G5's In January

[applemacdude]

There will be a G5 announced in MWSF. I got this information from a very important person at Apple. He's my friend and I can't risk his job and won't say anything else.

[vniow]

I don't mean to be rude, but is the most you can give us? :confused:

[Nipsy]

Knowing Apple, if this is true, a G5 may be shipping by November 2003!

[Hemingray]

Yeah, and an Apple employee told me 8 months ago that there would be G5's in July. I'm not holding my breath anymore.

[alex_ant]

It's not coming from Motorola. The new Motorola plant in Grenoble won't be producing chips by then.

This would also break with the recent tradition of trying to announce the big things between, not at, Macworlds. But a G5 could certainly warrant its own Macworld, I think.

All in all, not that terribly unrealistic of a rumor. It explains the wicked ventilation system of the new case. But we'll all be waiting for Oct. 15 to see what kind of timetable IBM provides us with.

Alex

[King Cobra]

>(Nipsy) Knowing Apple,

Apple IMO only receives the chips, and Motorola should be most responsible for making the chips for Apple.

>if this is true, a G5 may be shipping by November 2003!

This reminds me to back last year with the flamepissed "Upcoming G5, G6, G7" thread, which had information about the G5 going up to 1.6GHz, along with the G6, and the G7. Yet, the G4 Apollo was mentioned to still be supplied by Motorola. So far, we haven't gotten G5s, but we do have a conference this year, to deal out all these issues. From there, more reasonable assumptions should be able to be made, and such sarcasm may not become necessary.

Guys, for those doubting applemacdude, remember what happened with APPLEP58? Almost no one thought he was telling the honest to John truth. And he was. I think certain "newbies" these days with insider information should be trusted until the point they are wrong/right. Then, IF they are wrong, belittle them! :D

applemacdude, do you have any more info?

BTW, if you (to non-contributors) think this is news, check out the Private Stuff. :eek: :p

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by King Cobra
>(Nipsy) Knowing Apple,

Apple IMO only receives the chips, and Motorola should be most responsible for making the chips for Apple.

>if this is true, a G5 may be shipping by November 2003!

This reminds me to back last year with the flamepissed "Upcoming G5, G6, G7" thread, which had information about the G5 going up to 1.6GHz, along with the G6, and the G7. Yet, the G4 Apollo was mentioned to still be supplied by Motorola. So far, we haven't gotten G5s, but we do have a conference this year, to deal out all these issues. From there, more reasonable assumptions should be able to be made, and such sarcasm may not become necessary.


While there is an outside chance that there is truth in this, look at what Apple has been doing lately.

Announce, wait, wait some more, wait some more, receive product.

My 20GB iPod took 6 weeks from announcement to my pocket. The 1.25GHz G4s have been announced for about a month, and will ship in about a month.

Many people waited a long time to get 17" iMacs, some are still waiting. And we all remember the original LCD iMac shipping fiasco.

Apple has started a bad trend of announcing products which are not ramp ready (G4 rev 1!!!!!). It is my hope that a G5/Power4 Lite/whatever announced in January will not be delivered in April...May...June, who knows, but wil actually ship within 7-10 days of the Expo.

Addressing your second point, I don't put much faith in the no Power4 Lite for Apple theory put forth by someone whose friend left their dog in a kennel where the manicurist of an IBM exec's wife once used the restroom.

The massive heatsink is just unreasonable for a G4/5, and it is my sincere hope that the future is with IBM, and reasonable ramp & delivery times.

[solvs]

Originally posted by King Cobra

Guys, for those doubting applemacdude, remember what happened with APPLEP58? Almost no one thought he was telling the honest to John truth. And he was. I think certain "newbies" these days with insider information should be trusted until the point they are wrong/right. Then, IF they are wrong, belittle them! :D


Groove and I were just talking about that. I still say doubt the guy until we can see some more evidence or something else than "you don't know me, but I just heard..." BS. Hate to be so cynical, but I try not to blindly put faith in every thing I hear.

If he's wrong, you'll all get your hopes up over nothing and be disappointed (this sux, I was promised a G5 :mad: !!!). If he turns out to be right, then I'll be glad I'm wrong (and I hope I am). But I still have my doubts. They haven't even released the 1.25s yet for petesake.

