PDA

View Full Version : MWNY PowerMac Specs?


arn
May 11, 2002, 04:39 PM
An anonymous source provided the following specs for upcoming PowerMac G4's upcoming... presumably at MWNY.

1.0 GHz, 1.2 GHz, and dual-1.4 GHz G4's
DDR 333 MHZ
ATA 133 support
4 64 bit PCI
1 AGP
Gigabit Ethernet, Firewire, USB
60, 80, and 120 GB drives
New Superdrive, and faster CDRW.
Built-in Bluetooth
$1599, $2299, and $3299.

These certainly sound like reasonable specs for future machines... again, the upcoming Servers (May 14) specs may help confirm/deny some of these specs.

lucs
May 11, 2002, 04:49 PM
That most definitely sounds more realistic than a 2ghz G5 and stuff

i like it :)

Falleron
May 11, 2002, 05:01 PM
What about Firewire 2 + USB 2?

rainman::|:|
May 11, 2002, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Falleron
What about Firewire 2 + USB 2?

I think we can be reasonably sure USB2 will be standard... as for Firewire2, we can only hope...

These do sound like much better specs. I wonder how zippy the dual 1.4s would really feel... prolly an improvement over a 500MHz iMac, eh?

hehe
:)
pnw

Falleron
May 11, 2002, 05:10 PM
We wont see USB2 until Firewire 2 is out! I have a Dual 1Ghz machine + it runs very nicely! A Dual 1.4Ghz would be sweet (Not for me because I just got my machine 3 months ago!!).

dongmin
May 11, 2002, 05:27 PM
The rumor is conservative enough to be true. Nothing really new other than the DDR Ram.

40% increase in processor speed in five months aint bad. Hopefully this will mean 2 ghz G5s by MWSF.

If Bluetooth is built-in, could the wireless mouse and keyboard rumors be true too?

TyleRomeo
May 11, 2002, 05:34 PM
Sunday, March 17 3:17 PM EDT

Faster Superdrives later this year? According to several very interesting documents emailed to us by an international Apple source, yes. The current model Swiss Army Knife of optical drives runs at 6x read/2x write for DVDs and 24x read, 8x CD-R write and 4x CD-RW write. A new version currently being tested at Apple would up virtually all of those speeds - 8X/4X for DVDs and 40X/12X/8X for CDs, respectively. Of course as with all CD drives claiming 40X speeds, real-world performance will be much lower, but it should still be significantly improved over the current 24X speed. If the timeline put forth in these documents proves accurate, we may see this new SuperDrive before the end of the year - in PowerMacs first, of course.

Still longing for more processor performance from the latest PowerMacs before you buy one? Well, if a Dual 1GHz model with 133MHz SDRAM doesn't impress you, how about a Dual 1.4GHz beast employing powerful new PowerPC 7500 processors and screamingly fast 400MHz RapidIO-compatible memory? It has taken months of digging to confirm this, but it looks like the much-hyped PPC 7500, a G4 designed to add some of the features of the G5 family, will be the centerpiece of Apple's mid-year PowerMac update. A 400MHz leap in processor clock is dramatic, but made possible by the 7500's deeper command pipelines, next-generation wiring process and modernized chip architecture. Much more on this rumor in the days and weeks ahead.

New information from one of Apple's key component suppliers suggests the company is working on a mid-sized widescreen flat panel. The new display would be roughly the same height as the company's current 17-inch model, but would be significantly wider to provide a letterbox aspect ratio for watching widescreen DVDs. It is not known whether this would replace or complement the existing standard-aspect 17-inch Studio Display, but resolution is said to be 1152x768 -- same as the Powerbook G4.

thank you macosrumors

but i guess more speculation can't hurt, go apple

Tobsen
May 11, 2002, 05:35 PM
Why do you all want USB2?
USB2 is not faster than FireWire and there is no hardware, that may be a reason to have it.
Also the HD-bridge is slow as these old bridges for FW.
So why?

TyleRomeo
May 11, 2002, 05:51 PM
well having USB 2 and Firewire 2 standard will be good for the long haul when we get new USB 2 devices and faster external firewire 2 hard drives, so i really hope they put them in.

also is the new super drive going to be the one that macosrumors.com specified or something else.

hmmm and what about the video card are we going to have the 128MB Nvidia card or something else?

sirion
May 11, 2002, 06:01 PM
What would the effective speed difference be between a dual 1 GHz and single 1.2 GHz machine with DDR ram?

I'm told OSX is *extremely* snappy with dual processor configurations, and the older dual GHz model's price is probably going to drop down significantly...so I'm wondering just how nice that ram really is...

Backtothemac
May 11, 2002, 06:06 PM
Good evening everyone. One thing I can add to this is that they will have Firewire 2. Bank on it. ;)

Also X.2 will be standard on these machines. Everyone is saying September for X.2, but as long as there are no MASSIVE bugs, it will be at MWNY.
:cool:

blogo
May 11, 2002, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Tobsen
Why do you all want USB2?
USB2 is not faster than FireWire and there is no hardware, that may be a reason to have it.
Also the HD-bridge is slow as these old bridges for FW.
So why?

USB 2 products are cheaper

Rower_CPU
May 11, 2002, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Eple
USB 2 products are cheaper

Really? Can you give some examples?

j763
May 11, 2002, 08:08 PM
I think we'll see bumped up G4's AND G5's. I say this because of what I pointed out the other day...

If you didn't see it, think about this, Apple's Web Server has the directory http://www.apple.com/powermac/g4/ ready to be used (it's currently pointing back at the main powermac page).

If we don't see any G5's at MWNY, there are going to be some really pissed off people out there...

TyleRomeo
May 11, 2002, 08:17 PM
i'd be very happy with a dual 1.4 G4, i want the DRR, new superdrive and the ata 133 drive

nero007
May 11, 2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Tobsen
Why do you all want USB2?
USB2 is not faster than FireWire and there is no hardware, that may be a reason to have it.
Also the HD-bridge is slow as these old bridges for FW.
So why?

I thought USB 2 was faster than Firewire (not FW2). Maybe I misread though.

nero007
May 11, 2002, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by j763
If we don't see any G5's at MWNY, there are going to be some really pissed off people out there...

