PDA

View Full Version : IBM's PowerPC 970FX... at 2.5GHz?


MacRumors
Feb 11, 2004, 01:32 PM
IBM's PowerPC 970FX won Microprocessor Report's 5th Annual Analysts' Choice Awards (http://www.mdronline.com/events/dinner/). The 970FX beat out the AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 and Intel Pentium 4.

Of more interest, however, is this abstract (http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_abstract.asp?Volname=Issue%20%23117&SID=1068&on=T&SourceID=00000377000000000000) for an article entitled "IBM Takes the Lead" at the Microprocessor Report.

The author expects the 90nm PowerPC 970 to scale well:

The 970FX should yield well at 2.5GHz, up from the 2GHz speed of the 970 used in Apple’s Power Mac G5. This 25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD. Prescott is struggling to eke out minor clock-rate improvements, and AMD will need to wait for its own 90nm products—due in 2H04—to achieve substantial speedups for Athlon 64.


The article, however, appears to be entirely speculative based on what little information (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040121202659.shtml) is presently available on the PowerPC 970FX. More details should emerge as IBM presents information on the 970FX at ISSCC 2004 (http://www.isscc.org/isscc/) next week. (Feb 14-19, 2004)

Squire
Feb 11, 2004, 01:35 PM
That's a nice little increase. I'll take one in a PowerBook, please.

Squire

AirUncleP
Feb 11, 2004, 01:38 PM
I feel the need for speed. Always.

pb1212580
Feb 11, 2004, 01:39 PM
I'll take a G5 2ghz in a powerbook...that's enought for me!

;)

This is great news! Means, more room to grow... as always!

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 01:41 PM
Wont go into a powerbook too hot.

Athlon 64 is at officially at 2.4GHz at should be shipping by end of month. I dont understand the quote "25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD" look whose talking the G5 was released when ? and the 2.5Ghz will be released what? yes 25% but its hasnt been updated since its release. From a technical point of view the G5 should be at 2.6-3.0GHz now they just seem to be hanging around.

virividox
Feb 11, 2004, 01:42 PM
lets give these puppies more juice

Sabenth
Feb 11, 2004, 01:49 PM
The cycle that they seem to be using seems fairly normal to me. at least there at 2 ghz now instead of 1.4 or 1.6 ghz...

All i care abot is that the chip works and my machine will be portable :D

Skiniftz
Feb 11, 2004, 01:50 PM
What was the speed in that XServe glitch graphic? Was that 2.5 or 2.3Ghz?

x86isslow
Feb 11, 2004, 01:55 PM
the glitch made reference to 2.3 Ghz G5 xserves

ITR 81
Feb 11, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Wont go into a powerbook too hot.

Athlon 64 is at officially at 2.4GHz at should be shipping by end of month. I dont understand the quote "25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD" look whose talking the G5 was released when ? and the 2.5Ghz will be released what? yes 25% but its hasnt been updated since its release. From a technical point of view the G5 should be at 2.6-3.0GHz now they just seem to be hanging around.

If I remember right the Athlon 64 is still rated via it's PR not actual cycle rate.

The PB G5's will probably use a liquid cooling sys similar to the ones used in IBM Thinkpads.

RHutch
Feb 11, 2004, 02:04 PM
I know that were not seeing the fruits of the advancements yet in the way that people would like-G5 pbooks, G5 iMacs, or revised G5 desktops, but I am really happy about the progress that IBM seems to be making. I think that this will lead to a lot of good news and happiness for Mac users. And I know we would all like it now.

I will try to continue to be patient.

Rincewind42
Feb 11, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Wont go into a powerbook too hot.

Athlon 64 is at officially at 2.4GHz at should be shipping by end of month. I dont understand the quote "25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD" look whose talking the G5 was released when ? and the 2.5Ghz will be released what? yes 25% but its hasnt been updated since its release. From a technical point of view the G5 should be at 2.6-3.0GHz now they just seem to be hanging around.

Uh... I may be mistaken, but hasn't the Athlon FX/Opteron been out LONGER than the 970 and is either still at 2Ghz? 2.4Ghz in a month is still 2.4 in a month.

And the P4 has been stuck at 3.2Ghz for over a year and still won't hit 3.4 (a 6.25% increase) for another month.

I think IBM & the 970 are doing just fine.

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
If I remember right the Athlon 64 is still rated via it's PR not actual cycle rate.