So I say press the guy, doubt the "rumor" (it is a rumor BTW, just don't be a jerk about it), and if he can't take the heat, he should stay the heck out of the kitchen.

Flame Away :D .

[applemacdude]

updated ibooks newly desined tibooks a pda codenames n2 (newton 2) atv and thats i konw

[scem0]

Originally posted by applemacdude
updated ibooks newly desined tibooks a pda codenames n2 (newton 2) atv and thats i konw


I am begging you to elaborate, you have to know more then that. :D:D:DEveryone here will gobble up anything you say....

[Kethoticus]

...completely. He echoed my words from previous posts. This is a rumor, and already some are getting their hopes up. I remark that people in these fora do that, and then I'm told, "I don't get worked up! It's just a rumor." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

This is BS until we get something a whole helluva lot more substantial. And like solvs, I hope my cynicism is misplaced.

[scem0]

I agree that this is BS, but I still like hearing it :D.

[RBMaraman]

Apple needs the G5 badly!!! These dual processors are the most retarted things I have ever heard of. They are a complete ripoff! Even with the architecture of OSX, the duals don't do anything. You are essentialy paying for another processor that just sits there and does nothing. If dual processors really worked, you would have seen them in windows machines years ago.

I wouldn't waste my money on a dual machine, that's why I'm waiting for the G5 before I buy my next Mac. Even if I have to wait another 2 years.

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
These dual processors are the most retarted things I have ever heard of. They are a complete ripoff! Even with the architecture of OSX, the duals don't do anything. You are essentialy paying for another processor that just sits there and does nothing. If dual processors really worked, you would have seen them in windows machines years ago.

erm...yeah...right...oooooook :confused:
You seem so well informed. :p ;) :rolleyes:

[Haberdasher]

Whether any of the things on these boards are true (which most AREN'T), I still like getting my hopes up and having them hopelessly crushed when Apple delivers the product a year later than thought, or fails to deliver completely.

It's my favorite part of being a Mac addict! :rolleyes:

You know, I wouldn't mind Apple giving us their product plans before they release processors, maybe like 1/2-1 year early. Just keep the products and features that will house them secret. Isn't that what Intel does, announce a product waayyyy before it comes out?

Someone please tell me why Apple isn't already doing this. (Remember, just processor announcements, not new cases and things like the iPod)

[Sun Baked]

Think Hypertransport...

Sounds like AMD just announced the slip in it's timetable, so Hypertransport equiped PCs will be shipping Q1 2003.

I fully expect Apple to ship Hypertransport (or RapidI/O) systems at the same time (or before) as the rest of the market.

Apple's ability to ship standardized PC items 12-18 months (seems much later lately) after adoption by PC manufacturers proves my point.

Thus Apple should announce the machines in January with a 6-8 week ship time, usual snafus and delays should get the G5 machines into peoples hands on April 1, 2003.

[dongmin]

At least AppleP58 had some details and a schematic drawing. This guy is not offering much to bite on.

Maybe the G5 is coming but it could just be a newer variant of the G4, the 7470 or 7500, with some new technolgoies like RapidI/O and/or Hypertransport. Throw in FW2 and some other new stuff, and Apple might feel justified in calling it a G5.

[e-coli]

there's absolutely no evidence that a desktop implemented G5 even exists. heck, they don't even have a manufacturer nailed down as far as we know. I'm betting no true G5 until MWNY (or Boston, or whatever) 2003 at the absolute earliest. But more like MWSF 2004. I hope I'm wrong, but it isn't looking like it from over here.

A 7xxx chip labeled as G5 would be a tragic mistake.

[void]

Originally posted by applemacdude
There will be a G5 announced in MWSF. I got this information from a very important person at Apple. He's my friend and I can't risk his job and won't say anything else.
Do you have any interesting rumors. Both of your threads, this one and the PDA ones are the most commonly said rumors on all of the message boards. They have been regurgitated so many times that theres nothing left. Come up with something that is actually believable.

[applemacdude]

Hey im just 13. My friend works an apple and i dont to see him that much like once every 2 months. so shut up already

[chmorley]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
Apple needs the G5 badly!!! These dual processors are the most retarted things I have ever heard of. They are a complete ripoff! Even with the architecture of OSX, the duals don't do anything. You are essentialy paying for another processor that just sits there and does nothing. If dual processors really worked, you would have seen them in windows machines years ago.