Well they can stick it. This would be a great upgrade.

jelloshotsrule
May 11, 2002, 08:33 PM
this all sounds pretty good to me..

not that i know what it is, but what about rapid i/o?

i know you all technical geeks had been talking about it... so what up wit dat?

G4scott
May 11, 2002, 08:40 PM
That's great. At least Apple's total mhz speeds (speed of each processor x number of processors. It sounds weird, but i believe that if people saw two processors with speeds that add up, they would be convinced...) will be up to par with Intel by years end, but maybe a little behind... I heard that Intel will be up to 3 ghz by years end. Wow, a barbecue grill that can cook at 3ghz! Just what we need! Maybe Intel should team up with George Forman and actually make a colored computer/grill. It would be like an iMac with a grill, except it would only really work as a grill...

Rower_CPU
May 11, 2002, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
this all sounds pretty good to me..

not that i know what it is, but what about rapid i/o?

i know you all technical geeks had been talking about it... so what up wit dat?

Here's some info from their website (www.rapidio.org):
The RapidIO™ architecture is an electronic data communications standard for interconnecting chips on a circuit board and circuit boards using a backplane. This new high-performance, packet-switched interconnect technology was designed for embedded systems, primarily for the networking and communications markets. Industry leaders in networking, communications, semiconductors, and embedded systems have founded the RapidIO Trade Association to develop and support this new open standard.

An important bottleneck in networking and communications equipment is the speed at which the various components "inside the box" communicate with each other. The RapidIO architecture eliminates this bottleneck. Current equipment is limited to hundreds of Mbits per second transfer rates using legacy bus technologies such as PCI. The new RapidIO interconnect increases this bandwidth significantly. Many believe that increases in bandwidth have already replaced increases in microprocessor performance as the key requirement for higher-performance Internet technology.

To summarize: Rapid IO removes one of the major bottlenecks in system performance, namely, the system bus speed.

Backtothemac
May 11, 2002, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by j763
If we don't see any G5's at MWNY, there are going to be some really pissed off people out there...

Well, let me save them a wait. Go ahead, get pissed. Go set a house on fire, and kill the neighbors cat. There will not be a G5 at MWNY, not a real one anyway. Maybe in SF, but not in NY. I am not saying that you should do the above, just the crazy people that would complain about a Mac with those specs.

macstudent
May 11, 2002, 08:44 PM
I would like USB 2 for the option to add these devices later without having to purchase an expansion card. If apple is devloping a new motherboard, they might as well add new technologies unless it is not cost effective.

mmmdreg
May 11, 2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
There will not be a G5 at MWNY, not a real one anyway. Maybe in SF, but not in NY. I am not saying that you should do the above, just the crazy people that would complain about a Mac with those specs.

Yeah...the above specs for a better G4 are way more likely than a G5 until MWSF03...but we are always getting proved wrong so lets just wait and see..

Catfish_Man
May 11, 2002, 09:21 PM
...to the post about how much DDR would help, consider this:

A single 533MHz G4+ (7450) can max out (saturate) PC133 if it's running well made Altivec code. That means that if all that was running was a single well made Altivec task, then the ONLY reason that the dual 1GHz would be faster than the single 533 is that the DP1GHz has a better cache. The extra processor, the better manufacturing process, and the almost double clockspeed would all be essentially useless. Obviously in the real world this almost never happens, but it shows the kind of boost we can expect by doubling (or with 333MHz DDR, more than doubling) the memory bandwidth. A dual 1GHz is a fine machine, but it's trying to feed six Altivec pipelines (G4+s can dispatch 3 instructions per clock cycle) off of a bus that's maxed out with 3 running at half the speed. I think a single 1.2GHz with DDR will beat a dual 1GHz with SDR in most tasks. A few that really benefit a lot from SMP will keep up or be slightly ahead.

barkmonster
May 11, 2002, 09:23 PM
They've started putting the entry level model inline with the other models in all areas (7200rpm HD, reasonable amount of RAM, optional Superdrive) apart from the L3 cache. Maybe this time apple will realise that people buying the entry level model arn't to be concidered a stereotypical consumer/home user with deep pockets but a pro user with fairly empty ones!

From the current specs the 1Ghz G4 has a 250Mhz DDR L3 cache (effectively 500Mhz), a 1Ghz G4 without a L3 but with the new motherboard is going to have 333Mhz to play with instead but I do wonder if putting a L3 cache on all models wouldn't be a fair thing to do given the fact that the bandwidth between 333Mhz and 500Mhz is small but could still be significant.

when you look at it in terms of what we've got now and what we might have it looks like it could be an either or situation on whether it's needed on a 1Ghz model with the new motherboard but the 1.4Ghz model should have a 700Mhz L3 cache if they're still going to use L3 on the new models. That would skew the performance of the lineup in favour of the top 2 models like now.

It's damn good to here though, I just hope my long running theory that whatever's the high end becomes the lowend everytime the lineup is changed is correct this time.

I'd love to be able to buy a G4 that's well over 4 times the speed of my G3 when I'm looking at buying my next mac, the mid range 1.2Ghz system looks tempting but the entry level model looks even more tempting to me because I know I could afford it by late autumn all things going well.

Rocketman
May 11, 2002, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by j763
I think we'll see bumped up G4's AND G5's. I say this because of what I pointed out the other day...

If you didn't see it, think about this, Apple's Web Server has the directory http://www.apple.com/powermac/g4/ ready to be used (it's currently pointing back at the main powermac page).

If we don't see any G5's at MWNY, there are going to be some really pissed off people out there...

Firstly the G4 powermacc if true are "sick" specs. These are CONSUMER machines at CONSUMER prices with multiples of supercomputer performance. That is hard to fathom, much less criticize.

I predict (I rarely am wrong and I suck as a result) the G5 will be released in the NEW RACK SERVER line first at a substantial price premium.

It makes sense because they are optimized for high duty cycle applications like servers. As such the pure Mhz might not be high but the throughput will be *"astonishing"*.

Rocketman

Apple is a REAL computer company now?

Rocketman
May 11, 2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by macstudent
I would like USB 2 for the option to add these devices later without having to purchase an expansion card. If apple is devloping a new motherboard, they might as well add new technologies unless it is not cost effective.

And they have a history of doing it because they believe in the principal you stated.

My PC CLUB sales-geek had the gaul to tell me USB2 devices were faster than Firewire devices (ignoring the issues of more than one device). And ANY non-optimality.

