for special build to order).
Two processors cost twice than one (obviously), need twice the space, twice the electricity and create a lot of heat, which means more dissipators, fans and noise. If that's the way apple have to compete with wintels they should release a dual titanium, wich is not going to happen.
Hope all this makes way for a strong decision, whatever that be. Since 1984 Apple computers have never been so behind. And it's getting worse everyday.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is anybody complaining about dual processors? We're talking about OS X here people. You know, inherently multiprocessor aware? Why the hell would you NOT use multiple processors? Also, there are four things that indicate the new 1.25 GHz dual towers will absolutely scream:
1. 166 MHz bus with 333 DDR memory.
2. 1.25 GHz chips (that's a 250 Mhz increase per chip, boys and girls) with 2 MB of DDR L3 cache PER CHIP.
3. ATA-100. Nice touch, plus 4 internal drive bays and RAID functions built into Jaguar... oh yeah.
4. Jaguar. Do not underestimate how much faster Jaguar is than 10.1. Take into account Quartz Extreme, the new recompile, multithreaded Finder... even on my single processor 800 MHz, 100 Mhz bus, no L3 cache iMac Jaguar made a huge difference in speed. I mean it's more than just noticable for me. But on one of the new towers? You will never think of OS 9 ever again.
Come on people, look at the facts here. It's ALL good. All of it. Apple is doing what they need to do to give us more power... Motorola is still screwing them, but that is definitely changing. I fully expect IBM's new chip (Power 5?) to be in the next generation of towers, and that's when we'll see the mind boggling increases in speed. For now, this is a perfectly acceptable stepping stone... and I think you'll find those 1.25 GHz towers will be quite a bit faster than you think they will.
Remember Yikes? I think this could possibly be a stop-gap release until either MacWorld SF or somewhere in between now and then. Even Yikes was impressive when it came out, just like this release, but in comparison, the next release (Sawtooth) really kicked butt.
The reason I'm making the comparison is because of the way Apple's layout of the motherboard is concerned. It seems to be more of a temporary, albeit very imaginative and effective, solution than anything. 100MHz and 66MHz IDE bus on the same board? The four vents, swiss cheese back panel, and the huge heat sinks? I didn't realize the G4s use THAT much heat! (They don't. Yes, I realize this does not come with a fan, but a fan could be placed in one for a future chip. This design screams "forward-thinking" to me more than anything.) Plus other little things. Doesn't seem totally right to me. I say stop-gap solution, albeit one I wouldn't mind having.
When I was at MacWorld, I saw someone whom I hadn't seen in a long, long time that, uh, knew people (yes, cliched, sorry) and he mentioned an IBM processor that was VERY impressive due out around MWSF. Last week, IBM announces a new chip which would definitely run HOT due to its multiple cores and clock speed that had altivec compatibility and will be showed off in October. Hmmm..... now all the vents in the new enclosure start to make sense.
I say stop-gap, a taste of things to come. Future looks good, though, and with Jag on board, the present isn't exactly a bad place to be in, either.
Wow. The leaked pics were exactly it. But I would've guessed they were real as soon as Apple legal came storming through the rumor mongoring sites to get rid of 'em.
The towers seem like a really quick (and bad) hack job of the current Quicksilver cases. Are all the holes in the back heat vents cause the dualies will get hot?
Although duals across the line are good, I think I'd rather have a nice speedy single processor. I've seen benchmarks and the duals don't seem to help out that much when and if they do.
I'd love to know exactly what chip is in there. A lot of people were claiming that the G4s couldn't support a bus speed of more than 133 MHz or DDR SDRAM. PC2700, I like. Dual drive bays, I like. Having two 5.25" drive bays might be reason enough alone to trade for one of these. Got ATA/100 in there, good. Wonder why the PCI is still only 33 MHz as opposed to 66 MHz. Also, the Radeon 900 on 2 out of 3 models is a bit of a surprise considering nVidia wants their stuff in all the towers. I wish they'd stop putting consumer graphics cards throughout the PM line. Too much of a price discrepancy in the models IMHO.
