Apple Xserve 2.3GHz Graphics Mistake?

[MacRumors]

Several readers noted that Apple Canada (http://www.apple.com/ca/) has an incorrect graphic on their website.

The Xserve G5 graphic notesXserve G5
1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor
Single or dual 2.3GHzThe G5 Xserves which were announced yesterday come in a 2.0GHz, not 2.3GHz.

[macMaestro]

Unsure what to make of this. One thing pops up in mind: not easy to make such a mistake (edit: if it is a mistaken image - easy enough if Apple has a 2.3 Ghz XServe pending anouncment).

The graphic:

[Badtz Maru]

Those are in Canadian GHz! :D

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Those are in Canadian GHz! :D

Heh

[Mr.Hey]

This replaces the front page....is this the canadians version of 404 page not found? ;)

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[macMaestro]

It's gone now - been corrected.

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Those are in Canadian GHz! :D

Those are in Canadian GHz, eh! :p

[backspinner]

It could be just a silly typing error, but the 0 is not close to the 3 key on the top row number, not on a laptop "function keypad" and not on the separate block on the right of normal keyboards. But it is near the . on this block, and maybe they just slipped somewhere in between.

But why would Canada have other images than the other english speaking countries? No they do not need that. It's just a mistake in linking the correct files or uploading them to Akamai. And that means that they created this image on purpose.

The names of the images differ as well: promoxserve01062004 is the 2.3 and xserveg5_01062004 is the 2.0.

[jrv3034]

Who wants to bet that in a few weeks we'll get Dual 2.3 GHz Power Macs?

Here's hoping... That was one WEAK Macworld:(

[ITR 81]

More then likely it means a 2.3 will be appearing in the PM's soon. Or it could mean a 2.3 upgrade in about 3 months?

[panphage]

Originally posted by ITR 81
More then likely it means a 2.3 will be appearing in the PM's soon. Or it could mean a 2.3 upgrade in about 3 months?

Well, the pic is an advert for the Xserve, so I don't see how it could mean speed bumped towers.

[joelc]

Originally posted by panphage
Well, the pic is an advert for the Xserve, so I don't see how it could mean speed bumped towers.

Well, it could be the result of a misunderstanding:

"Hey John, I'm making a graphic. What's the speed of those G5 processors?"
"The ones coming out soon? 2.3 GHz."

Or just some silly mistake that means nothing. I'd bet on that. I hope so, in fact. I'd rather see the rumored 2.6 GHz powermacs instead of a 2.3!

[Niknar]

Well I think it was just a simple mistake.

This is the one on the UK site.
http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/ebab1ced9066b1/www.apple.com/uk/home/images/2004/01/promoxserve.gif
You can see it is different from the US one because it has "2Ghz" instead of "2.0Ghz" as in the US version. That is the only difference.

So if you are some sad guy making individual images for different country then you are bound to make a mistake along the way. Seems like a waste seeing as all the english ones would be the same I would have thought.

Anyway I want a 2.6Ghz in the next powermac (I laugh at people who thought a new powermac would be at macworld :) silly).

[Dippo]

The person who was making the graphic could have had advanced knowledge of the upgrades and subconsciously made the graphic with the faster speeds.

I don't think that Apple would make 2 different graphic for the US and Canada websites. I think that the webmaster accidently just posted the wrong image, which means upgrades are in the future.

[barkmonster]

GEEK ALERT!!!!!

How can the speed of any G5 possibly be anything other than a multiple of 200MHz?

The G5s are currently 200Mhz apart, that suggests a limitation based on multipliers to me or they might have cut things a bit finer, 1.5, dual 1.8 and dual 2Ghz powermacs instead of the current line up would have made the top 2 models look even more appealing.

The FSB is always 1 quarter of the clockspeed x 2 on the G5

Previous PowerPC lines have been limited by the FSB and multiplier increases in .5 increments. I image there's something similar with the G5

Currently we have :

1.6Ghz with 400Mhz x 2 FSB
1.8Ghz with 450Mhz x 2 FSB
2Ghz with 500Mhz x 2 FSB

for a 2.3 Ghz part to exist are we to assume IBM have a part with specs like this :

2.3Ghz with 575Mhz x 2 FSB?

I think it's more than likely we're looking at 200Mhz increments as of now.

I'd hate to be the guy who made that graphic right now!! :D :p

[spencecb]

um, the front side bus is simply running 1/2 the processor speed...its not a quarter of the processor, x2...simply 1/2 the speed.

[Nebrie]

Maybe they'll debut when the new Powermacs come out in a month. Until then they decided to hold back on it and hand out the first few thousand to supercomputer xserve clusters

[true777]

Maybe the 2.3 ones were the ones they tested in Oct (or whenever that was) and didn't find satisfactory, so they went back to a "safe" 2.0 to avoid heat issues, etc? Remember when G5 XServes were "imminent" but were pulled at the last minute due to unsatisfactory testing results? Could have been those.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by backspinner
The names of the images differ as well: promoxserve01062004 is the 2.3 and xserveg5_01062004 is the 2.0.