Rocketman

G4scott
May 11, 2002, 09:53 PM
You know, Steve Jobs has had a G5 since some time last year. It costs about 90 million, and you can learn more about it here (http://www.gulfstream.com).

Hehe...

Get it, a G5, Gulfstream V! haha, gotcha there...

G4scott
May 11, 2002, 09:57 PM
Here's some performance specs about the GV (G5, roman numeral for 5...)

Performance:

Maximum Range
(Mach 0.80, 8 passengers, 4 crew, NBAA IFR reserves) 6,500 nm 12,046 km

Long Range Cruise Speed Mach 0.80 459 ktas 851 km/h

Mmo (Maximum Allowable Mach Number) Mach 0.885

Takeoff Distance (SL, ISA, MTOW) 5,990 ft 1,826 m

Landing Distance (SL, ISA, MLW) 3,170 ft 966 m

Initial Cruise Altitude 41,000 ft 12,497 m

Maximum Cruise Altitude 51,000 ft 15,545 m

:D I'd like to see intel do that...

Mr. Anderson
May 11, 2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Here's some performance specs about the GV (G5, roman numeral for 5...)

Performance:

Maximum Range
(Mach 0.80, 8 passengers, 4 crew, NBAA IFR reserves) 6,500 nm 12,046 km

Long Range Cruise Speed Mach 0.80 459 ktas 851 km/h

Mmo (Maximum Allowable Mach Number) Mach 0.885

Takeoff Distance (SL, ISA, MTOW) 5,990 ft 1,826 m

Landing Distance (SL, ISA, MLW) 3,170 ft 966 m

Initial Cruise Altitude 41,000 ft 12,497 m

Maximum Cruise Altitude 51,000 ft 15,545 m

:D I'd like to see intel do that...

I've had an opportunity to see one close up, work related, they are truly impressive machines. Creme de la creme of corporate aviation.

jadam
May 11, 2002, 10:21 PM
now why do we care about a GV, anyways


APPLE IS A REAL COMPUTER COMPANY, AND THE BEST!!!!!!!

Rower_CPU
May 11, 2002, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman
...I predict (I rarely am wrong and I suck as a result) the G5 will be released in the NEW RACK SERVER line first at a substantial price premium...

We'll see on Tuesday. ;)

alex_ant
May 11, 2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman
I predict (I rarely am wrong and I suck as a result) the G5 will be released in the NEW RACK SERVER line first at a substantial price premium.
That's an idea I hadn't thought of... I wonder what it would do to the price competitiveness, though, if there were a G5 or other next-gen chip in the rack servers. Apple's margins are already pretty high... then again, I'm still wondering how the servers could be price/performance competitive with G4s in them, so anything is possible. :)
It makes sense because they are optimized for high duty cycle applications like servers. As such the pure Mhz might not be high but the throughput will be *"astonishing"*.
Well, the rumors have been saying 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6GHz G5s. Those are pretty high MHz numbers (higher than anything non-x86). If they're true, I will be surprised if Motorola is able to pull this comeback off what with all they layoffs they've been making. Although I would still like to see it.

Alex

Tokyo
May 11, 2002, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Rocketman


My PC CLUB sales-geek had the gaul to tell me USB2 devices were faster than Firewire devices (ignoring the issues of more than one device). And ANY non-optimality.

Rocketman

Frankly, I don't know if you ever see an external device which can get up to 400Mbps anyway. You see these Firewire drives sold with advertising or notes on the side saying, "up to 400 Mbps throughput!" when really the device communicates much slower, and they're only really referring to the theoretical speed limit of FireWire. Have you ever gotten 12 Mbps out of USB 1.1? I hear the actual limit is much lower, and I don't doubt the same is tru for 2.0

I have no idea why anyone would prefer 1.1 to 2.0, however--why would anyone prefer LESS functionality, compatibility and performance? That makes no sense. The sooner USB 2.0 comes out, the better. There are a lot of USB 2.0 devices out there now, and with the Wintel industry biased for USB and against FireWire, there are and will be many products that have only USB 2.0 and no FireWire versions. That's my problem now in Japan--I want a new scanner, but not USB 1.1 (too slow). There is only one FireWire scanner I've found here (includes USB 2.0), but at $300+ it's more than I want to pay. All the reasonably-priced fast scanners here are USB 2.0.


Tokyo

gbojim
May 11, 2002, 11:11 PM
There is something that has always puzzled me about the rumors of these specs. The current G4 chips can talk to PC133 RAM and PCI - nothing faster. So why spend the huge money necessary to design and manufacture DDR and Rapid IO into a G4 if the G5 is basically finished.

The only logical thing I can think of is the G4 will be the processor for eMac, iMac and iBook for at least a few years and Apple has committed to Motorola for huge quantities.

Any other ideas?

mmmdreg
May 11, 2002, 11:33 PM
How about Apple makes G4 servers, G5 racks, eMacs for ed, iMacs for lowerend consumers, G4 Powermacs for highend consumers or prosumers, G5 PowerMacs for pro's, tibook for pro's, iBook for lowend consumers, and a ebook which should be like the current ibook, while making the ibook go up a notch...

menoinjun
May 12, 2002, 12:03 AM
Toyko's reply above rings very true...

USB 2.0 maxes out at 480mb per second, while firewire maxes at 400. But the actual chance that you're going to see the transfer rate hit that high is very very rare.

USB drive ARE cheaper though...as was mentioned earlier in this thread. Head over to any local CompUSA. USB 2.0 burners are usually about $20 cheaper than firewire ones, and external HDs are even cheaper in comparison!! I don't know why...but they are.

I just put a 6 port USB 2.0 card in my G4, simply for USB 1 expansion. Adaptec hasn't released drivers for Mac OS X yet, but I really could care less.

BTW- Anyone know why my card has an internal USB port? What on earth uses internal USB? And the same thing with the original AGP powermacs...they had an internal firewire port. What gives?

-Pete

kaneda
May 12, 2002, 12:15 AM
I want a G5...I don't care it is a G4 chip inside..I want Apple to fool me...just make the case G5...and sell it to me! for cheap of course..:O)


G5 in MWNY

porovaara
May 12, 2002, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by ptrauber

BTW- Anyone know why my card has an internal USB port? What on earth uses internal USB? And the same thing with the original AGP powermacs...they had an internal firewire port. What gives?