I wouldn't waste my money on a dual machine, that's why I'm waiting for the G5 before I buy my next Mac. Even if I have to wait another 2 years. 1. Hasn't read a damn thing ever.

2. Hasn't tried a dual processor machine.

3. Hasn't thought through where innovation comes from.

4. Has strong (uninformed) opinions.

A Republican!

Rush, is that you?

Chris

p.s., I always think it's so funny when people spell "retarded" wrong. Ironic, eh?

[solvs]

Originally posted by applemacdude
Hey im just 13. My friend works an apple and i dont to see him that much like once every 2 months. so shut up already

No offense to you guy, but if you put yourself out there like that, but have nothing to back it up with, you're gonna get a little cynism. Believe me, it could be much worse. Just look at what happened with Apple58. And he had pics.

That being said, we all hope you're right.

Edit: To the guy above, actually Rush is a huge Mac fan (no pun intended).

[chmorley]

Originally posted by solvs
Edit: To the guy above, actually Rush is a huge Mac fan (no pun intended). Good to know. I wasn't really commenting on Rush's computing habits, rather on his propensity to misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent facts, while still having strong opinions on topics. Hell, it keeps him employed, though. I wonder if our uninformed friend (above) has the same luck.

Chris

[ftaok]

Originally posted by chmorley
Good to know. I wasn't really commenting on Rush's computing habits, rather on his propensity to misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent facts, while still having strong opinions on topics. Hell, it keeps him employed, though. I wonder if our uninformed friend (above) has the same luck.

Chris chmorley,

It's not just Republicans that have strong opinions about stuff they know very little about. Democrats fall into that description as well. There are bull-headed know-nothings in just about every group that you can think of.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by e-coli
there's absolutely no evidence that a desktop implemented G5 even exists. heck, they don't even have a manufacturer nailed down as far as we know. I'm betting no true G5 until MWNY (or Boston, or whatever) 2003 at the absolute earliest. But more like MWSF 2004. I hope I'm wrong, but it isn't looking like it from over here.

A 7xxx chip labeled as G5 would be a tragic mistake. And what constitutes a "true G5"? 64-bit? HyperTransport? What?

The truth is, the G5 is whatever Apple (or Moto) calls it.

BTW, if Apple does use a G5 from Moto, it would be a 7xxx chip. You see, Motorola's naming convention dictates that the 2nd number is the "G" number. Therefore, a G5 would be 75xx. Take a look at the roadmap.

[Telomar]

Originally posted by ftaok
BTW, if Apple does use a G5 from Moto, it would be a 7xxx chip. You see, Motorola's naming convention dictates that the 2nd number is the "G" number. Therefore, a G5 would be 75xx. Take a look at the roadmap. The G3s were 75x or 74x so no Motorola doesn't need to call it 75xx. They can name their chips whatever they please.

There really is no science to model numbers except for the sake of identification. You can create conventions to make it easier for others to follow and understand but sometimes the marketing takes over and conventions go out the door.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by applemacdude
Hey im just 13. My friend works an apple and i dont to see him that much like once every 2 months. so shut up already

Hey this is America, even 13 year olds can be tried and convicted as adults.

And since the judge seems to be asleep right now, watch out for those big rocks being thrown from the jury box.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Telomar
The G3s were 75x or 74x so no Motorola doesn't need to call it 75xx. They can name their chips whatever they please.

There really is no science to model numbers except for the sake of identification. You can create conventions to make it easier for others to follow and understand but sometimes the marketing takes over and conventions go out the door. That's true, but Moto has a listed naming convention for people to use. It's just that a lot of posters put out stuff like "the 7500 isn't a true G5" when in fact they have no idea what a G5 really is. Sure, Moto could change the convention, but right now, a 75xx chip would be a G5.

[Inhale420]

lol, it's funny how you're all taking this thread seriously.

[Shrek]

Originally posted by e-coli
heck, they don't even have a manufacturer nailed down as far as we know.