MWSF is too early for the next revision, considering that the DP1250's wont ship until sept-october. I think the next revision will come at MWNY, or maybe before in ~March... But I hope it's a G5 My Beige G4 will last me that long, I hope...
Although duals across the line are good, I think I'd rather have a nice speedy single processor. I've seen benchmarks and the duals don't seem to help out that much when and if they do.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. When you are doing only one task a faster single will beat the dual (with slower speed).
But when you are doing many tasks at once you really will see the big difference.
Dual is the way to go. But I still like quad better
No it's a fact that megahertz wise the Apples are slower but we aren't comparing the same chip architecture now are we?
It's obvious that Motorla cannot extend the financial and Technical resources to develop a processor that keeps up with Intel/AMD but in the meantime Apple does have to stay close. Dual procs allow them to do that.
YOU and a few others here are the ones believing in blown up specifications. What don't you understand about the clocking ability of a 7 stage pipleline versus 22 stages. You are NOT going to see a G4 processor running close to that frequency. Dual Proc have been a way to circumvent this problem somewhat but they've never been a smokescreen.
When you get your Engineering degree then maybe we'll listen to your rants but right now you're expecting Apple to spin Gold from yarn an that's just not going to happen.
Even for a Processor neophyte like myself I see huge holes in your logic. Complain about the lack of DDR if you will but designwise the G4 processor is a nice efficient chip and I'm sick of listening to people with no technical acumen spout off about stuff that's beyond their comprehension /rant.
So how come my 867 with 768MB and OSX takes longer to respond to my mouse cliks than my Pentium 1.2Ghz at work? How come lightwave renders faster on the Peecee than the mac? This is typical bu**sh*t. Macs are underpowered, overpriced and now with the new casing redesign butt ugly. Just as MS smashed IBM so Moto has Apple by the balls.
My 9500 running 9 is far more responsive than any of my G4s at work - and more stable. Sod the benchmarks and processor ratings - why won't people look at their machines and see how well they feel under use? Real world use and real world speed perceptions?
Firewire 2 isn't here when USB2 already is - another area where apple will be too slow to make it to market
The whole thing smacks of desperation and a total lack of ambition or vision in apple's engineering division.
Oh wait. It runs Photoshop operations 90% faster than a dell! Oh well then we're saved. I can't believe people still buy this bakeoff cr*p.
And as for the X is multiple processor aware I haven't read a single review or article that didn't say the same thing - the dual processors afford no advantage accept for a few very limited functions in certain apps written for it. Dualies would make sense if all apps were totally Mp aware but they are not.
It wouldn't surprise me if the even the Finder wasn't 100% Mp aware!
This is cr*p from apple. They know we're waiting for the G5 and they will now become aware that the RDF is weakening. These macs will sell - but not be a shining success. Until they produce the PC KILLER apple will not see a runaway success. They certainly won't tempt over any of the other 95% with these toys.
If they had faster. They'd release it. They don't.
It's telling that the only mhz bump is the top end...and that...will ship...in.......2 months time?!?!?
That...says it all.
(No thanks. I'll wait until January-ish. After all, the pdf was right on the nail about the 'power'Macs. Maybe the 'G5' ready will ship next year...early...but not too long after the 1.25 ships in relative terms.)
All dual? Yes. They had to. They're in a worse position relative to x86 performance than they were during the last debacle. The prices...? Well. I guess you could call them 'fairly' priced. But check that yer brain's switched on while doing so...
The silver lining in the this underwhelming dark cloud...is that it looks like the G4 in its current form is maxed out. Yeah. Only took 8 months to bump 200mhz!
This being the case. Maybe the next G4 will be the elusive 7500 on Rio circa January to Easter. If not...
...maybe it'll be the Powerlite on Hypertransport.
We'll see. Either way, those who wanted dual 1.2 gigs...for the best part of £3,000. You got what you wanted.
These 'power'Macs have got to be a good sign that Motorola are on their way out.