That's one hell of a promo ... "15% more performance, limited time only!"

[dho]

Originally posted by barkmonster
GEEK ALERT!!!!!

...

The FSB is always 1 quarter of the clockspeed x 2 on the G5



or it may be simpler to say one half :)

1/4 X 2x = 1/2x

your way made it sound more complex and geeky I most award you that.

I am a HIghschool freshmen, How old are you ;)

[ClimbingTheLog]

Sorry, we announced 2.0, but by time they were ready to ship we didn't want to do less than 2.3. Hope you don't mind.

How cheeky, and very Apple.

[joelypolly]

I noticed that on some tool tips (when you stop your most over some pictures a message pops up) it also said 2.3ghz so i am guess they do have 2.3 avaliable but just not for the xserve (PM maybe???;) ). BTW i think they fixed that now

[joelc]

Originally posted by joelypolly
I noticed that on some tool tips (when you stop your most over some pictures a message pops up) it also said 2.3ghz so i am guess they do have 2.3 avaliable but just not for the xserve (PM maybe???;) ). BTW i think they fixed that now

Link for the other 2.3 references?

[joelypolly]

Originally posted by joelc
Link for the other 2.3 references?

LIke i said its been fix now. but was around 26hours ago on the apple au website. at the time i thought it was just a typo

[iAtom]

maybe the configurations will be:

Low-end - dual 2.0 ghz
middle - dual 2.3 ghz
high-end - dual 2.6 ghz

That seems to make sense because they will probably do the same interval but I doubt they will make 1.7 ghz.

edit: I'm talking about powermacs btw

[Steven1621]

does anyone recall back to when they made a similar mistake back when the g5's were coming out?

[DHagan4755]

Maybe it was supposed to be 2.3GHz, but there weren't enough supplies of 2.3GHz chips to make it announce-able.

[bertinman]

the main page still has the error.

the pic is fine but the alt text says 2.3

[coumerelli]

just looking at the source from apple's home page gave me this:

<td width="170"><a href="/xserve/" onClick="adclick('/xserve/01062004','Promo - Xserve G5 - 01062004')"><img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0"

alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"></a></td>

look at the very last bit... :confused:

things that make you go, "hmmmm?" :rolleyes: :D ;) :cool:

[panphage]

Originally posted by spencecb
um, the front side bus is simply running 1/2 the processor speed...its not a quarter of the processor, x2...simply 1/2 the speed.

I *think* the first poster is technically correct. The FSB is 1/4 the proc speed, double-pumped. Perhaps I'm crazy.

Anyway, what's 1/2 of 2.3? Still a bit odd: 1150. Not as wacky as 575, but weird anyway.

I really like the 2.0 2.3 2.6 theory, it'll get them REALLY close to the 3.0 promised for July (or August or September, depending on how you figure it ;) ) Maybe they're getting good speed out of the 90nm chips but don't want to overextend themselves AGAIN so soon after all the trouble they had getting the Dual 2.0 PMs out. I could even see Apple having a 2.6 but only putting it in the towers since I've gotten the impression that mission-critical servers don't really want to be on the bleeding edge of tech. Or at least enterprise customers tend not to want them bleeding.

EDIT: oh, and the main Apple page STILL has 2.3GHz in the alt tag for the Xserve.

[suzerain]

Originally posted by barkmonster
GEEK ALERT!!!!!

The FSB is always 1 quarter of the clockspeed x 2 on the G5

Previous PowerPC lines have been limited by the FSB and multiplier increases in .5 increments. I image there's something similar with the G5


Yes, the current Power Mac G5s (and presumably XServe G5, though I haven't looked at the spec PDF) have processor:bus speed ratios of 2:1.

However, this is apparently not because the only bus multiplier that works with the 970 is 2:1. This is because Apple wanted to choose the fastest bus multiplier available. I'm sure if 1:1 were possible, they would have done it.

Way back when the Power Mac G5 was finally announced, the Ars Technica guys interviewed one of the IBM engineers about the 970. They asked him about bus multipliers.

His response [paraphrasing] was something like "The 970 supports more than just 2:1. It can do 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 and even 6:1, if I'm not mistaken."

So, apparently it would be possible for Apple to run the G5s at a 500 Mhz bus, or a 667 Mhz bus, or a 200 Mhz bus instead of 1 Ghz, but obviously they don't need to in a tower machine.

I'd expect to see higher (and maybe even variable) bus multipliers on the G5 PowerBooks, to conserve energy.

And, after all that, I think your assertion was really based on the fact that you find 575 to be a funny number, which I don't understand. G4s used to run at 167, 133, etc. and so on. I see no reason there couldn't be odd-speed buses..Apple will likely ship the highest clockspeed chips it can get in quantity. If it happened to fall at 2.3 (not saying it does!), well then my guess is that they'd deal with it.