Um, the IBM Power4 maybe? Or Motorola's 0.9 micron technology? :p

[daijones]

Originally posted by ftaok
That's true, but Moto has a listed naming convention for people to use. It's just that a lot of posters put out stuff like "the 7500 isn't a true G5" when in fact they have no idea what a G5 really is. Sure, Moto could change the convention, but right now, a 75xx chip would be a G5.

Last time I saw the motorola road map, the 75xx wasn't anywhere on it. The G4 is shown as 74xx, and the G5 as 85xx. The other notable convention is that the 7yyy processors are marked as desktop processors, while the 8yyy processors are marked as communication processors. Meanwhile, the key difference between G4 and G5 seems to be the possibility of either 32- or 64-bit on the G5 (G4 is 32-bit only), and the G5 has a new bus and rapidIO.

This suggests two things. Firstly, the moto road map doesn't envisage a desktop G5. Second, if the 7500 does exist, then moto/Apple could call it whatever generation they want. The conventions noted above suggested that the 7 in the first place implies a desktop processor, and the 5 in the second place implies a G5. Again, if the 7500 exists, it suggests to me either that moto had a late change of heart and decided to produce a desktop G5 after all, or that Apple persuaded them not to include the desktop G5 on the roadmap. The first possibility might explain the delays; the second possibility would be entirely true to form for Apple.

The 7500 rumours suggest that it's a 32-bit chip with rapidIO based on the book-E architecture. This sounds a lot like a 32-bit G5 to me.

It might be worth noting that the G5 is available in the form of the 8560. Sadly, this is for embedded applications, but it shows that moto can put the technology on a chip if it wants to. It's also worth noting that the moto roadmap includes the G6, carrying the 86xx designation. This suggests that the G6 is also planned for embedded applications only. Time for Apple to go IBM?

[daijones]

For purposes of comparison, here's the IBM roadmap for PPC. The second arrow down, "1GHz+", describes a chip that is multicore superscalar, SMP capable, with integrated SIMD (vector-processing, like AltiVec), with rapidIO. This sounds like both the new chip IBM's announcing next month, and like what we'd expect in a G5. It's introduction seems to coincide with the use of low-K dielectrics: precisely what the new Fishkill plant is designed to produce, with full production intended for the end of the year. An interesting set of coincidences.

(BTW, I've posted similar comments on a previous forum: apologies for repetition)

[mrMahann]

as far as football fans go, raider fans are probably lesser conformist, or at least used to be. but, really, are any NFL fans really non-conformists?

just got a dualie533, bought it used. it does all i need as fast as i need it. no longer surfing on the SuSE machine; mozilla is plenty fast. and, it can run postgreSQL, apache and now oracle.

so, altho for most people the mac is plenty fast, to grow as a platform, we need cred some way, and the current measure that matters is processor speed. of course, by that time barium or whatever processor intel is going to have (banias) will be out and intel'll be using some other measure than MHz. but, people are still gonna use MHz for a bit, and having such low numbers matters, and in negative way, no matter what anyone says about the MHz myth. yeah, its real, but it just doesn't matter to the masses.

and, i WATCH BOTH MY DUAL PROCESSORS BEING USED as i have lotsa programs open and lotsa processes going. sometimes they jump up, but mostly just hang 20-50%.

anyway, i'm a libertarian, play rugby, hate golf, resent MLB and NFL, ex marine and usually vote demo. and, for prez i voted green and my vote certainly counted. my state MD goes dem (and ALL the electoral votes go to the state's winner), so casting a vote for a 3rd party is a protest against how lame of candidates we had while safely not contributing to the heinous dubya/cheney "big biz lackey" administration.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ftaok
And what constitutes a "true G5"? 64-bit? HyperTransport? What?

The truth is, the G5 is whatever Apple (or Moto) calls it.


True. But, say Apple takes a "modestly improved" G4 and calls it a G5. We should not, then, be expecting a G6 for a few years, right? Pretty much kills all hope of a truly revolutionary processor coming out of Apple for the next few years.

[xelterran]

Moto's g5 says it supports backwards compatability, does this mean that it can run both 32 and 64bit apps?

[barkmonster]

It's unrealistic for apple to be updating the towers in january.

That would give the 1.25Ghz model a 3 month shelf life, why would they do that ?

It makes no sense at all and I doubt we'll see new models till february or march of 2003 simply because the current range wouldn't have been out very long.