The PB G5's will probably use a liquid cooling sys similar to the ones used in IBM Thinkpads.

Yes you are correct the 3200/3400 are the 2.2GHz parts, there are 2.4GHz floating around 3600 model.

A very simple liquid cooling system that is ;) dont expect low temps with a radiator 5mm thick if not less.

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:11 PM
Opteron started at 1.4/1.6Ghz as I remember then 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, and the 2.4 parts (release any time now) which Ive currently had for 2 months now. You also have to remember that the 800 series are also at 2.2GHz, these are harder to clock higher since they are more rigurously tested and bigger.

nuckinfutz
Feb 11, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
Wont go into a powerbook too hot.

Athlon 64 is at officially at 2.4GHz at should be shipping by end of month. I dont understand the quote "25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD" look whose talking the G5 was released when ? and the 2.5Ghz will be released what? yes 25% but its hasnt been updated since its release. From a technical point of view the G5 should be at 2.6-3.0GHz now they just seem to be hanging around.


Ummm links please? The Athlon jumping from 2Ghz to 2.4Ghz this month would be momentus. Personally I don't think AMD can do it with good yields until They're at 90nm which isn't to 2H 2004 according to the article linked

I think those hoping for a G5 powerbook might want to set their sights on 1.8Ghz max. A 970FX probably consumes about 15-20 watts at 1.8Ghz I used to have a pdf with some prelim specs but I can't find it right now. I'm sure we'd all take that speed in a portable however.

Intel ....the proverbial Shiza is hitting the fan. Prescott will lose any speed advantage that they have. Their best hope for the near future is to ensure Tejas doesn't meet any delays. For IBM I see them topping out the 970FX at 3Ghz and then moving on to the POWER 5 variant so Mac users are in extremely good hands right now.

:p

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:17 PM
It could be the Opteron thats getting updated, the 3600 maybe after.

MacsRgr8
Feb 11, 2004, 02:18 PM
This feels gr8!

What a difference IBM has made (eh.. will make?) to Apple's future!

l008com
Feb 11, 2004, 02:23 PM
I love that this web site reports "news" it sees on other sites, that is just speculation of rumors the authors read from this site in the first place. Which I'm sure is why we have no G5 20th Ann. iMacs, no bumped G5 towers yet. Everyone is too hyped up on rumors these days, rumors are now self-sustaining.

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by l008com
I love that this web site reports "news" it sees on other sites, that is just speculation of rumors the authors read from this site in the first place. Which I'm sure is why we have no G5 20th Ann. iMacs, no bumped G5 towers yet. Everyone is too hyped up on rumors these days, rumors are now self-sustaining.

I agree

g30ffr3y
Feb 11, 2004, 02:32 PM
we still need to see these chips get into the product line... i hope the wait isnt going to be too much longer... though ill probably keep waiting til the dual 3's that were promised a big speed bump would definatly help apple keep momentum and give bragging rights over the winblows boxes...

nuckinfutz
Feb 11, 2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
It could be the Opteron thats getting updated, the 3600 maybe after.

Yes I think you could be right since the High-End Athlon FX51 is a rebadged Opteron. Sun just announced Opteron processors. This is great! I like to see Intel in the hotseat and recent events have made me very happy.

Now let's announce those knew Powermacs!


Anyone think Apple will squeeze in some extra bays for Internal HDs? I'd be fine with two but 4 bays with RAID options would be nice.

My next PC (homebuilt of course) will be an AMD something. It'll probably be next year after I purchase a new Mac the latter half of this year. Some of the next PC chipsets are coming along nicely. I think Apple will be right there so I can see next year Powermacs having

PCI Express
Hypertransport 2.0
DDR II
Multichannel Hirez Audio I/O(FW Apple use it!)
PPC 9xx processors above 3Ghz
If we're lucky ondie memory controllers

Computing is getting fun again.

blueBomber
Feb 11, 2004, 02:40 PM
I love the line:
This 25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD

sounds like we mac folks may have bragging rights in the processor department soon :D

But as for the G5's adoption in the powerbook line... I recently saw a preview of the athlon64 mobile, so if Apple doesn't hurry up, they will lose the ability to claim "World's first 64-bit notebook computer"

railthinner
Feb 11, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by l008com
I love that this web site reports "news" it sees on other sites, that is just speculation of rumors the authors read from this site in the first place. Which I'm sure is why we have no G5 20th Ann. iMacs, no bumped G5 towers yet. Everyone is too hyped up on rumors these days, rumors are now self-sustaining.

