PDA

View Full Version : 7470 PPC and Why no G5's.


arn
May 12, 2002, 02:29 PM
After publishing possible specs for upcoming PowerMacs, the discussions invariable return to G5s, with people holding out hope that G5's will be released "any day now". However... based on all available information, G5's are likely not expected until 2003 at least.

In Feb 2002, the G4's and Beyond (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/02/20020211184742.shtml) article references a Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/24018.html) which reports upcoming G4 processors that are to be introduced over the coming year:

According to Motorola sources, a tweaked version of the Apollo 7450 G4, the 7470, will be ready for volume production shortly after the end of Q2, in time for a summer ramp. The 7470 will be manufactured on a 0.13 micron process, allowing for a smaller die size with room for 512K of L2 cache, and support up to 4MB of DDR-SDRAM L3 cache.

The 7470 supports a modified bus protocol, MPX+, which supports double data transfer and which should effectively run at 266Mhz according to sources.

The MPX+ bus retains MPX's 36-bit addressing lines, and is described as an interim measure. Don't expect dramatic leaps in SMP scaling - two will remain the sweet spot. The 7470 should scale to 1.5GHz. In parallel development, Motorola is priming a cut-down 7470, labelled the 7460, which doesn't support L3 cache.

In another report from Jan, 2002, MacCentral quotes (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0201/29.motorola.php) Motorola on how the G4/Apollo chip still has a lot of life left in it:

It is important to note that this is only the first installment in this [G4] processor family. "The big news here is that this device is certainly not topped out," said Swearingen. Mac users can reasonably expect incremental performance increases from this processor family in the future, taking Apollo to its promised GHz+ performance levels.

While we'd like to tell you outlandish tales of teleporters and G6's... expecting true G5 processors "any day now" is setting yourself up for disappointment, based on available information. That being said, there were alternative rumors (Register) (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23078.html),Architosh (http://www.architosh.com/news/2001-11/2001a-1130-appleg5.phtml) as well... and we'd love to be proved wrong.

trilogic
May 12, 2002, 02:52 PM
but me want G5:(

firewire2001
May 12, 2002, 03:00 PM
well, im jus wondering.. cant apple technically call the new processor whatever they want? i mean, they could call the faster processors g5s, although this isnt apples track record.. i mean, i know the g4 was in a completely different class than the g3s, but they were WAY diff in speeds -- well i mean, the g3s couldnt go at the speeds of the baseline g4s, i dont think-- maybe apple calssifies its proccessors by speeds, or sumthin?

just my two cents

Backtothemac
May 12, 2002, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by firewire2001
well, im jus wondering.. cant apple technically call the new processor whatever they want? i mean, they could call the faster processors g5s, although this isnt apples track record.. i mean, i know the g4 was in a completely different class than the g3s, but they were WAY diff in speeds -- well i mean, the g3s couldnt go at the speeds of the baseline g4s, i dont think-- maybe apple calssifies its proccessors by speeds, or sumthin?

just my two cents

Actually, they could, but they won't. They may call it a G4 squared or something, but no, they will not call it a G5. These rumors are dead on to everything that I have heard. We will see a G5, but a super G4 would be great for me. :cool:

lucs
May 12, 2002, 03:22 PM
Aight people, listen up:

THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID DISAPPOINTMENT IS TO FORGET ABOUT G5s IN MWNY. IF YOU DON'T, YOU MAY FEEL LIKE JUMPING OFF A CLIFF IF THEY DON'T COME OUT.

Cmon people, lets stop deceiving ourselves, we know the G5 is not ready yet, it is most definetely on the works, but not yet ready. If you aim for a faster G4, you will not be as dissatisfied and if the G5s happen to come out, you will burst with joy.

Now lets start speculating about the G7.

rice_web
May 12, 2002, 03:24 PM
Guys,

Did you see where the article mentioned a weaker version of the G4? What the celeron is to the Pentium 4, will be the weak G4 to the 4MB L3 Cache G4.

I think that Apple may come up with a crafty name for the crappy G4, and place it in every Mac out there. Meanwhile, a G4 with a killer 4MB level 3 cache could be placed in the pro line to differentiate between the two lines. This could allow Apple to even allow the same processor speeds (in MHz), but emphasize the cache for their pro line.

Catfish_Man
May 12, 2002, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Actually, they could, but they won't. They may call it a G4 squared or something, but no, they will not call it a G5. These rumors are dead on to everything that I have heard. We will see a G5, but a super G4 would be great for me. :cool:

...the G4+ could have been called the G5. It added L3 cache, 3 new pipeline stages and 2 new pipelines, which is a much bigger jump than say... 604e Mach5 to G3. The new one could very well be called the G5, it will certainly provide the type of performance you might expect from a G5.

rice_web
May 12, 2002, 03:45 PM
Why rename it? There really is no point this late in the game. If they wait until the true 5th generation PPC processor from MOTO comes out, they won't be accused of using naming schemes to boost sales.