[szark]

Originally posted by daijones
Last time I saw the motorola road map, the 75xx wasn't anywhere on it. The G4 is shown as 74xx, and the G5 as 85xx.

The 7500 was on a previous version of the roadmap, still available on Motorola's website here (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCCPUINTFACT.pdf) .

[dongmin]

Originally posted by szark


The 7500 was on a previous version of the roadmap, still available on Motorola's website here (http://e-www.motorola.com/brdata/PDFDB/docs/PPCCPUINTFACT.pdf) .

how old is that roadmap? Cuz it shows the G4 starting at 0.15 micron process. As far as I know the G4s been stuck at 0.18.

I offer two theories as to why no mention of the 75xx line on the new roadmap:

1. Apple doesn't want Moto to reveal anything about future processors.

2. Moto has completely shifted their emphasis from PC uses to embedded uses.

Being an optimist, I'm leaning towards theory #1. I think we'd have heard more about Moto's change in direction if it was the second case.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by dongmin


how old is that roadmap? Cuz it shows the G4 starting at 0.15 micron process. As far as I know the G4s been stuck at 0.18.

I offer two theories as to why no mention of the 75xx line on the new roadmap:

1. Apple doesn't want Moto to reveal anything about future processors.

2. Moto has completely shifted their emphasis from PC uses to embedded uses.

Being an optimist, I'm leaning towards theory #1. I think we'd have heard more about Moto's change in direction if it was the second case. BINGO on #1. That's standard operating procedure at Apple. Remember when the Apollo G4's came out earlier this year? Moto actually announced the chips before Apple announced the new PowerMacs. Thing is, Moto made sure not to name Apple as a user.

After Apple announced the PowerMacs, Moto issued another press release stating that the Apollos were also used for desktop applications. When asked about not issuing that info earlier, the Motorola rep said that they didn't want to steal Apple's thunder.

So if Moto does have a 75xx chip, I suspect that it's Apple that's keeping it under wraps.

[mrMahann]

Originally posted by barkmonster
It's unrealistic for apple to be updating the towers in january.

That would give the 1.25Ghz model a 3 month shelf life, why would they do that ?


altho i don't think they'll update it, one could argue that this is a "yikes II" w/ similar short lifespan.

as you may recall, "yikes" was a stopgap model as well, essentially w/ a g4 put on the previous g3 momboard.

G4/350 introduced 1999.10.13 at US$1,599; discontinued 1999.12.02
G4/400 introduced 1999.08.31 at US$1,599; discontinued 1999.10.13

<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=43111>

[arn]

Political discussion moved (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=11396)

[KingArthur]

Although I have not read all of the messages in this thread, the last few indicate that you guys have not considered this. Motorola has already developed the G5 processor. It just is not economical to work hard on a G5 when it will solely be used for Apple. The majority of their processor sales are G4s used in cell phones and other mobile products. Until clients want more secure encryption of things, the G5 has little use. That G5's only advantage other than a faster processor is that it can process much larger numbers (twice that of standard 32bit processors). That can make for a much more secure encryption code. Motorola sees not the need for this, so we will not see the G5 focused on until then. IBM is our best bet.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by KingArthur
Although I have not read all of the messages in this thread, the last few indicate that you guys have not considered this. Motorola has already developed the G5 processor. It just is not economical to work hard on a G5 when it will solely be used for Apple. The majority of their processor sales are G4s used in cell phones and other mobile products. Until clients want more secure encryption of things, the G5 has little use. That G5's only advantage other than a faster processor is that it can process much larger numbers (twice that of standard 32bit processors). That can make for a much more secure encryption code. Motorola sees not the need for this, so we will not see the G5 focused on until then. IBM is our best bet. huh??!?!

Motorola has already shipped the G5. They're known as the 8540 and the 8560. Yes, these chips weren't designed for Apple (a 75xx would be the G5 for Apple). I don't understand your point.

BTW, the G4's aren't going into cell phones and "other mobile products". They're too expensive and just plain overkill. G4's are being used for communication routers and switchers along with Macs. Moto has other chip lines that go into celly's and pda's.