What site are you at?

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 02:43 PM
Pretty soon rumors errr mainly facts have it that all apple comps will be ibm made. The 750gx, the ibm g3 processor with speeds up to 1.1 ghz (for now) with altivec in it. This would be a cool replacement for moto's g4. We just have to hope ibm does not go an screw off like moto did. I am hoping within a year from when the 3 ghz pmac get released G5's get into ibook's and emacs, most likely the ibook will be stuck with g4's or 750gx's for a while though. All apple needs now is a plain little computer, like the rumors beheaded imac. With no screen the imac would definitly be a lot cheaper (by at least 300). Just gotta hope it comes true. All i know is motorola sucks, i just got one of their cell phones and it broke in 2 days (faulty manufacturing) and got it replaced and this new one has terrible sound.....ya moto has issues...

27407
Feb 11, 2004, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by blueBomber
I love the line:
This 25% increase in clock rate will not soon be matched by Intel or AMD

sounds like we mac folks may have bragging rights in the processor department soon :D

But as for the G5's adoption in the powerbook line... I recently saw a preview of the athlon64 mobile, so if Apple doesn't hurry up, they will lose the ability to claim "World's first 64-bit notebook computer"

They already did.

http://news.com.com/2100-1003_3-5141786.html

Trowaman
Feb 11, 2004, 02:45 PM
so, uh, upgrades soon?

Then another upgrade come WWDC '04.

Since Apple missed the Jan. upgrade on Power Macs I think they should just wait until WWDC and do a MAJOR upgrade.

But hey, that's just one man's opinion and this one man is not getting a new computer soon.

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:47 PM
IMO this is what will appear in the next powermacs:

PCI express maybe, it will depend on who releases capable graphics cards. ATI 420 and Nvidia NV40 will be anounced Feb-March with availability in May-June coiciding with the new G5's.

Hypertransport 2, unlikely it was only recently anounced, possible but it would require basicley a motherboard overhaul.

DDR2, IMO this will have negative imapact on performance when used with the G5 as the memory system is prety good and efficient anyway, all youll get is much higher latency in return for 133MHz increase in memory speed. DDR2 will have to mature like DDR did before increases in performance happen and also dont expect modules to be cheap, especially 1GB/2GB DIMMS. Could happen.

Ondie Memory controller yes likely.

Dono about the audio.

CPU's above 3GHz, unlikely unless Apple is employing liquid cooling, it will be too hot/ too loud.

blueBomber
Feb 11, 2004, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by limpidezza
They already did.

http://news.com.com/2100-1003_3-5141786.html

Well, they can still claim to have the first GOOD 64-bit notebook computer;)

digitalbiker
Feb 11, 2004, 02:54 PM
I read that the 90nm G5 only uses 11w@1.4ghz and 24w@2.0ghz as opposed to the 130nm G5 which draws 51w@2.0ghz.

These numbers are very respectable for a laptop. It won't need liquid cooling!

Expect G5 PowerBooks this summer!

army_guy
Feb 11, 2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker

These numbers are very respectable for a laptop. It won't need liquid cooling!

Expect G5 PowerBooks this summer!

I was talking about the desktop. Liquid cooloing is only effective if your radiator is big, not exactly ideal for a laptop.

27407
Feb 11, 2004, 02:58 PM
This is (slightly off topic but still) interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/technology/11CND-CHIP.html?hp

BurntCalc
Feb 11, 2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by limpidezza
This is (slightly off topic but still) interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/technology/11CND-CHIP.html?hp

I read the article... very interesting. The technology seems at least a decade away from any real world use though.

As for the G5's this year... what's up? I don't get why we haven't heard a peep, good or bad. Makes me wonder why there hasn't been an update.

I have some theories though:

1. Either Apple has something big up their sleeve (unlikely at this point),

2. the chip has run into serious manufacturing delays...

3. Apple is trying to reorganize it's release schedule to better coincide with Intel/AMD chip releases (basically, they may be rescheduling their release schedule due to the fallout of the whole Macworld Boston fiasco)

takao
Feb 11, 2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by digitalbiker
I read that the 90nm G5 only uses 11w@1.4ghz and 24w@2.0ghz as opposed to the 130nm G5 which draws 51w@2.0ghz.

These numbers are very respectable for a laptop. It won't need liquid cooling!