For the notebook side of things, notice the .13 micron process. The PowerBooks and iBooks will take a liking to these processors immediately, for both the less heat and longer battery lives associated with the new manufacturing process.

agent302
May 12, 2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by rice_web
Guys,

Did you see where the article mentioned a weaker version of the G4? What the celeron is to the Pentium 4, will be the weak G4 to the 4MB L3 Cache G4.

I think that Apple may come up with a crafty name for the crappy G4, and place it in every Mac out there. Meanwhile, a G4 with a killer 4MB level 3 cache could be placed in the pro line to differentiate between the two lines. This could allow Apple to even allow the same processor speeds (in MHz), but emphasize the cache for their pro line.

The "weak" G4 has existed for quite sometime. It's what was in the previous iteration of the Powerbook and the current versions of the iMac, eMac, and low-end PowerMac. They probably won't differentiate names based on cache because the functional units of the processor will be the same.

Spidermanjohn
May 12, 2002, 04:33 PM
Been a lurker for a while now. Living in Sactown has its advantages when it comes to hearing things about Mac. Have an insider telling me Apple is sitting on new advancements until the economy picks up and can justify the release of these products. Don't kill the messenger only passing on what I was told by an Apple employee. Have had former students of mine who now work for Apple telling me the same thing.

Why is it no windoze only user understands Mac??? I use both platforms in my line of work and each has its strengths. Had an employee at CompUSA tell me he hates the Mac. I asked him if he had tried the Mac, he said no?!? I asked why he hated the Mac? My dad says it sucks!!! So you never try things for yourself and make a decision on your own huh??? Well, you know the rest of the story.

Nothing does video better than a Mac and FCP IMHO.

On another note: Just loaded OS X 10.1.4 on my G3 500 Powerbook, man what a speed increase! I am typing this on my pb running OS X, Airport which works a lot better now, even better than 9.2 and have classic open for word. Classic Word launched in under 10 seconds, WOW!!! Can't tell classic is even there now.

jelloshotsrule
May 12, 2002, 04:34 PM
i don't see them emphasizing cache in the naming scheme itself... but who knows

all in all, i think the new hypothesized g4s sound quite good and i'd like one. but of course that won't happen for a while.

if the ddr ram does half as much as most people have said it would, it will be a big boost.

and 400 mhz boost in one update is the biggest recent increase that i can remember at least.

but perhaps it's still not the bomb we're waiting for jobsy to drop on us... yet.

oh well. that just leaves more room for rumors.

jasonpaul75
May 12, 2002, 04:36 PM
I have had my G4 450 Dual processor for a long...long time. I may be completely crazy but it certianly outpaces almost every single processor machine I have ever worked with at my office. Especially under 10.1.
I may be clearly crazy...but I will not be buying another machine to compliment this one until I see "real" performance progress. I have no problem paying for a top of the line...and its likely that I will always have to in order to get the Dual processor machines from here on out...but I really need to see the overall difference. I am cerainly glad everyone else is willing to upgrade for simple changles like built-in Bluetooth (this kind of rabid unnecessary purchasing keeps Apple in biz)....but you can give me a $50 adapter any day.

I love new tech when my office pays for it (hence my desire to slap the hand of anyone who touched my G4 powerbook)...but seriously. There is about a 2.5 year window on necessary hardware quality shifts...If you really work with the hardware you will see this. I have a close friend with a G4 cube who is still generally very pleased with its performance...

"believe"

Jason-Paul

Mr. Anderson
May 12, 2002, 04:51 PM
Ah, snit. I think I'm going to change my 'tar now, its looking pretty ludicrous. I have to defer to the common wisdom here and acknowledge that the G5 is a long shot in the short term.:(


Show me the G4+

G4scott
May 12, 2002, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by firewire2001
well, im jus wondering.. cant apple technically call the new processor whatever they want? i mean, they could call the faster processors g5s, although this isnt apples track record.. i mean, i know the g4 was in a completely different class than the g3s, but they were WAY diff in speeds -- well i mean, the g3s couldnt go at the speeds of the baseline g4s, i dont think-- maybe apple calssifies its proccessors by speeds, or sumthin?

The G4's actually came at the same, if not a lower clock speed (the baseline was 350 mhz after Apple raised their prices...)

Originally posted by Catfish_Man


...the G4+ could have been called the G5. It added L3 cache, 3 new pipeline stages and 2 new pipelines, which is a much bigger jump than say... 604e Mach5 to G3. The new one could very well be called the G5, it will certainly provide the type of performance you might expect from a G5.

No... calling it a G5 would've been wrong. It was just an upgraded G4, and that's it...

Lets get over it guys. Apple IS NOT going to release a computer with a G4 chip in it and call it a G5! It will be called a G5 when it has a G5 chip in it...

Hemingray
May 12, 2002, 06:31 PM
Until they DO come out with a G5, or a G4 with the rumored G5 specs, Apple won't get another cent from me (for a new CPU). In terms of processor/bus speed, they really haven't come that far from when I bought the first model G4 three years ago. It's kinda scary.