[Stike]

Weird error.
This could coincide with NeatGekko´s claim that there will be 4 PMac models in the next update, with 3 GHz as the most expensive model, at a high price.

What about 2.3 / 2.6 / 2.8 / 3 Ghz for the 4 models!?

[Sir_Giggles]

The 2.3GHz rating was just a typo. It's easy to mistakenly press "3" when you wanted to press "zero" since the keys are spaced so close to each other. ;)

[backspinner]

Originally posted by Sir_Giggles
The 2.3GHz rating was just a typo. It's easy to mistakenly press "3" when you wanted to press "zero" since the keys are spaced so close to each other. ;) As I wrote in my earlier post, I doubt that. At least they are not next to each other. And why would they make multiple images for the same language? OK, I won't read too much in it, but I think that it's not a typo but a handling error. Far more likely that specs did change the last weeks.

[bertinman]

Originally posted by backspinner
As I wrote in my earlier post, I doubt that. At least they are not next to each other. And why would they make multiple images for the same language? OK, I won't read too much in it, but I think that it's not a typo but a handling error. Far more likely that specs did change the last weeks.

was he being sarcastic??

(yes... hence the winked smilie)

[MongoTheGeek]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Maybe they'll debut when the new Powermacs come out in a month. Until then they decided to hold back on it and hand out the first few thousand to supercomputer xserve clusters

Could be. Maybe they only had limited supplies and didn't want to face the fiasco of order it now, we'll ship it tomorrow, and by tomorrow I mean october.

I understand waiting for Mac World to announce but it would have made more sense to back off a few weeks to catch the orgy of spending required to fill the budget.

[Mac-Xpert]

Originally posted by Stike
Weird error.
This could coincide with NeatGekko´s claim that there will be 4 PMac models in the next update, with 3 GHz as the most expensive model, at a high price.

What about 2.3 / 2.6 / 2.8 / 3 Ghz for the 4 models!?
I think NeatGekko will stay quiet for a while, he is still chewing on his right hand. He just can't afford to lose the left one too.:D

[cubist]

I think they changed the xserve to 2.0 at the last minute to avoid hurting PowerMac sales. If they advertise a 2.3 GHz Xserve, who will still buy a 2.0 tower? Purchasers would wait for 2.3's to be released.

By the time those Xserves are shipped, nobody will complain if they're really 2.3.

[backspinner]

Originally posted by bertinman
was he being sarcastic?? Aha, I'm not very good in spotting these things :D Well, at least I had an opportunity to repeat myself :rolleyes:

[king_of_ekat]

Weren't the old Xserves 1.33 Ghz? Maybe they just typed over the 1 and erased the extra 3... I guess that makes the filename make more sense (the addition of G5 to the new name)

[claytonbench]

Premature Specification?

[Stike]

Originally posted by claytonbench
Premature Specification?

Definitely. This has to be an error of some sort. I can´t possibly be a typo...

[Bakafish]

I agree with the others who posted previously that they were going to announce the Xserves at 2.3GHz but due to either parts constraints or fear of killing off G5 tower sales (who would be stupid enough to buy a G5 tower @ 2GHz when you know for a fact that Apple has 2.3GHz parts?)

I would expect that the speed will get bumped along with the Tower speed bumps. And it wouldn't even surprise me if the upgraded orders to 2.3GHz if the Xserves haven't shipped by the time of the announcement (which we are all expecting soonish, eh?)

[matznentosh]

Originally posted by claytonbench
Premature Specification?

I had that problem once.

[panphage]

Originally posted by Stike
Definitely. This has to be an error of some sort. I can´t possibly be a typo...

It really literally *can't* be a typo. Not only is 2.3 showing up in more than one picture, it's also showing up in the alt tags for images that *don't* say 2.3 in the actual pic.

Or maybe there's a weird glitch in Apple's image generation scripts.

[wizard]

Its no been several times that people have suggested that the XServes where reduced to 2 GHz to prevent damage to sales. Frankly that is bull crap.

First has anyone looked closely at the XServe configuration. Where are you going to stick your AGP card, which you will need for most desktop usage. I could go on but to put it bluntly no matter how fast the XServe ends up running it won't be competeing for the desk top market anytime soon.

I do consider that a bit of a shame as the old XServe could be applied to uses, other than server like, with a quick addition of a AGP card. From the standpoint of a server though Apple did an incredible job.

My suspicion is that Apple is waiting for IBM to announce the move to 90 nano meter formally. Once that is out of the way I think we will see faster MAC of every sort.

Dave



Originally posted by Bakafish
I agree with the others who posted previously that they were going to announce the Xserves at 2.3GHz but due to either parts constraints or fear of killing off G5 tower sales (who would be stupid enough to buy a G5 tower @ 2GHz when you know for a fact that Apple has 2.3GHz parts?)