Expect G5 PowerBooks this summer!

i think 51 W was even at 1.8 Ghz so the 2ghz at 130 nm even consumes more.. thats a lot for a dual at 130nm (still less than new P4)
24,5W@2.0 is pretty impressive 4 new PowerPC 970 take as much energie as _one_ new Pentium 4

11w@1.4 seems good but how much faster is the 1.4G5 than the 1.33 G4 ?
somebody has more Watt usage facts about those G4s,Pentium-Ms ?

Sun Baked
Feb 11, 2004, 03:09 PM
If the power usage spread is similar typical/maximum, then the 2.5GHz 90nm may be replacing the 1.8 and/or 2.0GHz 130nm part.

Since you're looking at somewhere around 51W typical/100W maximum right now for each G5 CPU.

So a DP 2.5GHz G5 in the middle or top position wouldn't be too bad coming up real soon.

But it all depends on the yield of the faster chips...

johnpaul191
Feb 11, 2004, 03:37 PM
Last year when Jobs unveiled the 2GHz G5 he mentioned hitting 3GHz in about a year..... if you guess the 3GHz will hit the stores about 12 months after the 2GHz ones hit the racks at the Big Mac cluster... that's still a few months off. That would allow for one more revision before then, or maybe 2 minor hops? It's a safe guess the 3GHz chips won't just be faster versions of what the towers have now, so whatever IBM presents next week will probably give insight into the next revision.... unless the towers just get what is in the Xserves now. it is possible the Xserve's get the initial batches of these chips so they could have any G5 chip due to their tighter requirements. They also guess a year or so for a G5 laptop so unless something crazy happens, it will be more than a few months.

will all the other investment in IBM and the demand for the G5 family of chips from IBM, it will only lead to better things from IBM. you may be unhappy now, but think about how we all felt a year ago when Motorolla was still making all the big chips. Moto is refocusing their efforts into other things, and IBM's 970/980 plans seem solid and safe.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by MacsRgr8
This feels gr8!

What a difference IBM has made (eh.. will make?) to Apple's future!

Not if Apple decides to not to put them into the whole product line because people keep buying G4 based Macs.

jkhanson
Feb 11, 2004, 03:39 PM
For me, one of the conclusions to draw from the article is that the processors IBM is about to ship are intended for new desktop machines rather than the XServes (since the article says the latter have already been shipped). On the earlier thread today, many were speculating that this new batch was intended for XServes. This gives me hope for new desktops sooner rather than later.

jwhitnah
Feb 11, 2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by g30ffr3y
we still need to see these chips get into the product line... i hope the wait isnt going to be too much longer... though ill probably keep waiting til the dual 3's that were promised a big speed bump would definatly help apple keep momentum and give bragging rights over the winblows boxes...

Apple get the lead out. If we are supposed to see 3GHz by summer, shouldn't there be mid year speed bump? We're not really going to see a full year between upgrades to the Pro Desktop are we?

TranceClubMusic
Feb 11, 2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by l008com
I love that this web site reports "news" it sees on other sites, that is just speculation of rumors the authors read from this site in the first place. Which I'm sure is why we have no G5 20th Ann. iMacs, no bumped G5 towers yet. Everyone is too hyped up on rumors these days, rumors are now self-sustaining.

I 2nd that motion 100% :D

crees!
Feb 11, 2004, 04:14 PM
If you take a look at the linked report IBM did not have a processor in the "mobile" category. I remember reading something about IBM creating a mobile version simultaneously with the 970 desktop processor. Any new news on that if it's true? Maybe the G5 won't be put into a Powerbook until there is a mobile version of it.

ionas
Feb 11, 2004, 04:22 PM
i can assamble my 64bit notebook myself (athlon 64 3000+ mobile)...

and its about 1000-1200 eur (what you really pay if you got good connections ;p)

Mudbug
Feb 11, 2004, 04:24 PM
Neat-O!

I like the line about "it won't be matched by AMD or Intel anytime soon" - that's the kind of talk we need to hear more of. King of the hill for a while, and able to hold the position in the future.

I'll take two, please. :D

Dont Hurt Me
Feb 11, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
If the power usage spread is similar typical/maximum, then the 2.5GHz 90nm may be replacing the 1.8 and/or 2.0GHz 130nm part.

Since you're looking at somewhere around 51W typical/100W maximum right now for each G5 CPU.