Comments
<strong>i'm sorry but i just cant get convinced by your arguments.
Had Apple a G5 running at 2ghz would we see dual towers? i doubt so. Anyhow, that dual thing is not going to fit inside a titanium. Apple laptops used to be the fastest ever. they're no longer are.
apple (moto) has a cpu problem. i dont mind if it's mhz or bitwide related, it's a problem anyway. this is a fact.
the duals are just another smoke curtain, for the second time.
Why dont we have duals/quads G5 instead of the same old 2-3 year old tecnology?
Why didnt Apple announced the new towers at the expo? because everybody expected more (new generation mobo and cpu).</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it's a fact that megahertz wise the Apples are slower but we aren't comparing the same chip architecture now are we?
It's obvious that Motorla cannot extend the financial and Technical resources to develop a processor that keeps up with Intel/AMD but in the meantime Apple does have to stay close. Dual procs allow them to do that.
YOU and a few others here are the ones believing in blown up specifications. What don't you understand about the clocking ability of a 7 stage pipleline versus 22 stages. You are NOT going to see a G4 processor running close to that frequency. Dual Proc have been a way to circumvent this problem somewhat but they've never been a smokescreen.
When you get your Engineering degree then maybe we'll listen to your rants but right now you're expecting Apple to spin Gold from yarn an that's just not going to happen.
Even for a Processor neophyte like myself I see huge holes in your logic. Complain about the lack of DDR if you will but designwise the G4 processor is a nice efficient chip and I'm sick of listening to people with no technical acumen spout off about stuff that's beyond their comprehension /rant.
OSX is sluggish enough that "pro" towers should have always been dual across the line-up.
Now the ibook and powerbook and iMac will get a update in January at the earliest. G4 across the range and then a new G5 for the powermacs. From IBM because MOTO has dedicated the name G5 to a communication chip. IBM will discuus it at the MIcro? in october.
So idd 2003 is Apple's year!
I think it's a good idea for them to be all dual processors. Duals are so much better for heavy design work and stuff and graphics companies need them. Apple's giving them what they need. Sure, the speed increase isn't as enormously huge as many people wanted, but 250MHz is nothing to sneeze at. That's the largest increase since the 500 --> 733 jump, which was a very major jump. I think it's also the largest jump in terms of MHz that Apple's ever done, though there were likely some greater jumps proportionally in the past (for example, 8 MHz --> 16 MHz, a 100% jump).
now i know why all towers are duals. Apple is getting rid of ALL the moto stuff to make room for the new ibm g5 powermacs in MWSF
<strong>Had Apple had a G5 running at 2ghz have'd we seen dual towers? i doubt so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably not, since the processor would make dual configurations cost prohibitive.
The dual processor strategy was dubious under OS 9, but under OS X it's a no-brainer. Frankly, I'd take two 1.2 GHz G5s on a fat pipe before a single 2GHz G5.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemmingway:
<strong>The new systems should've had the Apollo 7470.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://search.motorola.com/query.html?qt=MPC7470&search=GO"; target="_blank">There is no 7470</a>.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
OS X will fly on these Powermacs, and I don't know about other people, but I tend to multi-task on my Powermac. For multitasking, duals are better than a single fast CPU, unless that single fast CPU is a real monster.
Also, MANY more apps are optimized for dual CPUs now compared to when the dual 500s were introduced. If you're using an app optimized for duals, then you will not believe that the new Powermacs are smokescreens.
But I do agree with you on the concern of Apple dropping duals as soon as they move to the Power 5 and have competitive MHz. I'd rather see Apple keep the duals with the Power 5 and smear Wintel's feces into their face.
<strong>But I do agree with you on the concern of Apple dropping duals as soon as they move to the Power 5 and have competitive MHz. I'd rather see Apple keep the duals with the Power 5 and smear Wintel's feces into their face.</strong><hr></blockquote>
as soon as apple gets some really competitive cpu (just if that happens someday again) they'll drop the duals but for the BTO.
you heard it first.