Who knows, though. I'll be waiting for July. :)

Macmaniac
May 12, 2002, 07:07 PM
From what I can tell now it looks like we may get the G5 at MWSF in 2003 at the earliest, or MWNY 2003 at the latest. Meanwhile Apple should increase bus speed and get to 1.5ghz and add DDR ram. This I think we will see at MWNY.
Lets hope, we don't want the best chip ever to be rushed.

kaneda
May 12, 2002, 08:04 PM
What if a guy who started this post working for Apple and tried to spread B.S. rumors about G4? but G5 is ready to go in MWNY... we will never know
:D

Silver Dragon
May 12, 2002, 08:14 PM
Why is everyone so ga ga over the G5? Because it's 64 bit? Well, that gets you more memory, but not these great speed enhancements I hear about. Besides, the current G4 is 32x32x64x128 bit (I believe). Does everyone want the G5 because it's one number bigger than the G4? If that's it, I have a G7 I can sell you RIGHT NOW! It's 2 whole numbers bigger than the G4!!!

What *I* am hoping for is Apple to go to IBM for the G5. As I have stated before, there are issues with Altivec when doing this, but it would be cool. Don't think for one second that Motorola is the only company working with Vector units in the PPC.

I just don't understand. Can someone please explain? Maybe I'm just missing something.

gbojim
May 12, 2002, 09:06 PM
Now this makes much more technical sense than the other things we are hearing. Tweaking the G4 to handle DDR would not be a huge deal. You also get a natural clock increase with the 0.13u process. Tweak the mobo to handle ATA133 and you would get a major performance increase.

It would also make sense then to use this CPU in the consumer products when the G5 is released into the PowerMac and PowerBook families.


What *I* am hoping for is Apple to go to IBM for the G5. As I have stated before, there are issues with Altivec when doing this, but it would be cool. Don't think for one second that Motorola is the only company working with Vector units in the PPC.

I just don't understand. Can someone please explain? Maybe I'm just missing something.
Lots of vector processing units exist. Problem is that Motorola owns Altivec and using these technologies is not a simple re-compile. Apple would have to hand tool a lot of code to add an IBM SIMD to the mix.

utilizer
May 12, 2002, 09:07 PM
I could really buy an Apple tower finally after holding out hope for a G5 -- I've owned my PowerBook Firewire G3 for almost two years now and the only problem I've had with it, within the last month out of its entire life of ownership, is that it had bad RAM installed in it and a bad sound card. Other than that, everything is right.
I was really hoping for a G5 would show up at MWSF but didn't, then I heard it would show up at MWNY -- Now you guys say "No go, no way, no how".
I say: I'm still optimistic of a G5 showing up, two reasons:
1. Apple hasn't surprised us lately, it's time to inject some more juice into the company and shock the world!
2. MWNY 2001 was disasterous! Many were disappointed and thoroughly upset! Understandably so considering that DVD was the "highlight" of the show. You could tell SJ was pissed off; nothing went right; the digital camera he had, he threw at an assistant which broke on the spot as he tossed (unsuccessfully!) the camera to floor towards her! He was obviously upset and looked as if that instance was built on top of another headache that occurred earlier -- Being up all through the night, only getting four hours of sleep, so yeah, we know what really happened. Motorola F'ed up and continues to do so to this day; they are the reason why Apple is sooo behind and struggling to stay alive in this marketplace.

I have no interest in the current G4 desktop pro lines; I HATE THE ENCLOSURE. Who ever heard of covers over a ZIP drive or CD drive?! You can't stick a paper clip in there anymore if a disk gets stuck! That's crazy! Excuse me, you can, but if your stuff won't boot up, well then you're screwed since you have to access Drive Setup to eject the silly thing!
Here's my take on this entire thing and my plans for whatever occurs at MWNY 2002:
1. SJ says about the Pro lines: NO G5s, no new enclosure; same sorry-as* design we've been using for the past 3 1/2 years folks! Go home and go forth, spread the word about the crappiest line of comps available!!
REGARDLESS OF PERFORMANCE, ETC.! I DON'T CARE!

2. SJ says this: Hey, we've got G4s and G5s mixed up in the pro lines, modified enclosure, slight changes, (MAYBE I'll go for it) and that's that.

3. SJ says: Pro line is all G5s (unlikely) and new enclosure.

4. SJ exclaims: New enclosure, same processor.

If 1 or 2 happens, I'll likely buy a PowerBook after they get upgraded to their new enclosures hopefully soon. If not, then I guess I'll be stuck with my Pismo, which is perfectly fine with me. This is my way of saying to Apple:
"You must not care to survive in this marketplace and therefore you deserve to die away."