So a DP 2.5GHz G5 in the middle or top position wouldn't be too bad coming up real soon.

But it all depends on the yield of the faster chips... True and i wonder how many chips Ibm can produce in a month or a qtr? the 90nm can allways be clocked down to run in those laptops. 1.4 and 1.6 is very feasable and crank em up for powermacs and IMACS.

Frobozz
Feb 11, 2004, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
and the 2.5Ghz will be released what? yes 25% but its hasnt been updated since its release. From a technical point of view the G5 should be at 2.6-3.0GHz now they just seem to be hanging around.

Oy. Based on what?

The 970FX will clock, by most accounts, at 2.4 to 2.6 Ghz top end and consume, on average, 25W of power. It peaks around 55W or so. The 970 in use in G5's now uses almost DOUBLE that.

While I agree that a top of the line 970FX won't go in a laptop, the 1.6 or 1.8 chips run at 12 watts. That's plenty low. Again, I'm just referencing documents and discussion on these boards, so it's possible this could be proven wrong with IBM presents later this month.

The G5 does, indeed, run at up to 3.4 GHz right now if you count the 975 prototypes... but they are what will be in the june annoucement, august-september sale, revision of the G5.

All in all, it's clear the G5 will receive a 2.5 +/- 100 Mhz upgrade in the immediate future. Probably by mid March. In June they will announce the 3 Ghz+ upgrade, which will probably include HyperTransport 2.0.

My personal belief is that if Jobs said 3 GHz in one year (last June would place this announcement this June at WWDC), that he will EASILY be able to deliver on this. To that end, I agree with you that the parts we are all speculating about are indeed ready or imminently ready. Anyone that doubts the incredible talent of IBM's microprocessor factory is a fool. I know some people in the mix and they are working on stuff (not apple specific) that would make your jaw drop.

Jobs will be able to announce a 3.2 or 3.4 in june I'd bet. If you look at history you can EASILY extrapolate what is going to happen. Each time they rev. the pro line, it's roughly 20% CPU GHz/MHz increase, and they do it roughly every 6 months.

Illan
Feb 11, 2004, 04:35 PM
apple should hurry the PB G5. many profesional make look elsewhere for a 64bit processor

crees!
Feb 11, 2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Illan
apple should hurry the PB G5. many profesional make look elsewhere for a 64bit processor

If they're really professionals then I think they'll know better and wait.

Mudbug
Feb 11, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by crees!
If they're really professionals then I think they'll know better and wait.

Exactly. People don't just wake up in the "professional world" and say "HEY... it's March 1st - time for a new laptop. Oh no, no new mac laptops, guess I'll completely change my work strategy and switch to PCs now."

It just doesn't work that way. Working folk who depend on a mac laptop have fine choices available to them right now, and if they feel they need to have the G5, they'd probably rather wait an extra little while and get a _finished_ product, rather than a rushed one, or just buy a desktop G5.

eric_n_dfw
Feb 11, 2004, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by limpidezza
This is (slightly off topic but still) interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/technology/11CND-CHIP.html?hp

From that article
One potential application, he said, would be an interactive digital television system allowing viewers to watch a sporting event from multiple angles, moving the point of view at will while the game is being played. With only a limited number of digital cameras, it might be possible to synthesize a virtual moveable seat any place in the stadium. Such a feature exists currently in video games, but it is far beyond the capacity of today's digital television transmission systems.
Yea, sure. And I remember Byte magazine in 1995 or so (right before they went out of print) talking about Biological memory that would revolutionize RAM as we know it. Um, 9 years now and I don't think it's happening.

This Star Trek techno-stuff is interesting in a Lab, but actually putting into a product that you can make money with is a whole 'nother ball-game.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Yea, sure. And I remember Byte magazine in 1995 or so (right before they went out of print) talking about Biological memory that would revolutionize RAM as we know it. Um, 9 years now and I don't think it's happening.

This Star Trek techno-stuff is interesting in a Lab, but actually putting into a product that you can make money with is a whole 'nother ball-game.

Good point, and weren't we all supposed to be living on the moon by now?

patmcfar8
Feb 11, 2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Illan
apple should hurry the PB G5. many profesional make look elsewhere for a 64bit processor

Yeah! I'm a professional and I have a 1.25 AlPB, but if Apple doesn't get off of their lazy asses and make me a 64bit PB* I'm switching to Windows...