My concern is that they won't even offer duals as a BTO option when the Power 5 arrives because of supply problems. But then this isn't Moto, so maybe we're in for a treat.
<strong>..just like when moto was stuck at G4@500mhz, and there was no other way but to put two cpus in the more expensive towers to make people think 2x500=1000 (less than the mhz speed of pcs at that time).
Then apple marketing worked hard to get us believe: "two brains are better than one".
Well, we all know that's not true.
Neither i was it before nor it's going to be this time.
And remember that when moto past the 500mhz Duals disappear from the line? (except for special build to order).
Two processors cost twice than one (obviously), need twice the space, twice the electricity and create a lot of heat, which means more dissipators, fans and noise. If that's the way apple have to compete with wintels they should release a dual titanium, wich is not going to happen.
Hope all this makes way for a strong decision, whatever that be. Since 1984 Apple computers have never been so behind. And it's getting worse everyday.</strong><hr></blockquote>
EVIL MICROSOFT LOVER!
1. 166 MHz bus with 333 DDR memory.
2. 1.25 GHz chips (that's a 250 Mhz increase per chip, boys and girls) with 2 MB of DDR L3 cache PER CHIP.
3. ATA-100. Nice touch, plus 4 internal drive bays and RAID functions built into Jaguar... oh yeah.
4. Jaguar. Do not underestimate how much faster Jaguar is than 10.1. Take into account Quartz Extreme, the new recompile, multithreaded Finder... even on my single processor 800 MHz, 100 Mhz bus, no L3 cache iMac Jaguar made a huge difference in speed. I mean it's more than just noticable for me. But on one of the new towers? You will never think of OS 9 ever again.
Come on people, look at the facts here. It's ALL good. All of it. Apple is doing what they need to do to give us more power... Motorola is still screwing them, but that is definitely changing. I fully expect IBM's new chip (Power 5?) to be in the next generation of towers, and that's when we'll see the mind boggling increases in speed. For now, this is a perfectly acceptable stepping stone... and I think you'll find those 1.25 GHz towers will be quite a bit faster than you think they will.
Remember Yikes? I think this could possibly be a stop-gap release until either MacWorld SF or somewhere in between now and then. Even Yikes was impressive when it came out, just like this release, but in comparison, the next release (Sawtooth) really kicked butt.
The reason I'm making the comparison is because of the way Apple's layout of the motherboard is concerned. It seems to be more of a temporary, albeit very imaginative and effective, solution than anything. 100MHz and 66MHz IDE bus on the same board? The four vents, swiss cheese back panel, and the huge heat sinks? I didn't realize the G4s use THAT much heat! (They don't. Yes, I realize this does not come with a fan, but a fan could be placed in one for a future chip. This design screams "forward-thinking" to me more than anything.) Plus other little things. Doesn't seem totally right to me. I say stop-gap solution, albeit one I wouldn't mind having.
When I was at MacWorld, I saw someone whom I hadn't seen in a long, long time that, uh, knew people (yes, cliched, sorry) and he mentioned an IBM processor that was VERY impressive due out around MWSF. Last week, IBM announces a new chip which would definitely run HOT due to its multiple cores and clock speed that had altivec compatibility and will be showed off in October. Hmmm..... now all the vents in the new enclosure start to make sense.
I say stop-gap, a taste of things to come. Future looks good, though, and with Jag on board, the present isn't exactly a bad place to be in, either.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Gambit ]</p>
But the price on the low and mid end models seem pretty decent
The towers seem like a really quick (and bad) hack job of the current Quicksilver cases. Are all the holes in the back heat vents cause the dualies will get hot?
Although duals across the line are good, I think I'd rather have a nice speedy single processor. I've seen benchmarks and the duals don't seem to help out that much when and if they do.
I'd love to know exactly what chip is in there. A lot of people were claiming that the G4s couldn't support a bus speed of more than 133 MHz or DDR SDRAM. PC2700, I like. Dual drive bays, I like. Having two 5.25" drive bays might be reason enough alone to trade for one of these. Got ATA/100 in there, good. Wonder why the PCI is still only 33 MHz as opposed to 66 MHz. Also, the Radeon 900 on 2 out of 3 models is a bit of a surprise considering nVidia wants their stuff in all the towers. I wish they'd stop putting consumer graphics cards throughout the PM line. Too much of a price discrepancy in the models IMHO.