Hoping for 3 or 4. Let's hope it comes true!

shadowfax0
May 12, 2002, 09:17 PM
Dual 1.5's with a more compact chip design (.13 microns is about the cutting edge right now) with DDR, a faster bus speed, and faster internals, BRING IT ON! The G4 is great, I'm whipping people's 1.2 GhZ's with my DP 450, and I've got slow internals, wow, screw the G5, this is great! It's just about G4 in name now...:D

arn
May 12, 2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by utilizer

I have no interest in the current G4 desktop pro lines; I HATE THE ENCLOSURE. Who ever heard of covers over a ZIP drive or CD drive?!


there's no cover on the zip drive if u have it installed.


If 1 or 2 happens, I'll likely buy a PowerBook after they get upgraded to their new enclosures hopefully soon. If not, then I guess I'll be stuck with my Pismo, which is perfectly fine with me.


I doubt the Powerbooks will get updated enclosures any time soon.

arn

Silver Dragon
May 12, 2002, 10:05 PM
Lots of vector processing units exist. Problem is that Motorola owns Altivec and using these technologies is not a simple re-compile. Apple would have to hand tool a lot of code to add an IBM SIMD to the mix.

Right, hence the comment on the Altivec issues in my original post (although vague). I think the only way this will work is if Apple or IBM buys the rights to Altivec from Motorola. I would not rule that out completely as Motorola's processor division does not seem to be doing so well right now. From there you could incorporate Altivec into the now IBM processor. The question is, would IBM then enhance Altivec or create a different vector unit requiring yet more coding?

The chances are slim to none that any of this would happen. I'm just hoping that Apple moves away from Motorola and to IBM for their processors. Motorola does not have the facilities to take care of the Apple crowd like IBM does. Another option would be to allow Intel to produce PPCs for Apple, but I *highly* doubt that will happen any time soon.

Anyhow that's just my $.02. Could be wrong.

j763
May 13, 2002, 12:05 AM
We will get a G5. Everyone in the apple community will be thoroughly pissed off. If this happens, SJ may as well drop MWNY... and i think he will if he has 2 years in a row go so unsuccessfully

mozez
May 13, 2002, 12:23 AM
i find this funny. the specs for the newg4s to be released and the article released about the new chips shows just how much apple has dropped and how sad the apple coommunity has fallen. the "mpx" is an athlon technology, as well as the chipset for the ddr ram. yes, motorola had to get it from amd b/c they own the technology rights.
now what makes all this funny, is everyone is so happy to accept second rate technology, and it is second rate. they have proven, so please, no yelling, they have proven that a dual athlon 1.4 can do real world projects nearly twice as fast as the dual 1ghz macs, so that is now final, no arguements. now they are up to dual 1.9, with faster front side buses, and faster ram, and newer technology. after the final release of the benchmarks and companies agreeing, some mac users got mad, true mac users gave this reply, "osx and the os apple provides is why i buy a mac, not because it is or is not the fastest item of the day." this is a true mac user. guys, stop yelling about a g4 or g5, it doesn't really matter all that much, if you are looking for true speed and that's your main concern, then just buy a pc, it will be ten times cheaper and it will go twice as fast, even in photoshop and after effects, and others. but, if you love apple, like me, then buy it for the os, the stability, the ease of use, the programs, and everything else great on the mac, but if you are looking for the next great thing in hardware, apple is so far behind it's not even funny. i think this is why so many people are begging for the g5 to come out, they think this might jump apple back in, or they can shut their friends with pcs up that the pcs are faster.
all the parts in apple's machines are now pc driven, back in the day when used scsi and different mobos it was a big difference, but now, it doesn't matter.
i hope osx stays for a long time, i really love it, and if i buy a new mac, i'll buy it for that, not for what's inside, cause all it is, is pc hardware with a risc processor, and i can get that from ibm if i want, but only apple can give me osx.

mozez
May 13, 2002, 12:27 AM
ibm has the right to use the altivec engine, they choose not to b/c it's inefficient for their purposes. they can do whatever they want to it because they helped break the speed barrier that motorola had. ibm can do whatever they'd like to the altivec, and if apple was smart, they'd drop motorola, and just hire ibm. motorola is great, but they don't give apple enough attention. they do embedded processors, mobile, wireless, not cpus, not enough money towards r&d. ibm has the money, they know how risc works, they have proven it time and time again. all apple has to do, is pay them to do what they do best, and maybe put apple back in the game.

Rower_CPU
May 13, 2002, 12:33 AM
mozez-

Care to back any of what you said up with URLs, or some sort of concrete evidence?

The truth is that ANY chip manufacturer can find tests that show their particular processor has superior performance to someone elses. We all know that Moto is behind in many respects, but saying their chips/chipsets are slower for ALL uses is preposterous.

The Bender
May 13, 2002, 01:07 AM
Please do not feed the Troll.

eirik
May 13, 2002, 02:32 AM
A couple of posters have made a really appropo point: what doth a "G5" make? The "G5" that finally comes out could turn out performance akin to that of the Itanium family when it first came out, for all we know.