I would expect that the speed will get bumped along with the Tower speed bumps. And it wouldn't even surprise me if the upgraded orders to 2.3GHz if the Xserves haven't shipped by the time of the announcement (which we are all expecting soonish, eh?)

[NusuniAdmin]

Premature speculation has stuck again :P

[Interiority]

Originally posted by wizard
Its no been several times that people have suggested that the XServes where reduced to 2 GHz to prevent damage to sales. Frankly that is bull crap.

First has anyone looked closely at the XServe configuration. Where are you going to stick your AGP card, which you will need for most desktop usage. I could go on but to put it bluntly no matter how fast the XServe ends up running it won't be competeing for the desk top market anytime soon.

I don't think anyone is saying that people will actually purchase (2.3GHz) XServes instead of desktop PowerMacs - simply that if the XServe is released at 2.3GHz, then everyone will expect imminent PowerMac updates and delay their purchases accordingly.

If the error was simply a typing mistake, then how come the graphic and the alt tag contain exactly the same mistake? The alt tag on Apple's front page still says 2.3GHz... A clear case of PS I think.

[NusuniAdmin]

Originally posted by Interiority
I don't think anyone is saying that people will actually purchase (2.3GHz) XServes instead of desktop PowerMacs - simply that if the XServe is released at 2.3GHz, then everyone will expect imminent PowerMac updates and delay their purchases accordingly.

If the error was simply a typing mistake, then how come the graphic and the alt tag contain exactly the same mistake? The alt tag on Apple's front page still says 2.3GHz... A clear case of PS I think.

Very Well said

[mustang_dvs]

Here's another interesting little hint at something coming down the pipe pretty soon:

In the "revised" version of the "1984" ad, they changed more than just the iPod's cameo -- date on the big brother monitor, which read "01/24/84," the commerical's original airdate, has been changed to "01/26/04", the last Monday of this month... I wonder what Apple has planned for the 26th...?

Perhaps, faster Xserves, faster PowerMac G5s and updated eMacs (see previous rumors).

Keep in mind, ordering a G5 Xserve today will not get you one for 6-8 weeks... Meaning that if Apple wanted to keep faster PPC 970s under wrap, they could announce 2.0GHz Xserves, keeping faster PowerMacs in the wings and, yet ship faster models to customers without anyone being left behind for being an early adopter.

[Quobobo]

Originally posted by suzerain
His response [paraphrasing] was something like "The 970 supports more than just 2:1. It can do 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 and even 6:1, if I'm not mistaken."


If I recall correctly, 1:1 is also possible (but they couldn't get a 2GHz bus for obvious reasons).

[suzerain]

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Here's another interesting little hint at something coming down the pipe pretty soon:

In the "revised" version of the "1984" ad, they changed more than just the iPod's cameo -- date on the big brother monitor, which read "01/24/84," the commerical's original airdate, has been changed to "01/26/04", the last Monday of this month... I wonder what Apple has planned for the 26th...?


I dunno...I just screened the original ad, and it pretty clearly said 01/26/84.

Then I screened the new one, and the date looked like...01/26/84.

where did you get the information that it was changed? Doesn't look like it to me...

[thecow]

Its hard to tell if it says 04 or 84 but apple definatly has somthing planed for the 26th or the 24th which is the day that the macs were relaesed. Its odd thet it says the 26th on the screen but but the add was shown some time before the 24th at the superbowl.

[Sabbath]

On the 575MHz 1/2 FSB issue, it just rang a bell in my head as I think I read somewhere recently its the fastest DDR II or the only DDR II :confused: that you can get.

Im sure someone must know more about this than me? But could be interesting.

edited: typo

[Bakafish]

Its no been several times that people have suggested that the XServes where reduced to 2 GHz to prevent damage to sales. Frankly that is bull crap.

First has anyone looked closely at the XServe configuration. Where are you going to stick your AGP card, which you will need for most desktop usage. I could go on but to put it bluntly no matter how fast the XServe ends up running it won't be competeing for the desk top market anytime soon.

I do consider that a bit of a shame as the old XServe could be applied to uses, other than server like, with a quick addition of a AGP card. From the standpoint of a server though Apple did an incredible job.

My suspicion is that Apple is waiting for IBM to announce the move to 90 nano meter formally. Once that is out of the way I think we will see faster MAC of every sort.

Dave


You are misunderstanding what I was saying. I don't believe that the Xserves themselves would be sold instead of G5 Towers, I'm saying it would make it obvious that greater than 2GHz G5 chips were out there, therefore people would wait for Apple to announce the speed bumped G5 Towers. Seriously, we all know they are due for a speed bump, who in their right mind wouldn't conclude it was to happen soon if the Xserve was churning along @ 2.3GHz?