<strong>
Although duals across the line are good, I think I'd rather have a nice speedy single processor. I've seen benchmarks and the duals don't seem to help out that much when and if they do.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. When you are doing only one task a faster single will beat the dual (with slower speed).
But when you are doing many tasks at once you really will see the big difference.
Dual is the way to go. But I still like quad better
It's obvious that Motorla cannot extend the financial and Technical resources to develop a processor that keeps up with Intel/AMD but in the meantime Apple does have to stay close. Dual procs allow them to do that.
YOU and a few others here are the ones believing in blown up specifications. What don't you understand about the clocking ability of a 7 stage pipleline versus 22 stages. You are NOT going to see a G4 processor running close to that frequency. Dual Proc have been a way to circumvent this problem somewhat but they've never been a smokescreen.
When you get your Engineering degree then maybe we'll listen to your rants but right now you're expecting Apple to spin Gold from yarn an that's just not going to happen.
Even for a Processor neophyte like myself I see huge holes in your logic. Complain about the lack of DDR if you will but designwise the G4 processor is a nice efficient chip and I'm sick of listening to people with no technical acumen spout off about stuff that's beyond their comprehension /rant.
So how come my 867 with 768MB and OSX takes longer to respond to my mouse cliks than my Pentium 1.2Ghz at work? How come lightwave renders faster on the Peecee than the mac? This is typical bu**sh*t. Macs are underpowered, overpriced and now with the new casing redesign butt ugly. Just as MS smashed IBM so Moto has Apple by the balls.
My 9500 running 9 is far more responsive than any of my G4s at work - and more stable. Sod the benchmarks and processor ratings - why won't people look at their machines and see how well they feel under use? Real world use and real world speed perceptions?
Firewire 2 isn't here when USB2 already is - another area where apple will be too slow to make it to market
The whole thing smacks of desperation and a total lack of ambition or vision in apple's engineering division.
Oh wait. It runs Photoshop operations 90% faster than a dell! Oh well then we're saved. I can't believe people still buy this bakeoff cr*p.
And as for the X is multiple processor aware I haven't read a single review or article that didn't say the same thing - the dual processors afford no advantage accept for a few very limited functions in certain apps written for it. Dualies would make sense if all apps were totally Mp aware but they are not.
It wouldn't surprise me if the even the Finder wasn't 100% Mp aware!
This is cr*p from apple. They know we're waiting for the G5 and they will now become aware that the RDF is weakening. These macs will sell - but not be a shining success. Until they produce the PC KILLER apple will not see a runaway success. They certainly won't tempt over any of the other 95% with these toys.
So much for Shake et al.
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: spooky ]</p>
It's a repeat of '500'mhz times two.
If they had faster. They'd release it. They don't.
It's telling that the only mhz bump is the top end...and that...will ship...in.......2 months time?!?!?
That...says it all.
(No thanks. I'll wait until January-ish. After all, the pdf was right on the nail about the 'power'Macs. Maybe the 'G5' ready will ship next year...early...but not too long after the 1.25 ships in relative terms.)
All dual? Yes. They had to. They're in a worse position relative to x86 performance than they were during the last debacle. The prices...? Well. I guess you could call them 'fairly' priced.
The silver lining in the this underwhelming dark cloud...is that it looks like the G4 in its current form is maxed out. Yeah. Only took 8 months to bump 200mhz!
This being the case. Maybe the next G4 will be the elusive 7500 on Rio circa January to Easter. If not...
...maybe it'll be the Powerlite on Hypertransport.
We'll see. Either way, those who wanted dual 1.2 gigs...for the best part of £3,000. You got what you wanted.
These 'power'Macs have got to be a good sign that Motorola are on their way out.
Thank goodness.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>