[KingArthur]

Sorry, I meant that they go into their massive mobile phone operations (as you said routers etc.). My point was that on the previous posts, the people were talking like the G5 is still under development. I wanted to make the point that it is already available, just Moto won't work on it b/c it doesn't meet their economical plans (Moto is in enough heat on WallStreet as it is).

[MisterMe]

Originally posted by KingArthur
.... (Moto is in enough heat on WallStreet as it is).

Exactly how would selling G5s to Apple hurt Motorola on Wall Street?

[ftaok]

Originally posted by MisterMe
Exactly how would selling G5s to Apple hurt Motorola on Wall Street? Selling G5's to Apple could hurt Moto if it would take "significant" re-tooling to get the current G5 (8560) into a form that could work on a Mac. It could be a situation where Apple wouldn't be buying enough G5s from Moto to warrant that kind of investment.

The last I saw, Apple's market share was about 4%. If getting the 8560 to work on a Mac costs Motorola a lot of money, then it's likely that Moto wouldn't do it. It's a ROI thing.

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by barkmonster
It's unrealistic for apple to be updating the towers in january.

That would give the 1.25Ghz model a 3 month shelf life, why would they do that ?

It makes no sense at all and I doubt we'll see new models till february or march of 2003 simply because the current range wouldn't have been out very long.

Well didnt the first pci G4's had a short life?
like 3 months. Immediately after that the agp models came out.
I hope those new G4's have a short life span and all you guys will be "yikesed" when the G5 comes out. sorry hehe but I still hope so.
hell I was yikesed when that thing came out. im still stuck with it. I need a new mac.

[szark]

Originally posted by dongmin
how old is that roadmap? Cuz it shows the G4 starting at 0.15 micron process. As far as I know the G4s been stuck at 0.18.

The one I referenced seems to have a date of 5/2000, which is pretty old.

The "current" color roadmap above (which also lists the G4 starting at 0.15 micron) has a last modification date of 11/30/2001.

[scem0]

I think that we can expect new powermacs in Jan, because it sounded like it at MW Paris, and the new powermacs are a letdown, and apple doesnt like to let down its customers.

[FattyMembrane]

these g5 threads are never good news (i've seen about 3 years of them on different forums), but what does not help matters at this point in time are the conflicting motives and messges that we seem to be receiving from the industry.

1. New powermac cases are obviously overpowered and overcooled.
2. G4 is way behind in clock speed and news of ibm power4 is tempting mac users everywhere
3. any date within the feb/march 2003 range would be the requisite 6 month range for introducing a new tower.
BUT...
1. would apple really launch a huge "switch" campaign just to trounce all of the newbies' machines and alienate them?
2. the marklar project is now well-known and would be too large an expenditure of resources just for "fun" or a "backup".

i hope (as i'm sure we all do) that apple can pull off some kind of miracle within the next year (something far more impressive than the debut of the gforce4ti). as i said before, these g5 rumors have been around for years and if apple does not take the lead in pushing consumer computing to its limits, we're in for trouble. there are lots of people still disgruntled about the switch to osx, and the widening of the mhz gap will only make matters worse.
EDIT: i'm surprised that no one has brought up the g5 sphere, that always seems to get posted about every 3 months :D

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by applemacdude
There will be a G5 announced in MWSF. I got this information from a very important person at Apple. He's my friend and I can't risk his job and won't say anything else.

I doubt it unless IBM has moved up it's schedule. Moto's last G4 is due in jan with IBM's power4 core due next summer. I don't think Moto would take the G5 name if it's just a faster G4 on new mobo? Then what would you call the power4 core 6 months later? This doesn't jive with what I've been told unless Apple is maybe scrapping the G4+ and going right to the power4 core.

[Akira]

Ahem!

Why would the switched Apple-newbie's be 'Yikesed' by Apple if thy would launch a G5 tower Jan 2003?
Most of them bought a iMac or eMac, I presume, and we're talking about G5 towers here...

by the way, the Switch-campain is US only, I think... anyway, As far as I know Apple doesn't run a Switch-campain here in Europe...

[ddtlm]

I would be amazed if Apple launched a "G5" in early 2003 because they just came out with their DDR tower mobo. They can't afford to make em and then throw them away a few months later.

The PCI G4's were short lived because they used the G3 mobos... a very different situation from what we have now.

There will be no "G5" in early 2003, at least not one that replaces the current tower lineup.