With the expected ship date of 6-8 weeks for Xserves Apple would lose a lot of sales unless they really had enough 2.3GHz. chips to immediately speed bump the G5 Towers. I'm expecting that at this point they don't. Instead they will take all the pre-orders on 2.0GHz. Xserves, while continuing to sell G5 Towers with the average consumer oblivious to the impending speed increases. Once they speed bump the G5 Tower line (within 4 weeks I'm sure) they will send out emails to all the Xserve customers that the machine they are getting will be updated to 2.3GHz. (The speed that they were all along.) This salvages the 4 weeks of 2.0GHz G5 Tower sales they surely would have lost had they prematurely announced faster G5 CPU's, and makes Xserve customers who ordered early feel like they got a bonus.

As far as Apple waiting for IBM to announce the new chips, you have it backwards. IBM is the supplier, they have always deferred to Apple about the chips they are supplying to them. If anyone is calling the shots about announcements, it's Mr. Jobs.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by cubist
I think they changed the xserve to 2.0 at the last minute to avoid hurting PowerMac sales. If they advertise a 2.3 GHz Xserve, who will still buy a 2.0 tower? Purchasers would wait for 2.3's to be released.

By the time those Xserves are shipped, nobody will complain if they're really 2.3.

Yea, I had this thought, out of the blue, today. I thought I was rather cleaver till I read the thread :-P
It would be very sneaky and paranoid, but not beyond the realm of posibility.

It does make sense.
- The new 970 is half the size of the previous
- The G5 xserve has lots of cooling yet it's using a significantly smaller verson of the desktop processor that already produced less heat than the Xeons people put into dual 1U machines. (hope that makes sense)
- xServes hadn't been bumped for so long they NEEDED to be bumped. The anouncement also provided at least one hardware release (other than ipod) for the show. preannounceing xServers won't hurt sales.. it will just surge pre-orders. This isn't a big deal though since these pre-orders will display probably only dozens or scores of potential G4 Xserve orders.
- pre-announcing a desktop G5 is stuipid now.. they are still selling well. Apple couldn't pre-announce a new desktop, it must be announced when it ships.
- announcing a G5 xserve that was faster than the current towers WOULD clue everyone into the fact that faster towers were indeed eminent and Sales would totally dry up.

I was really surprised that Apple would only put in a 2GHz chip especially since the chip has 512MB L2 and is only 65^2mm. I'm not surprised that there would be a 2GHz sort of the .09 970 but it would be bottom of the barrel.

Here's what I expect around the end of the month..
Apple announces new G5 towers at maybe up to 2.6 GHz.
Apple actually ships a faster xServe.
Apple shocks everyone and ships the 2GHz 970 in the larger iMacs and they sell like hotcakes.

These shrunk 970s are tiny. The costs are going to be quite a bit less than before. Expect price cuts on the tower with the speed increase.. and the ability to move more of the line to the G5. Not only that, sales will pick up as the Rev.2 buyers kick in... and the pro-sumers start buying G5 iMacs. IBM will sell gobs of them and prices will continue to fall. We'll see 3GHz G5s and the whole line of iMacs on the G5 by WWDC... and the eMac will follow in the fall.. before the fall school semester starts if at all possible so Apple can sell budget numbercrunchers to Edu. I think we'll see xGrid and lower end G5 macs marketed this fall as cheap labs that double as computational clusters.. and distributed rendering farms (as Apple moves their pro apps to support xGrid distributed computing).
How cool would it be for a cash strapped design department to get a pitch like this...
'buy some new G5 towers for your video work and some new G5 emacs for your lower end work (fresh-soph design) and office work. Enable multi-head monitor support on a G5 eMac and it would be a very nice cheap design box. Turn on xGrid in screensaver mode and your entire lab becomes a rendering farm. Heck even the secretarys computers can help render those video projects when they are idle.

But what do I know, I'm just a stupid ffakr.

[Bakafish]

Sorry Interiority and mustang_dvs, you already made all my points. I didn't read past wizard's post.

[Anonymous Freak]

Originally posted by thecow
Its hard to tell if it says 04 or 84 but apple definatly has somthing planed for the 26th or the 24th which is the day that the macs were relaesed. Its odd thet it says the 26th on the screen but but the add was shown some time before the 24th at the superbowl.

Alright, the important dates:
1/22/84: Superbowl. When the ad aired.
1/24/84: The introduction of the Macintosh. Alluded to in the scrolling text at the end of the ad. "On January 24..."
1/26/84: The date on the 'big brother' screen. I have no idea why it says this date. Maybe when Apple commissioned the ad, they had planned on releasing the Macintosh on the 26th, only to roll it back to the 24th after the ad was done.

1/24/04: Twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh.
2/1/04: Superbowl. Not even in January, so any change can't be referring to it.