-Pete

So you can string a "dual port" adapter off of it to the front of your computer.

A@ron
May 12, 2002, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by ptrauber

BTW- Anyone know why my card has an internal USB port? What on earth uses internal USB? And the same thing with the original AGP powermacs...they had an internal firewire port. What gives?

-Pete [/B]

The internal usb could be used for the new Bluetooth adapter. come to think of it that would actually be a good reason to have it added in.

G4scott
May 12, 2002, 12:40 AM
internal USB has been around for as long as USB has been around in pee-cee's. I have no idea why though, but it's not just for bluetooth (if it is at all...)

What seems weird about this rumor, is that it's all too typical for Apple... Another speed bump? I don't know, it just doesn't feel right... It may just be me, or something I ate...

TylerL
May 12, 2002, 12:50 AM
With all the improvements under the hood (DDR RAM, higher bus speeds, Gigawire maybe, etc.), Apple just might call it the G5 anyway.
It's still a major jump in architecture, regardless of the chip inside.

macstudent
May 12, 2002, 01:06 AM
I have seen combo firewire/usb cards that featured an internal firewire port. What is going on with that?

A@ron
May 12, 2002, 01:07 AM
I did not mean that Apple from day 1 of that usb card was designing it for the bluetooth adapter. I just meant that if I had a tower with an internal usb port that is what I would use it for. No ugly black adapter sticking out the back would be a plus in my book :) not that the cables look nice or anything.

A@ron

Beej
May 12, 2002, 01:26 AM
I will wet myself with excitement if dual 1.4 GHz G4s are released at MWNY02.



I just know this line will be quoted in the future... :D

Backtothemac
May 12, 2002, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Beej
I will wet myself with excitement if dual 1.4 GHz G4s are released at MWNY02.



I just know this line will be quoted in the future... :D

I agree with Beej on this one. I really don't understand why anyone could
B*itch about the these systems. Get ready for it, because this is what is coming. They are going to absolutely fly.

No way around it, the G4 lives.

Megaquad
May 12, 2002, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel


I think we can be reasonably sure USB2 will be standard... as for Firewire2, we can only hope...

These do sound like much better specs. I wonder how zippy the dual 1.4s would really feel... prolly an improvement over a 500MHz iMac, eh?

hehe
:)
pnw
USB 2.0 will never be standard on mac computers because that would suck for firewire..

Falleron
May 12, 2002, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by gbojim
There is something that has always puzzled me about the rumors of these specs. The current G4 chips can talk to PC133 RAM and PCI - nothing faster. So why spend the huge money necessary to design and manufacture DDR and Rapid IO into a G4 if the G5 is basically finished.

The only logical thing I can think of is the G4 will be the processor for eMac, iMac and iBook for at least a few years and Apple has committed to Motorola for huge quantities.

Any other ideas?
I think the new servers will give the game away! If they have a new chip then so will the new powermacs! If they are just faster G4's then we will at least know what the new towers will be like.

mmmdreg
May 12, 2002, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Megaquad

USB 2.0 will never be standard on mac computers because that would suck for firewire..
It'll be standard when FW2 is standard..

lucs
May 12, 2002, 11:49 AM
One thing i hadn't noticed before:

I dont remember Apple including 120GB hard drives among their lines, not even as a custom built option. Could this mean that the specs are too exagerated, or that Apple will begin using those drives?

Just something to wonder about...

PretendPCuser
May 12, 2002, 12:04 PM
So they went to the new Apollo G4 chip. It's faster than the previous G4 chip, right? Now if what peeps are saying is true, DDR and/or RapidIO RAM, AGP(x8?) and everything else new begs the question:

Does it really need to be a brand new line of CPUs for Apple to put the "G5" label on it? These speeds that are being proposed are pretty impressive. It's up to the marketing dept at Apple. If the G5 line of processors from Motorola are not going to make it out until MWSF '03 or possibly later, could Apple get away with calling the proposed new machine of MWNY a G5 and when the next chip from Motorola is ready, call that a G6? Or G20 or whatever Motorola is calling the chip?

I guess i'm confused about when Apple started using the "G" and whether it was an expressed intention that the "G" naming scheme was always going to be inline with Motorola. Maybe Steve-o is going to bag the "G" naming system anyway, call the machine something new. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

The technology has matured enough that this new machine could be called a G5, with my humblest of blessings for whatever that's worth.

Exactly $.02


PS Happy Mother's Day to any mac-using mothers out there. I'm sure a minority in this forum.:rolleyes:

TyleRomeo
May 12, 2002, 12:17 PM
Dear Lucs,

The reason why apple hasn't offered a 120GB driv eyet is because the ATA 66 can't handle anything bigger then 80GB. I know ATA 100 can handle upto 120GB and ATA 133 can go up to 160GB. Guys if I'm wrong just correct me.

I really hope Apple goes ATA 133. That would solve hard drive dilemas for quite some time.

gbojim
May 12, 2002, 12:24 PM
...Does it really need to be a brand new line of CPUs for Apple to put the "G5" label on it?...

Technically Apple's marketing names do not have to match anything that Motorola does. We have recently seen Apple naming the PowerMac and PowerBook products with a Gx designation to describe the CPU family used in the machine. Apple has chosen to use the Motorola designation for the family.

Apple could call anything they want the G5, it's just that it would cause a lot of confusion.

This kind of relates back to an earlier post I made. Motorola explicitly states what technologies are included in processor families. DDR and Rapid IO are definitely part of G5 and not G4.

If they do release some sort of hybrid, I think it would be a really good idea to get away from the Gx naming scheme.

Sayer
May 12, 2002, 12:42 PM
I believe the general consensus is that "G" means generation.

G1 would be the 601, G2 would be 604/603. The 7xx series aka G3 was the first official use of the term on the whole computer and the evolved 603 still in use today. G4 came next as a logical progression on the CPU and overall computer.

Intel also started using numbering with the Pentium II, III and now IV (can't anyone come up with an original idea?).

Fanciful names have been used, but generally lead to confusion with the consumer i.e. is the LC better than a Centris vs. a Quadra?

Using the single term is really simple, everyone understands numerical progression (larger numbers = bigger/newer) and its already been in use for many years so why change?