What does a CPU, or for that matter, what does a PowerMac have to do to satisfy us? The easy answer, it has to irrefutably beat the crap out of anything comparable in the x86 world.

Well, one of the essential elements to success is managing expectations. Vague expectations make a difficult target. And, wanting faster computers than the other guys just locks us and them in a costly cycle of upgrades.

That said, I'm not denying the existance of a legitimate need for speed. Hell, on my Windoze box, which I'll use until a PowerMac and other things are available that suit my needs (another topic), can't play highly compressed videos worth a damn because of a desperate lack of horsepower.

With all the energy put into this and other forums, I'm disappointed that we have little to no specific benchmarks. I'd really love to see us gather ten or twenty (or more) performance measures to benchmark--real world, not just Photoshop. How long to convert a 600MB mpeg-2 to an avi-divx3? How long to render some standard file... GUI performance measures too.

You see, we yearn for something unqualified. What is it we really want? Is this just a contest of us (Mac) versus them (x86)? If that's all this is about, then maybe we're all just a bunch of suckers, making the chip and computer makers shareholders wealthier because we constantly buy the newest throughbred to one-up somebody.

This would all seem so much more rationale if we had some specific performance objectives that suit our real-world needs.

Just imagine the impact (progress proceeds more rapidly when there are specific, measurable objectives) on Apple and its partners if the Macrumors forum published a specific, realistic, comprehensive list of performance objectives: near- and short-term.

Eirik:o

groovebuster
May 13, 2002, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
mozez-

The truth is that ANY chip manufacturer can find tests that show their particular processor has superior performance to someone elses. We all know that Moto is behind in many respects, but saying their chips/chipsets are slower for ALL uses is preposterous.

But you have to be true about it, that tests over a long time showed, that a G4 processor has about the same overall performance at the same clockspeed compared to an Athlon. We have to face the truth. Of course we have here and there tasks that one particular processor can handle better, but the overall perfomance is what counts in daily life. When you really need just high performance these days you go with a Dual Athlon. If pure performance isn't really what you need, you stick with the Mac. That's what I do meanwhile... and don't think I am happy with it, I would prefer to do all my work with a Mac.

It doesn't help to just ignore that the performance gap is widening more every day, because "it just can't be"! I see the difference almost every day during my work. It is not by accident, that Apple is shutting up pretty much about the "MHz Myth" lately, because it is just not true anymore. It was true compared to a Pentium IV (maybe 30% clockspeed difference), but when a processor is clocked more than double, it is faster anyway, even a P4 with it's ****ty architecture.

I am concerned about the future a little bit, because Apple is losing ground in the pro market.

And let's be true... even if the G5 will be there one day, it is not that AMD and Intel won't do anything until it's released. They also want to upgrade to the next processor generation. Consider the hammer (AMD). What if it has comparable performance to the G5? Nobody can say no, as long as the G5 is not released. And if Moto is running after in clockspeed again we maybe will have the same stupid game again like nowadays....

The G5 won't be the answer to everything, if Motorola is performing as bad again to increase the performance of the processor.

groovebuster

ozzy_rover
May 13, 2002, 03:42 AM
The question is not if but when.

Consider :

Apple makes it's money from the hardware.
Apple uses the software as a selling point to justify purchasing of it's pricey hardware.

Okay after a very long (almost too late IMHO) wait we finally get new software to once again replace the seriously outdated OS & differeniate the mac from the PC.

Apple hardware is seriously outdated but because of Apple's reliance on Motorola is not in a position to do anything major soon.

So we get minor incremental improvements that does nothing to Apple's market share & barely keeps us existing users.

Where to from here?
Depends on how long Jobs can successfully keep stringing us along until new hardware is ready... RDF is an amazing thing, the press are certainly on side at present...

How much longer are *you* willing to keep paying premium prices for mutton dressed as lamb?

groovebuster
May 13, 2002, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by ozzy_rover
The question is not if but when.

How much longer are *you* willing to keep paying premium prices for mutton dressed as lamb?

That is exactly the question... I know that _I_ am not willing to buy any new Apple hardware in the near future, if there is not a significant performance boost. Time is money and if I have the feeling that I get more power for less money somewhere else, I'll place my money there. At first I have to earn the money I spend for my hardware and I am not willing anymore to pay still more for "high end" Apple Hardware than for performant PC Hardware, just to have OS X and the Apple Logo on my machine. I hate M$, but I hate it even more to be maybe not competetive anymore because I use Apple hardware for time intense jobs. It's harsh, but the barenaked truth.

It is nice to have a cool OS like MacOS X, but that doesn't help on the long run, when I can finish my jobs significantly faster on other hardware than Apple. The argument of the Usabilty of MacOS is melting away with every day day the Apple hardware is more outdated. I don't only buy a computer because of it's OS, the whole package must be OK. And as I said before, a nice OS doesn't help, if the hardware is more and more like a snail compared to other platforms available.