Okay, and to hopefully cool this 'controversy', take another look at the new ad. Pause it when you can clearly see the date. Look right below the date, and you'll see the time as "03:14" (a Pi joke, but important because it has what is unmistakably a zero.) The zero in the time looks hollow. The tens digit in the date is unmistakably an 8 by comparison.

Conclusion: The date was not changed from original ad to new ad. Don't specifically expect anything on the 26th of this month.

[dho]

As of today (January 10) the alt tags for 2.3 are STILL up

<img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0" alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz">

[mod. edit - cleaned up unnecessary HTML]

[wizard]

Originally posted by Bakafish

With the expected ship date of 6-8 weeks for Xserves Apple would lose a lot of sales unless they really had enough 2.3GHz. chips to immediately speed bump the G5 Towers. I'm expecting that at this point they don't. Instead they will take all the pre-orders on 2.0GHz. Xserves, while continuing to sell G5 Towers with the average consumer oblivious to the impending speed increases. Once they speed bump the G5 Tower line (within 4 weeks I'm sure) they will send out emails to all the Xserve customers that the machine they are getting will be updated to 2.3GHz. (The speed that they were all along.) This salvages the 4 weeks of 2.0GHz G5 Tower sales they surely would have lost had they prematurely announced faster G5 CPU's, and makes Xserve customers who ordered early feel like they got a bonus.

I'm not saying what you propose above isn't impossible, but would you really want to do business with a company ran like that? At the simplest it is deceptive advertising, unless they release an additional model as you describe. The legality of such proactices is even a concern, though I do have to admit that most people in the USA do no really care about the law anymore.

Either they have a 2GHz machine for sale or they don't. Since Apple is offering them on their web site, I'm of the opinion that they better ship them as described. The alternative is to have some ambulance chasing lawer down their throat trying to collect his boat payment.

Please don't interpet that as an indication that I don't want to see faster XServes or PowerMacs, this is not the case at all. I jsut want to see the company make ethical offerings and try to avoid poor business practices.


As far as Apple waiting for IBM to announce the new chips, you have it backwards. IBM is the supplier, they have always deferred to Apple about the chips they are supplying to them. If anyone is calling the shots about announcements, it's Mr. Jobs.

Well this is really a two way street IBM's 90 nano meter process is jsut that a process. It is something the 970 is built upon. So I think it is safe to say that IBM does have some say in when and how they release information on processes and to some extent the chips delivered on them. It is a mixed bag, as a foundry IBM very much has to repsect the wishes of its customers when it comes to custom chips. The issue them becomes how custom is this chip, public availability points to it not being wholley owned by Apple. A tangled web if you ask me.

The reality is that IBM will be attending a conference to talk up this technology very soon. I do not think the timings are random events, rather I see a plan unfolding that we don't all have access to.

Thanks
Dave

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by panphage
I *think* the first poster is technically correct. The FSB is 1/4 the proc speed, double-pumped. Perhaps I'm crazy.

The original poster is correct, although for most things the small technical difference doesn't matter.

Anyway, what's 1/2 of 2.3? Still a bit odd: 1150. Not as wacky as 575, but weird anyway.

575/1150 may seem odd/wacky, but then most system busses don't actually run at the exact rate specified. The difference is usually far less than 1% of what is advertised, but the reality of it is that pretty much each computer is unique wrt its exact bus speed. For example the 133Mhz bus on my PBG4 is actually 133.32Mhz and as a result my CPU is actually buzzing around at 999.94Mhz - so a 575Mhz bus on a 2.3Ghz CPU isn't quite so strange when you think about it :cool:

[ffakr]

Originally posted by wizard
I'm not saying what you propose above isn't impossible, but would you really want to do business with a company ran like that? At the simplest it is deceptive advertising, unless they release an additional model as you describe. The legality of such proactices is even a concern, though I do have to admit that most people in the USA do no really care about the law anymore.

Hell yea I want to do business with a company like that. You're arguing that Apple would face lawsuits if they shipped faster than advertised machines for the same price? I'd LOVE to see that.

Could you funish one single example where you wouldn't like to order something and find out that the company fullfilled your order with a superior product? How about you order a car and when it shows up, it's functionally the same, appointed the same, the same price.. but it had more horsepower and better fuel economy. Would there be suits about that? People would be writing about ford saying how amazing they were, that they were shipping vehicles that were superior than originally quoted.