Using G5 would be appropriate for the whole computer, and possibly the CPU if it is an evolved G4 and not an updated G4. It will rankle the die hards waiting for a mythical super processor to blow away Intel and AMD (maybe MWSF 2003), but I don't see that coming yet it at all so the new G4/G5 will be a bit of a mixed bag no matter what.

If the overall computer is a radical change such as with the rackmount server then it deserves a distinct identity to differentiate itself in its market.

A whole lot of people way more experienced than any mere consumer thinks about this stuff almost from the beginning (specs/marketing development usually pre-date product development). And sometimes code names "stick" as was the case with Macintosh, Lisa, Newton and other projects at Apple.

MWNY will disappoint a lot of people, thats a given. How many and by how much is all that remains to be seen. Besides we are getting a rackmount server (apparently) this Tuesday - the first Jobs dynasty product matrix expansion since the iBook (consumer-specific laptop). Lets hope *it* rocks and sweat the G4/G5 details later.:D

Mr. Anderson
May 12, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Sayer

If the overall computer is a radical change such as with the rackmount server then it deserves a distinct identity to differentiate itself in its market.

MWNY will disappoint a lot of people, thats a given. How many and by how much is all that remains to be seen. Besides we are getting a rackmount server (apparently) this Tuesday - the first Jobs dynasty product matrix expansion since the iBook (consumer-specific laptop). Lets hope *it* rocks and sweat the G4/G5 details later.:D

But that would be at odds with the G nomeclature because its not a CPU upgrade. Maybe they'll designate it a G4x, where the x is another letter or combination there of.

As for MWNY, I'm just hoping it doesn't become a fiasco. So many people, professionals and prosumers, are chomping at the bit for a really kick ass machine that will put us ahead of the PC world. If this doesn't happen soon, Apple might start losing some of its momentum and start slipping back again. If the servers end up being more than we expect, then MWNY might not be that much of a dissapointment.

G4scott
May 12, 2002, 02:03 PM
Here's the way I've always thought of it:
G1- 680x0 processors.
G2- 601-604 processors (it's the beginning of the Power PC family)
G3- PPC (IBM) or MPC (don't know if they name it that way, but I think i've seen it like that) 700 series
G4- PPC or MPC 7000 series (started at 7400)
G5- PPC or MPC 8000 series

I think that Apple would have to be incredibly stupid to make a computer with an upgraded system bus with a 7000 series processor and call it a G5. The naming goes with the chip. Essentially, the 400mhz G4 and the new 1Ghz G4 are still G4's. They have the same basic architecture, and both use altivec. They are still the same chip, just that the 1Ghz one is faster, has a more upgraded architecture, and has more advanced features, but it's still a G4.

When does a G4 become a G5 as far as the name of the computer is concerned? When Apple actually uses a 8000 series chip in their computers. If Apple makes a 133mhz DDR motherboard but puts in a G4, they will still call it a G4. They may call it G4DDR or something like that, but it will still be a G4, unless Apple changes their naming convention, but a computer with a 7000 series chip will never be called a G5. It's just wrong for marketing.

The G5 is an essentially different chip than the G4. It has so many new features, that the G4 won't mold into the G5, but rather the G5 will come with a bang, and will be almost completely different than the G4.

jadam
May 12, 2002, 02:42 PM
166mhz DDR bus!!!, how do you think they get DDR333. BTW these new computers rock. Im going to get one this summer and a 23" Cinema Display!!! get ready for me apple!!!

ftaok
May 12, 2002, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by G4scott
Here's the way I've always thought of it:
G1- 680x0 processors.
G2- 601-604 processors (it's the beginning of the Power PC family)
G3- PPC (IBM) or MPC (don't know if they name it that way, but I think i've seen it like that) 700 series
G4- PPC or MPC 7000 series (started at 7400)
G5- PPC or MPC 8000 series

I think that Apple would have to be incredibly stupid to make a computer with an upgraded system bus with a 7000 series processor and call it a G5. The naming goes with the chip. Essentially, the 400mhz G4 and the new 1Ghz G4 are still G4's. They have the same basic architecture, and both use altivec. They are still the same chip, just that the 1Ghz one is faster, has a more upgraded architecture, and has more advanced features, but it's still a G4.

When does a G4 become a G5 as far as the name of the computer is concerned? When Apple actually uses a 8000 series chip in their computers. If Apple makes a 133mhz DDR motherboard but puts in a G4, they will still call it a G4. They may call it G4DDR or something like that, but it will still be a G4, unless Apple changes their naming convention, but a computer with a 7000 series chip will never be called a G5. It's just wrong for marketing.

The G5 is an essentially different chip than the G4. It has so many new features, that the G4 won't mold into the G5, but rather the G5 will come with a bang, and will be almost completely different than the G4.
You have the Gx naming convention wrong. Look at Moto's roadmap (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230) , it clearly states which chips fall under which "G".

And just because a chip falls under the 7xxx family doesn't mean it's a G4. The 7xxx family are chips used for computers and "high-end embedded". 8xxx chips are used in the communications sector (i.e. Cisco's routers).

If (and this is still in question) Motorola is going to provide a G5 chip for Macs, it'll be numbered as a 75xx chip, not a 85xx.

You'll also notice that under the G5 flag (and the G6 as well), there is no provision for the 75xx moniker. To me, that's an indication that either a) Motorola isn't supplying the G5 to Apple OR b)Motorola is keeping quiet about a G5 chip to Apple at Apple's request.

G4scott
May 12, 2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by ftaok

You have the Gx naming convention wrong. Look at Moto's roadmap (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230) , it clearly states which chips fall under which "G".

And just because a chip falls under the 7xxx family doesn't mean it's a G4. The 7xxx family are chips used for computers and "high-end embedded". 8xxx chips are used in the communications sector (i.e. Cisco's routers).

If (and this is still in question) Motorola is going to provide a G5 chip for Macs, it'll be numbered as a 75xx chip, not a 85xx.

You'll also notice that under the G5 flag (and the G6 as well), there is no provision for the 75xx moniker. To me, that's an indication that either a) Motorola isn't supplying the G5 to Apple OR b)Motorola is keeping quiet about a G5 chip to Apple at Apple's request.


Sorry I didn't put the motorola processor strategy in my 'favorites' menu... so I had the G1/G2 mixed up and some other mistakes, but according to that roadmap, if Motorola gave Apple a chip with the 74xx classification, it wouldn't be a G5, it would still be a G4. When motorola released the G4's, they didn't release them in the 7xx family, they made the 74xx family for it.