Don't get me wrong. the Mac has a nice concept, but it doesn't help when it can't keep up with other platforms on speed issues.

groovebuster

Rocketman
May 13, 2002, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by ozzy_rover
The question is not if but when.

Consider :

Apple makes it's money from the hardware.
Apple uses the software as a selling point to justify purchasing of it's pricey hardware.

Okay after a very long (almost too late IMHO) wait we finally get new software to once again replace the seriously outdated OS & differeniate the mac from the PC.

Apple hardware is seriously outdated but because of Apple's reliance on Motorola is not in a position to do anything major soon.

So we get minor incremental improvements that does nothing to Apple's market share & barely keeps us existing users.

Where to from here?
Depends on how long Jobs can successfully keep stringing us along until new hardware is ready... RDF is an amazing thing, the press are certainly on side at present...

How much longer are *you* willing to keep paying premium prices for mutton dressed as lamb?

For anyone who has tried to custom configure a computer on a peecee to do what a Mac does soon realizes it costs almost as much to do either.

One of the side benefits of Apple releasing servers (headless CPU in an LC size case rackmountable and stackable) is that people with a true need for speed can finally incrementally add it.

Imagine your HOME CPU soon. You have 3 CPU's in a stack that cost $900 each (combined comparable to a midrange powermac) and you start doing videos. You NEED more power but do not want to give up your work environment, your peripherals, your physical set-up. You add 2-3 more servers. It doubles your computing power.

These are consumer prices too.

Servers everywhere, raid everywhere.

Sales geek: "How many CPU's do you need on your system? 2, 3, or 4?"

Rocketman

quiddzz
May 13, 2002, 08:55 AM
I'm not expecting anything from Motorola. Their Microprocessor division is a joke. The moment they'll release a G5 chip at 1.6Gh, Intel will have a P5 4Gh chip available.

I don't care if the G5 clock cycle will be 3 times faster than the P5's. As far as Consumer Perception is concerned, the G5 will always be MUCH slower than anything out there.

That's the bottom line and it's going to hurt Apple.

BigBen
May 13, 2002, 08:59 AM
Apple definitly has to do something about their image when it comes to speed. Iīm a student in Germany and none of my firends would buy a Mac, simply because they canīt afford a G4 and an Imac? with that graphic-card. For that price (they are much more expensive over here) . And in the End I get a Computer with 800Mhz. You can get a ultra fast AMD with much better graphiccard etc. for at least 500$ less.

edenwaith
May 13, 2002, 09:12 AM
However, if someone wanted to be positive about things, perhaps the G4 improvements are for the G4 iMacs and Ti notebook, and the G5 will be introduced in the next line for the Powermac.

Certainly not saying it will happen, but it might still be a possibility.

edenwaith
May 13, 2002, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Spidermanjohn

Why is it no windoze only user understands Mac??? I use both platforms in my line of work and each has its strengths. Had an employee at CompUSA tell me he hates the Mac. I asked him if he had tried the Mac, he said no?!? I asked why he hated the Mac? My dad says it sucks!!! So you never try things for yourself and make a decision on your own huh??? Well, you know the rest of the story.


I had a similar experience recently. A guy I work with who is from India started to insult my iBook because it was a 'Mac', and then he wanted to know what was so great about my Mac. So I began to explain, starting out with I've had good experiences with Mac hardware, being more reliable than cheap PC hardware. His response was, "That's not a reason." Sounds like a great reason for me. All things considered, after I had fun showing off my Mac and OS X, he shut up. I guess I don't have to crucify him just yet.

He explained that back in India he hadn't ever seen Macs, so he decided not to like them. Yeah, Microsoft's not a monopoly! That's why there are no other choices in some countries....sheesh!

mcrain
May 13, 2002, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by quiddzz
I don't care if the G5 clock cycle will be 3 times faster than the P5's. As far as Consumer Perception is concerned, the G5 will always be MUCH slower than anything out there.

That's the bottom line and it's going to hurt Apple.

With your permission, I would like to add my take on your comment. I'm a PC user right now, and a former mac basher, so I can say pretty confidently that you are correct in that there is a perceived speed deficit when you purchase a mac.

Then again, as a PC user who has had the opportunity to use a few macs, and who has had the time and incentive to read up on macs, there is definately an advantage to macs that PC's can't seem to fix. Reliability.

My computer refuses to do certain things. Repeatedly starts up into an error screen. Tries to go into safe mode all the time. Crashes for no apparent reason. Locks up, dies, crashes, freezes, etc... Control-Alt-Delete is a common occurence, as is hitting save every 5 minutes or so.

I've watched my buddy working on a complicated cad document for 1-2 hours, walk away, eat, come back, work on it some more, and then, only when he felt the changes were done, hit save. Unbelievable confidence in the stability of the machine (and electricity source, but Apple has no control over that).

Apple may be perceived as slower, but ask anyone who has used one for any amount of time, and there is a definate stability benefit to the Macs.