I'm fairly certain (as someone who is not a lawyer) that there wouldn't be a leg to stand on for a lawsuit if this happened. This is the type of thing that would be [LITERALLY] laughed out of court.
Apple is selling a product with a certain feature set, at a certain performance level. Releasing that xServe faster than advertised would be like shipping xServes and putting in an extra hard drive module. I'm sure no one would sue them if they tosed an extra hard drive in.

that said, I think there's about a 25% chance that this is actually what is going on here...
;-)

[Downdivx]

ffakr, I've had the same idea with video editing.
If XGrid could combine with FCP4, you could have an extremely cheap HD video editor. Avid currently sells HD NLEs for over $100k. A friend of mind has been pushing an Apple FCP4 HD NLE for "only" $40k. You have to have some kind of acceleration hardware to run realtime HD.
Although using a secretary's computer at night for animation rendering would work, for actual video editing you need the power available now. Which would mean XServe clusters or at least dedicated PMs. HD typically runs at 100 mbps and you would want to run multiple layers. It seems to me that lets say one PM dual 2GHz (3000), dual monitors (1000), about a Terabyte of storage (6000), Video Monitor (1000). Thats still $29,000 to buy Xserve Clusters. If you could harness XGrid and distributed processing efficently there, you would be talking about serious real time capability.
Actually ffakr, if you're talking about rendering, Shake for Mac currently includes free rendering licenses. Any school (or production house) can use all of its Macs for animation rendering without any cost beyond the original Shake license.
W

PS: As of 1/14/2004 3:23PM the main apple.com website lists 2.3 Xserve as the title of the graphic.

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Downdivx
PS: As of 1/14/2004 3:23PM the main apple.com website lists 2.3 Xserve as the title of the graphic.

uhhh no it doesn't... it's 2.0.

[Downdivx]

No, hold your mouse over the Xserve graphic, text pops up that says: "Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 processor single or dual 2.3GHz"
It mirrors the text in the graphic, except the 2.3 GHz part.
W

[Mudbug]

I sit corrected ;)

<td width="170"><a href="/xserve/" onClick="adclick('/xserve/01062004','Promo - Xserve G5 - 01062004')"><img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0" alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"></a></td>

[Stike]

Originally posted by Mudbug
I sit corrected ;)

"Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"
I don´t get it. Why don´t they change it?
Do the Apple guys not read Page 2 items? :p

[wizard]

I really don't believe that it could ever be considered good business pratice to offer a item you have no intention of shipping. It would be even worst to take orders for something that you never intended to market.

A customer could very well end up with a faster machine, which as you point out is hard to argue with. But what if something you wanted got deleted.

A company engaging in such practices loose a little bit of credibility. As to law suits I'm not a lawer nor do I pretend to know much about the law, what I do know is that Apple is the object of atleast a couple of lawsuits. Frankly some of these lawsuits just boggle my mind at there pettiness. So if Apple does have the intention of doing what has been described I have to ask why. Why open yourself to mor potential litigation?

Dave


Originally posted by ffakr
Hell yea I want to do business with a company like that. You're arguing that Apple would face lawsuits if they shipped faster than advertised machines for the same price? I'd LOVE to see that.

Could you funish one single example where you wouldn't like to order something and find out that the company fullfilled your order with a superior product? How about you order a car and when it shows up, it's functionally the same, appointed the same, the same price.. but it had more horsepower and better fuel economy. Would there be suits about that? People would be writing about ford saying how amazing they were, that they were shipping vehicles that were superior than originally quoted.

I'm fairly certain (as someone who is not a lawyer) that there wouldn't be a leg to stand on for a lawsuit if this happened. This is the type of thing that would be [LITERALLY] laughed out of court.
Apple is selling a product with a certain feature set, at a certain performance level. Releasing that xServe faster than advertised would be like shipping xServes and putting in an extra hard drive module. I'm sure no one would sue them if they tosed an extra hard drive in.

that said, I think there's about a 25% chance that this is actually what is going on here...
;-)

[ffakr]

Originally posted by wizard

A customer could very well end up with a faster machine, which as you point out is hard to argue with. But what if something you wanted got deleted.


This isn't about Apple giving people faster cpus because they announced FW800 but couldn't deliver.
No one is claiming, or thinks that Apple will up the CPU speed and remove some other features.

The rumor, and the argument, is simply that Apple intentionally understated the CPU speed in order to prevent a lag in Desktop sales.
Like I said, I think this possibility is very slim (even 25% is a generous guess) but I don't think anyone would complain if they got the exact machine with a faster processor.

[wizard]

I wouldn't complain either about a faster machine. The problem I have is if this is an additional offering I would say fine. However if the present offering is there to manipulate the amrket I would say that is a prety bad move on Apples part.

I'm really hoping that Apple would not engage in such practices. But that really doesn't bother me as much as the impression some have tried to pass off that any sales of the G5 XServe would impact the G5 PowerMac. I don't see how this is posible given that the new XServe is optimized for its role as a server. Plus I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people looking at a G5, don't even know that the XServe even exists or understands its usage. The two markets are just to differrent for significant interaction to take place.

Dave



Originally posted by ffakr
This isn't about Apple giving people faster cpus because they announced FW800 but couldn't deliver.
No one is claiming, or thinks that Apple will up the CPU speed and remove some other features.