The G5 is clearly under the 85xx family, so any G5's would have to be 85xx, or motorola would have to create a new family for the G5 in computing. But, with that little note at the bottom, wouldn't Apple's use of a G5 in PowerMacs be considered part of the consumer market? If so, this justifies them using the 8xxx family.

Either way, the G5's for Apple will probably be announced in a new product family. It may be 75xx or it may not. (I still think that it's not the 75xx, because that's too close to the G4 family. They skipped a whole 6,300 model numbers on the jump from G3 to G4...) I'm just pretty sure that Apple won't release a G4 chip in a G5 computer, and that when the G5 is ready, it will come. It won't mesh in with the G4 product line, but come in on its own...

eddit
May 12, 2002, 05:57 PM
On the origional Motorola Roadmap the G5 was to be labled 75xx. (Sorry, can't find the URL at the moment). However, when they released their first imbedded G5, they changed the roadmap (http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M983989030230) to 85xx.

Now, there are several things to consider here. First, the 8xxx series of processors is for the imbedded market. So maybe when the rumored 75xx processor comes out they will change the roadmap to include 85xx and 75xx as G5.

Secondly, there is the specifications of the G5 and the rumored 75xx. The current G5 specs say:

- Extensible Architecture (ie BookE)
- New Pipline
- RapidIO
- Symmetric Processing
- 32 or 64 bit
- 0.13 um process (SOI)
- 800 MHz- 2 GHz

The rumored specs of the 75xx look like a G5 to me!!

Edwin

agoldweber
May 12, 2002, 07:38 PM
here's a silly question:
why are they only using the fastest chips of a current line for the dual processors? 1 Ghz now; 1.4 Ghz of rumored.

frankly, I'm more interested in a cost-effective dual 800 Ghz.

regardless, the new specs do seem reasonable and may be worth putting off my purchase...

do you think a simple speed bump like this will let them hit the street by August?

Rower_CPU
May 12, 2002, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by agoldweber
here's a silly question:
why are they only using the fastest chips of a current line for the dual processors? 1 Ghz now; 1.4 Ghz of rumored.

frankly, I'm more interested in a cost-effective dual 800 Ghz.

regardless, the new specs do seem reasonable and may be worth putting off my purchase...

do you think a simple speed bump like this will let them hit the street by August?

It's actually a good question to ask. :)

There are two conflicting aspects at play here.
1) Motorola most likely has higher yields of lower speed chips, making dual systems with the slower chips very cost effective. The thing is that we don't know what the top speeds are for the chips Moto has in production right now. 1 GHz is most likely the current "sweet spot" for pricing and chip yields.

BUT,

2) Apple wants to make their most expensive system more attractive to buyers to increase their profits. People who want the extra performance of dual CPUs have to pay the premium.

I would like to see dual systems across the board, since OS X can take advantage of the extra CPU in everyday tasks. But Apple will need to have enough extra "oomph" in the top-end system to keep their profits up.

There's just too much uncertainty of what chips will be coming out and who will be making them to make any definite predictions at this time.

rugby
May 12, 2002, 10:25 PM
Whatever Apple plans this summer they absolutely need to do 4 things by the middle of July:

1) ship OS X and Server 10.2
2) Ship rackmount servers
3) ship eMacs in MASSIVE quantities
4) ship high end tower servers (for those who don't have racks)

Why? Because schools won't have time to implement them before the beginning of the school year. I know for a fact we're buying 120 eMacs, 6 rackmount macs (depends on pricing) and maybe 1-2 tower servers. We also have 2 OS X Servers, 1 running Mac Manager and the other for web/email. Server 10.2 needs time to be set up and configured. Last year I got our servers 1 week before school went into session.

If Apple can't get them to us then we will be pissed and I will end up working long hours during the year to get things done that should have been done before anyone got there.

imamacguy17
May 12, 2002, 10:35 PM
the issue seems to be naming the blasted machine over the reality of the machine. I wouldnt be surpised to see this machine at MWNY one bit. I would also not be surpised to see this called a G5 machine. Here's why. 1) the G4 chip is in every machine but the ibook and 15" imac. 2) Much like the introduction of the G4 the machine is basically a super G4 (not quit a G5 but what does the public know) 3) Moto is being very careful about the G5.
Honestly i think Apple needs to change their naming scheme. each product has a name iMac. Then each revision has a number 1 (original design) 2 (first major revision) and then update number 0 (original machine) 1 (first update) so the flat panel imac would be the iMac 2.0 while the identification on the front says iMac. in all documentation and plate engravings it says imac 2.0. the current Powermac G4 should be the Powermac G4 2.2 because i believe this is the second update for the quicksilver G4. when talking to a genius at the local Apple store by saying you have a ibook 2.0 he knows which line of machine you have and then you simply state what processor is in the thing. I think this system would alleve some of the headaches (no pun intended) the "simplistic" naming scheme has caused us.

agoldweber
May 13, 2002, 09:42 AM
another thing about these new "doable" specs--

any mention of audio and/or analog video inputs in the new G4 revision?

I know the TiBook got the audio, so I'm thinking they've listened to the many cries and may be putting them back into the Tower.

any thoughts? guesses?

sturm375
May 13, 2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
Dear Lucs,

The reason why apple hasn't offered a 120GB driv eyet is because the ATA 66 can't handle anything bigger then 80GB. I know ATA 100 can handle upto 120GB and ATA 133 can go up to 160GB. Guys if I'm wrong just correct me.

I really hope Apple goes ATA 133. That would solve hard drive dilemas for quite some time.

These numbers are purly coincedence. The ATA number deals with the data transfer speed, not the addressable sectors on a Hard Drive. For many years we have had processors, and BIOS (PC world at least) that was only able to address 32-bits worth of sectors. This will get you to the 80-100 GB range. The newer processors and BIOS use 36-bit, which will get you to 136 (I think). Both the Maxtor ATA 100 and ATA 133 controller cards bring it up to a whopping 48-bit addressing capibility, which gets us into TBs (TeraBytes). The ATA 133 spec is only an intrium, as HD manufactures are quickly developing Serial ATA, which will get rid of the "ribbon" cables in the CPU box, and replace with 2 conductors. This change will also usher in either 64 or 128 bit addressing, meaning we are now getting into hundreds of PB (PetaBytes). also the transfer speeds of Serial ATA are projected to be up to 10x that of ATA 133. I am hearing that we should be looking for this sometime in the later half of '03.