I'm willing to trade Mhz bragging rights if it means that I don't have to feel my blood pressure rise every time my computer crashes. I'm sure my health will benefit in the long run.

groovebuster
May 13, 2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Rocketman


For anyone who has tried to custom configure a computer on a peecee to do what a Mac does soon realizes it costs almost as much to do either.

One of the side benefits of Apple releasing servers (headless CPU in an LC size case rackmountable and stackable) is that people with a true need for speed can finally incrementally add it.

Imagine your HOME CPU soon. You have 3 CPU's in a stack that cost $900 each (combined comparable to a midrange powermac) and you start doing videos. You NEED more power but do not want to give up your work environment, your peripherals, your physical set-up. You add 2-3 more servers. It doubles your computing power.

These are consumer prices too.

Servers everywhere, raid everywhere.

Sales geek: "How many CPU's do you need on your system? 2, 3, or 4?"

Rocketman

Where do you want to take me? What do you mean by „what a Mac does soon“?

And maybe it costs the same to have a PC with the same features as a Mac, but it is still significantly faster than a Mac. And that is the point (that is concerning me).

To add power by just adding some more servers is also not necessarily the way to go. Where do I put the rack for the Servers? Office Space is expensive and a Rack beside every desk can’t be a solution for 98% of the users (not to mention heat and noise issues). They need ONE machine with maximum power. The server farm is maybe good for long and performance hungry rendering jobs, but if you just do modelling it doesn’t help you a lot. The overall performance of your workstation is what counts then. Not for every task clustering of servers helps to increase performance.

And especially for the private home user I don’t see any need to fiddle with server stacks. Again you would need a lot more space for a whole rack of servers compared to a G4 or an iMac. And I don’t think that a lot of people find a big rack so atractive that they want to put it right beside the couch in the living-room. And again the question of noise and heat.

Rack mounted servers are for pros. There is no way in the near future to bring them to home users. To change processor cards would be a nice way to upgrade your Workstation for more power, but that’s what people do already since a while... But since Apple depends on hardware-sales they will never put people in the position to easily upgrade their machines (again). They want to sell new machines and not to make the people stick with their old boxes. I still remember my PowerMac 7500. That was a cool machine and I upgraded it 2 times with an processor upgrade card and all kinds of other stuff. Overall I used it more than 4.5 years, and not only for word-processing. A long time for a computer. And it is still running at a friend’s place for easy music jobs.

So I want one machine with all the power I can get.... and I would prefer it being a Mac. Steve, c’mon!!

groovebuster

mcrain
May 13, 2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by mozez
ibm has the right to use the altivec engine, they choose not to b/c it's inefficient for their purposes. they can do whatever they want to it because they helped break the speed barrier that motorola had. ibm can do whatever they'd like to the altivec, and if apple was smart, they'd drop motorola, and just hire ibm.

Sorry mozez, but you haven't a clue.

Motorola may not be the best developer out there, but they did develop and, more importantly, patent their altivec (that is my understanding, although I have not researched the patent). Assuming a patent exists, others can do their own vector stuff so long as it does not include the altivec technology, but no one can use altivec without Moto's approval. As such, moto can block IBM's, or anyone elses, use of altivec.

Next time you want to make broad sweeping legal conclusions, please include citations and your legal background. Me, I've been doing this for 5 years, and I have a background in corporate, health, and tax law, with a legal education which included elective coursework on intellectual property (to go along with my engineering degree).

Nice try. Next.

(One more thing... isn't mutton lamb?)

ftaok
May 13, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by quiddzz
I'm not expecting anything from Motorola. Their Microprocessor division is a joke. The moment they'll release a G5 chip at 1.6Gh, Intel will have a P5 4Gh chip available.

I don't care if the G5 clock cycle will be 3 times faster than the P5's. As far as Consumer Perception is concerned, the G5 will always be MUCH slower than anything out there.

That's the bottom line and it's going to hurt Apple. Yeah yeah. MOT's a joke.

But what is Apple's alternative? And don't tell me AMD.

Bottom line is that Motorola IS the first company to ship a 1Ghz chip based on the PowerPC architecture. NOT IBM.

Newborn77
May 13, 2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Silver Dragon

...
Another option would be to allow Intel to produce PPCs for Apple, but I *highly* doubt that will happen any time soon
...


There was a rumor sometime ago on Mac OS Rumors about Apple talking to AMD, IBM and others about manufacturing the G5s if Motorola fell too far behind schedule. Maybe they will do that.

Mausabiest
May 13, 2002, 03:25 PM
The Mac is more reliable than a PC. Even Win. 2001 or XP are not so reliable. If you are into computers and like to screw, change graphiccards and build your own hardware because you know afterwards what you have stick with the PC, it is cheaper probably has more speed and it is ugly. But who cares if itīs cheap. If you like to configure your Hardware all the time a PC is the better choice.

I used to been a PC user for over 12 years I didnīt even know about the Mac until my wife told me that she wanted to have one because she does pre-press-work. And I think there is the biggest problem about the Mac, people here in Europe donīt even know that they have an alternative to the PeeCee. Since I have a Mac, I still have my PC but it is used very, very seldom well thinking about it allmost never.