The rumor, and the argument, is simply that Apple intentionally understated the CPU speed in order to prevent a lag in Desktop sales.
Like I said, I think this possibility is very slim (even 25% is a generous guess) but I don't think anyone would complain if they got the exact machine with a faster processor.

[Downdivx]

I don't think the arguement is that a XServe would compete with a PM, its that a faster XServe G5 processor would indicate that apple has a faster PM G5 Processor, and people would wait to buy a PM until the faster/smaller processor came to it. PMs are a professional product, anyone who is interested in buying one would know that there is a faster (2.3Ghz) and smaller (.90) processor which will eventually come to the PM. And if its already out in the XServe, it will be in the PM soon.

[panphage]

Ok, you guys discussing whether apple *might* advertise a certain machine and then ship another, I hope you are REALLY new to the Apple scene. It wasn't more than four months ago that apple was advertising Powerbooks on their web store, AND taking orders for them, at certain specs, and then shipped the customers an upgraded unit. I think they just email people and ask if they want to cancel the order or accept the upgrade, and apologize that the item they ordered is no longer available.

Now, cast your mind back into the past: When the G4s were new, Apple announced them running at 500mhz. They sold a whole bunch on preorder. Then they said, "Oops, we bit the big one, we can only ship 450s. Oh, and you still have to pay the same amount. Heehee." There probably were lawsuits then, but come on people, apple does this all the time. And they're not the only ones. Other businesses make mistakes on inventory and have to cancel orders.

[ffakr]

Originally posted by panphage Now, cast your mind back into the past: When the G4s were new, Apple announced them running at 500mhz. They sold a whole bunch on preorder. Then they said, "Oops, we bit the big one, we can only ship 450s. Oh, and you still have to pay the same amount. Heehee." There probably were lawsuits then, but come on people, apple does this all the time. And they're not the only ones. Other businesses make mistakes on inventory and have to cancel orders. [/B]
True. Good points.

As for the 500MHz issue, that really was Motorola's fault. It was determined, too late in the game, that the 7400 had erratta that made them less than perfectly stable at 500MHz. There is no indication that Apple realized this until after the machines were announced.. or at the very least that Apple was aware that Moto couldn't get it fixed by launch.

Also, Apple didn't simply fill 500MHz orders with 450s. They canceled the orders and appologized. It was, however, a bad move to keep the price points the same after decreasing the clock speed.
Nice job Apple.

[aswitcher]

Originally posted by Stike
I don´t get it. Why don´t they change it?
Do the Apple guys not read Page 2 items? :p

Australian site is the same with the 2.3Ghz Xserve...

[Ysean]

Originally posted by wizard
I wouldn't complain either about a faster machine. The problem I have is if this is an additional offering I would say fine. However if the present offering is there to manipulate the amrket I would say that is a prety bad move on Apples part.

I'm really hoping that Apple would not engage in such practices. But that really doesn't bother me as much as the impression some have tried to pass off that any sales of the G5 XServe would impact the G5 PowerMac. I don't see how this is posible given that the new XServe is optimized for its role as a server. Plus I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people looking at a G5, don't even know that the XServe even exists or understands its usage. The two markets are just to differrent for significant interaction to take place.

Dave


Every retailer manipulates their own market. And I would have to say Apple's methods are not illegal. As for not putting out 2.3Ghz XServes before the PowerMacs get them too is sound business sense. Apple knows from past experience what happens when a faster machine looms around the corner. Would you wait 2 months to order noticably faster machines? I think so. Enough said.

[Downdivx]

Would I wait? I'm waiting for faster PMs to switch.
Despite the fact that I'm a video editor so every performance increase helps me, some of us just really want the fastest processor we can buy.
However, I still maintain that what I really want is some form of a public plan. I know that the apple business model is based on surpirse, but I really would like a clear upgrade schedule instead of guessing future releases.
Keeping that in mind: Lets say that mid February/early March Apple Releases a 2.3 or 2.5 dual G5 PM. Steve Jobs has promised a 3.0 G5 by this summer. Would you buy then or wait for the 3.0 Ghz G5?
I guess my point is that if there is to be an intermediary point between the 2.0 and the 3.0 it needs to be ASAP. Otherwise many power users will simply sit back and wait for the 3.0 processors.
W

[kylos]

alt tag finally says 2.0 on Us Main page.

[NeatGekko]

Originally posted by Mac-Xpert
I think NeatGekko will stay quiet for a while, he is still chewing on his right hand. He just can't afford to lose the left one too.:D

*smiles* wait a bit, they are coming.

[aswitcher]

Originally posted by NeatGekko
*smiles* wait a bit, they are coming.

So you have said on 5 ot 6 forums in the last hour. Well you made bold promises before with detail, now it appears your trying to drag out the release with very vague references to a future date which really doesn't help your creditability after the last claims. If you have something hard like dates or reasons for delay or G5 changes, then ante up, else its perhaps you best got back under your bridge on this issue like all good trolls.