By the way this new BUS structure for the new chips sounds a lot like AMD's HyperTransport BUS structure. Also this whole bottleneck thing is getting out of hand, as the real bottleneck is still at the Disk level. Even with ATA 133, we are talking about many times slower interface that even the slowest bus speed. I can't wait for the further development of the solid state disk storage. I have seen some company producing 1 GB RAM (Card/Disks) It is a PCI card that has 4 DIMM slots on it and acts as a Hard Drive. Granted its only 1 GB, but it is at the speed of the PCI BUS, not the ATA BUS. Very fast!

TyleRomeo
May 13, 2002, 06:23 PM
thanx sturm375 for clearing that up.

so what do you predict will be the max that the new top of line PM with be able to hold in a single IDE drive? 160GB? 180?

sturm375
May 14, 2002, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by TyleRomeo
thanx sturm375 for clearing that up.

so what do you predict will be the max that the new top of line PM with be able to hold in a single IDE drive? 160GB? 180?

At the moment, the limiting factor on Hard Drive size is physical. They are having trouble physicaly putting more than 160 GB on a single drive. However that can be bypassed by using RAID (0 or 1, I can't remember which) that turns multipule hard drives into on big one. I saw on www.thescreensavers.com where they strung 4 160 GB Hard Drives together to make one big 640 GB Drive.

drastik
May 14, 2002, 04:00 PM
What does everyone think of the new server specs as realted to this rumor. How likely are we to get 333 DDR in the PMs if only 266 in the servers. Maybe the 266 is more stable and can take a bigger punch, so the servers get that? I don't know...

sturm375
May 14, 2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by drastik
What does everyone think of the new server specs as realted to this rumor. How likely are we to get 333 DDR in the PMs if only 266 in the servers. Maybe the 266 is more stable and can take a bigger punch, so the servers get that? I don't know...

In order to see 333 DDR you will need to have the motherboard running at a 166 MHz bus speed. That will take a major revision. I think I have heard that the next revision will be 400 MHz, scheduled for when the G5 hits the market. Funny how this all parallels AMD chipsets;)

3rdpath
May 14, 2002, 10:43 PM
my guess is the new powermacs will use the same ddr that we saw today in the server.

on another note, i was perplexed about(and skeptical) that the server could contain all the rumored specs in a 1u. well, who would've guessed it would be 28" deep...thatsa bigga pizza box. ( approximately as wide as your mac keyboard and mousepad, side by side)

i've been hoping the new PM would be rack-mountable but not if its that big. my deepest rack is only 22" deep so where am i gonna put that slab? ( most racks are 20"-24" deep). maybe they'll make a shallower 4u model. hope so.

just a thought. :)

Catfish_Man
May 14, 2002, 10:55 PM
...still use the SDR 133MHz FSB, to get full DDR support (DDR FSB, as well as RAM) we need a new processor. The question is, will it be the 7470 (G4++) or the 7500 (G5), or something else?

Falleron
May 15, 2002, 03:35 AM
Are there any figure on how much faster this system is compared to the dual Ghz tower?? I am trying to get an idea of how much faster the new towers will be.

TiVoFan
May 27, 2002, 11:44 PM
My must urgent question in the wait vs. buy now issue is: will the new PowerMacs boot into OS 9? If yes, I can wait (albeit with excruciating anticipation); if not, I want to buy now while the rebates are plentiful!

Rower_CPU
May 28, 2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by TiVoFan
My must urgent question in the wait vs. buy now issue is: will the new PowerMacs boot into OS 9? If yes, I can wait (albeit with excruciating anticipation); if not, I want to buy now while the rebates are plentiful!

Wow, I guess Apple's pushing OS X so hard that people think 9 is being left completely out in the dust.

Yes, new PowerMacs will absolutely be able to boot into 9. It will have OS X as the default startup disk, but 9 will also be installed.

Megaquad
May 28, 2002, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by j763
I think we'll see bumped up G4's AND G5's. I say this because of what I pointed out the other day...

If you didn't see it, think about this, Apple's Web Server has the directory http://www.apple.com/powermac/g4/ ready to be used (it's currently pointing back at the main powermac page).

If we don't see any G5's at MWNY, there are going to be some really pissed off people out there...
new powermacs are going to be 7470 cpu's,same appear to be in xserve since they are only ones who support DDR and L3 cache
PPC 7500 will come out in new powermacs in mwny2003,and g5's might come out somewhere in 2004

ConradG4
Jun 29, 2002, 08:55 PM
If you guys haven't noticed, the G5 chipset is already out, straight from MacCentral:

G5 and the Mac

The automotive and communications markets are crucial to Motorola. However, Motorola's spokesperson told MacCentral that just because the latest fabrication technologies are being introduced into these markets first does not mean that Motorola is focusing development in these areas to the detriment of the computing space. The spokesperson said that the first G4 was the first Motorola product to be manufactured using a copper manufacturing process rather than aluminum and the copper process then was implemented on many of Motorola's other products. How and when new developments become implemented depends on when a technology becomes available, where the technology is most feasible and beneficial, and when it is convenient in the development cycle to implement it.

Motorola has already announced many G5 processor products -- the MPC 8540 in the networking space, announced at this year's Microprocessor Forum and the MPC5500 family in the automotive space, announced October 1, 2001. The MPC 8540 is one of the first G5 products to be announced and will be sampling in the first half of 2002, according to Motorola's Microprocessor Forum presentation. None of these G5 processors have all of the necessary components to be used by Apple on the desktop.

According to Motorola's microprocessor strategy roadmap, all fifth generation (or G5) products take advantage of Motorola's latest fabrication technologies. The G5 generation of Motorola processors use Motorola's seven layer 0.13-micron SOI manufacturing process. This is Motorola's most advanced manufacturing process, and is the most important of a half-dozen or so new features that Motorola is adding to its PowerPC processors with the fifth design generation. However, Motorola's spokesperson told MacCentral that Apollo was not able to take advantage of this process due to its earlier introduction date. The G5 products that Motorola has announced have all been announced in the past year since Apollo's announcement.