I use a mac because it is so easy to use. You can say a mac is slow, you can say the hardware isnīt up to date but you canīt say that it is hard to understand how to work on a mac. It is so easy, even someone like me figured it out relativly quickliy. If you have no idea how to use a computer and if you have never used a computer before I would definatly recommend a Mac, even if the price is a littel bit higher.

If you have to work on a computer speed is a very important factor. But reliability is as well. The PC at my work a P4 1,7MHz Computer in a Network needs 5 Minutes to start with Win 2001. This is crazy so I leave it on all the time. The networkadministrator knows about the problem but he has no idea why it takes so long.

A Mac is maybe not the fastest computer but leaving the of course importand speed issue aside there are a lot of pros for a Mac besides the negative speed factor.

Q-bert
May 13, 2002, 06:20 PM
Somewhat OT here, but isn't it funny that:

a) One one hand, over here people are screaming for the latest cutting edge hardware, saying that Apple isn't on the ball because they aren't delivering it fast enough to keep up, and that we're all dying to buy new hardware if Apple would only provide it;

b) And meanwhile on some other forums, people are loudly complaining that Apple isn't on the ball because one aspect of the new software, Quartz Extreme, ONLY supports their latest cutting-edge hardware and doesn't work with older and low-end systems - and that we have no interest in buying new hardware at all but would rather use our current systems?

I'd hate to be Apple. It's hard to know who to listen to... ;)

TyleRomeo
May 13, 2002, 09:31 PM
ok i think i have an easy way show the speed comparison between a MACs and PCs.

ok what would you rather have, a Dodge Viper or an Acura NSX?

what has more horsepower?
the viper ofcource, about 200 more then the NSX.

but what car is faster to 60?

the NSX

it's not only horsepower that shows how fast a car is
there are tons of little factors involved
the cars weight
its transmision
ect

the same issue goes for macs
i'll elaborate more on this analogy later when i have more time
i hope this makes sense to someone out there

jasonpaul75
May 13, 2002, 09:39 PM
leading a country. You certainly listen at some point to the masses...but you certainly don't do as they ask all of the time. Besides with only 5 percent (or less) of the market as card carrying mac users....the odds are that you do things that draw new converts....satisfying ever whim of the rabid loyal populace would be wasteful...mac users have proven time and time again that they can be wizzed on and they will stay active advocates for the mac cause..."because in comparison to what else is available why not"

Does any of this make sense to anyone other than me...

I am a mac loyalist...i have been jilted a great many times....

audio in/outs
microphone in
propietary monitor connectors
terrible palm support
my Epson 5700i thats less than a year old and won't work on OSX
I could go on...but why I love my macs...and the other options out there give me cold chills


"believe"

groovebuster
May 14, 2002, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Mausabiest
I used to been a PC user for over 12 years I didnīt even know about the Mac until my wife told me that she wanted to have one because she does pre-press-work. And I think there is the biggest problem about the Mac, people here in Europe donīt even know that they have an alternative to the PeeCee. Since I have a Mac, I still have my PC but it is used very, very seldom well thinking about it allmost never.

If you have to work on a computer speed is a very important factor. But reliability is as well. The PC at my work a P4 1,7MHz Computer in a Network needs 5 Minutes to start with Win 2001. This is crazy so I leave it on all the time. The networkadministrator knows about the problem but he has no idea why it takes so long.

Hallo Nachbar! I don't know from which part of Germany you are, but I am also from there and I always knew that the Mac was existing and an alternative. If you would have said you never used one, OK.... but not even knowing that it exists is close to complete ignorance. So you are never interested in your environment and the tools you are working with? You never saw a Mac magazine somewhere in a book-store? You never saw an Apple commercial or ad your whole life? Wow!!!! Good performance! ;) Because even Apple's market share is around 2,5% in Germany and they are not very present in public, you still can see Macs at a lot of places... and media, e.g. movies.

I really wonder about all the horror stories that people still tell about Windows Computers. Since Windows2000 they are much more reliable than before. They are still not very pretty, but they work OK. All the PCs I had in my life I never had remarkable problems with. They did what they were supposed to do, without all the repairing 24/7 that other people are talking about!

And if your admin can't figure out why your machine boots that slow, then the problem is maybe him and not the computer. What did he do before? Construction worker? So you prefer to waste a huge load of energy during the year just because you don't have the 5 minutes in the morning to boot your computer? You could do other stuff during that time... like going to get a coffee. Don't tell me that you are working on your PC right from the first minute you are in your company. You are a weird guy buddy....

Don't get me wrong, I also love Macs and prefer them to PCs, but all those ferry-tales about how bad PCs work are just not true anymore.

May I ask what kind of work you are doing with your computer at work? A P4 with 1,7 GHz seems a pretty big puppy to me just for word-processing...

groovebuster