To date, Motorola has made no G5 announcements in the computing space. The processors that Apple would need have different capabilities and performance characteristics than those in the automotive or communications spaces. Typically, Motorola will publicly announce a major new generation of processors in a core market months to a year before it ships.

Motorola declined to comment about if the Apollo processor, or when an undisclosed G5 processor, would be used on any new high-end Power Macs. However, a G5 based Power Mac in the near future seems unlikely with the Apollo processor scheduled to ship so soon at a significant performance boost. Additionally, both Motorola and IBM typically announce new computing processors publicly before their adoption by major customers like Apple. Recent examples of this practice include the 7410 G4, which was announced by Motorola shortly before the Microprocessor Forum last year and later used by Apple in the Power Mac G4, and the 750CX and CXe, both introduced by IBM at last year's Embedded Processor Forum and later used by Apple in iMac and iBook models.




From reading this I think it is fairly probable for there to be a G5 at MWNY, this was from Dec 4 of 2001. If they had the G5 chip then, why wouldn't they have it for MacWorld 6 months later?

For full article read: http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0112/04.motorola.php

ConradG4
Jun 29, 2002, 09:11 PM
This posted December 3, 2001...

Ok, look at this article: http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/12/03/G5.mac.idg/

Conceding that work on the G5 chip is progressing "well", Clark warned that Motorola "doesn't want to fan the flames of expectation".

"There's only one announced product built on the E500 core that's at the base of G5s," Clark explained. Announced at the Microprocessor Forum in San Jose in October, this is an embedded product (the MPC 8540) designed for high-speed networking applications.

If you have read up about the future networking aspects of macs: i.e. mb an upgrade to XServe?

Here is another snippit:

a G5-based product could be announced. The report claims Apple Computer's G5 products may feature speeds of up to 1.6GHz. It also predicts Apple will introduce a faster implementation of FireWire, with Double Data Rate RAM (DDR RAM), a fast system bus and up to 512K of on-die cache. Predictions from other sources posit the introduction of USB 2.0 and a much improved motherboard architecture.


That is a lot of what we have been hearing lately eh????

Want Rapid I/O?! here ya go!

He confirmed that G5 features will include a Rapid Input/Output architecture, and 32-bit and 64-bit backward-compatible chips. These microprocessors will be built using Motorola's 0.1-micron silicon-on-insulator (SOI) technology. Motorola expects to reach 2GHz capacity with these chips "at some point", he said.


You guys might be suprised yet... It has been 6 months since these posts... If you know anything about electrical engineering and development processes, six months is plenty of time to implement.

Cappy
Jun 29, 2002, 10:45 PM
For what it's worth when the G4 systems were released it caught everyone offguard. All of the rumor sites that I recall were not expecting the announcement and were quite surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple pulled something similar again. If I were to make a wild guess though I would say that the system won't be called a G5 and will be one more level up to become the truly highend.

I realize that goes against the simplicity of the product line that they've talked about before but with the latest moves in the video industry, I'm guessing that Apple is going to want a big ticket powerhouse to sell folks. And we've already seen the eMac added to the public line just after Jobs declared the CRT dead.

As always it's anyone's guess what will happen.

blogo
Jun 30, 2002, 04:10 AM
I'm gonna tell you something

Every time you post a reply in this tread i get an e-mail, it's over a month since i got that e-mail last time, so how and why are you digging up these old topics?

gaomay
Jul 1, 2002, 03:18 AM
Hey folks,

Given the speed increase when the iBook G3 went from 256k L2 to 512k, will we be seeing a similiar increase on the new G4s for thge PMs?
Just a thought.

DavPeanut
Jul 1, 2002, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by dongmin
If Bluetooth is built-in, could the wireless mouse and keyboard rumors be true too?
They would need batteries. That would be bad in many ways.

shadowfax0
Jul 3, 2002, 06:07 PM
To my understandng, they were gonna have this swag green-light, and would charge through the keyboard, and would only need to be chared every week or so, i hope that's a reality, it's be SOO cool!

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 06:27 PM
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4’s don’t operate at 2.4 Ghz.
My electronics teacher informed me that a true and verifiable test was performed on the P4 to measure it’s operating speed. The University that did the study hooked up oscilloscopes to the P4 to find it’s Hertz reading. What they discovered was the main cpu runs at 1.2 Ghz and the co-processor (Internal Math) runs at 1.0 Ghz. Intel added the 2 speeds together to advertise a total additive speed of 2.4 Ghz. The P4 isn’t a true 2.4 Ghz and up processor. The P4 actual speed runs far less than the advertised speed. Intel can do this cause there isn’t any government regulation on processor speeds. This is very similar to the case of the monitors being sold by viewable and monitor size. The government started to require a “buyer beware” regulation stating the true viewable size verse the monitor’s physical size. Not many people know this fact cause the results have just been published. This also explains the huge difference in the Athlon 1.7Ghz kiling the P4 2.4Ghz. Come on guys do the math 1.7 greater than 2.4????? I’ll try to find a link soon and post it. This could really change the future of the computer industry. All you people thinking wintel is winning......surprise!! Bottom line stick with the MAC. Intel is pulling the wool over people’s eyes. Just like Microsoft. Like those apples....

Wake up people!!!!
Spread the real News!!!!
Knowledge is contagious!!!

PrdstMnky19
Jul 4, 2002, 01:04 AM
fast - 933Mhz
faster - 1.13GHz
fastest - 1.33GHz

don't know about a dual????

All g4, of course, nothing faster. 1.5GHz will never happen, i'd like to see it, but with everyones hopes up, apple will disappoint. however, if the fastest come out at 1.33GHz, that would then become the fast model at San Francisco and things could line up as

Fast 1.33GHz
Faster 1.66Ghz
Fastest 2.0GHz

just a thought is all

DavPeanut
Jul 4, 2002, 10:18 AM
od thoughts,but I see your reasoning. The middle would be a 1200 because thats a multiple of 133.

MikeH
Jul 9, 2002, 10:06 AM
Hey Johnny, didn't you post this one a some days back in the 'Apple market share grows' thread.

It kicked off an amusing tit for tat posting session I'll grant you, but if you haven't got anything new to say or can't keep to the topic, give it a rest mate.

-----

Back to the New Power Macs - sound good to me, I just hope the DVD writer is in the base model too.