HA, ha, haa, aha, haaa, ha... ha... um, sorry. ;)

* Which I really, really need for PS, AI and ID by the way. :rolleyes:

Selecter
Feb 11, 2004, 05:37 PM
I dont think anyone that buys even a "Rev B" G5 or any computer right now even on the PC side is doing themselves a favor.

The entire computer industry is poised to go on one of those "updating entire technology" periods that happen about once every 4 or 5 years, where what was is so much worse than what is going to be that anyone that buys the very next rev is going to feel ripped off.

I would not buy a new Mac with a AGP slot in it, period. 16X PCI express and the chips that go with that are gonna be on a order of magnatude better.

What I am going to do while you guys are buying up all those new Rev B G5's is grab all of your 2 gig REV A at bargin prices. Then after I get a few of those, use some of em for experiementing with future versions of xgrid and folding at home along with everything else I do here. Hmmmmm....what can I do with 6 1.8 duals obtained at 1700 bucks each? :D

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Selecter
I dont think anyone that buys even a "Rev B" G5 or any computer right now even on the PC side is doing themselves a favor.

The entire computer industry is poised to go on one of those "updating entire technology" periods that happen about once every 4 or 5 years, where what was is so much worse than what is going to be that anyone that buys the very next rev is going to feel ripped off.

I would not buy a new Mac with a AGP slot in it, period. 16X PCI express and the chips that go with that are gonna be on a order of magnatude better.

What I am going to do while you guys are buying up all those new Rev B G5's is grab all of your 2 gig REV A at bargin prices. Then after I get a few of those, use some of em for experiementing with future versions of xgrid and folding at home along with everything else I do here. Hmmmmm....what can I do with 6 1.8 duals obtained at 1700 bucks
each? :D

That is what im doing, gonna pick up a dual 1.8 or single 1.6 or if pb g5 comes out before june then i will buy a pbook g4

Rincewind42
Feb 11, 2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Selecter
Hmmmmm....what can I do with 6 1.8 duals obtained at 1700 bucks each? :D

I'll take one :D .

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by blueBomber
Well, they can still claim to have the first GOOD 64-bit notebook computer;)

What you get (http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_M6807) for the cost of a 12" PB with a combo drive isn't bad. Seeing as you get twice the RAM, twice the graphics card, a bigger screen, 802.11g installed, etc. Actually, a pretty good deal. Maybe I will get one and put Linux on it :)

billyboy
Feb 11, 2004, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
What you get for the cost of a 12" PB with a combo drive isn't bad. Seeing as you get twice the RAM, twice the graphics card, a bigger screen, 802.11g installed, etc.

I'm getting the hang of PC marketing now. The notebook you mention is certainly fully loaded when you start to delve. You get included, a guaranteed regular supply of viruses and spyware, a stream of phone-home-to-Microsoft security patches, an extra 2lbs to lug about, a mere home edition of XP and the need for a second battery to match the PB's runtime. Bargain.:rolleyes:

MorganX
Feb 11, 2004, 06:51 PM
I have nothing but Kudos and look forward to IBM producing the Xbox 2 CPUs, but, Intel and AMD won't soon match the 25% increase at 90nm? Well duh, they're already at 3.4 so 25% would be 850MHz, 25% of 2 is 500MHz. Come on now..

IBM is kickin A** though.

sethypoo
Feb 11, 2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
I was talking about the desktop. Liquid cooloing is only effective if your radiator is big, not exactly ideal for a laptop.

If it works for the IBM ThinkPads, it'll work for the PowerBook G5.

legion
Feb 11, 2004, 07:17 PM
Whatever the case, if what goes into the first G5 PB performs like a single PPC970 2Ghz, it'll be crushed in the mobile market. Testing my dual G5 2Ghz in single processor mode versus P-M processor laptops, the P-M at 1.5Ghz or higher throughly outperforms a single PPC 970 at 2Ghz. That's not good news if that's where current development stands now as Intel hasn't exactly stopped development on the P-M. When IBM puts out the mobile G5, hopefully they're either multicore or of much higher performance, otherwise the G5 PB will be all bark and no bite.

(Though I"m sure that'll satisfy a lot of die-hard Mac users.. but I'm not quite that commited to any one platform when the performance isn't there.)

Snowy_River
Feb 11, 2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Not if Apple decides to not to put them into the whole product line because people keep buying G4 based Macs.

Uh... What? Are you suggesting that just because people are buying G4 based iMacs, iBooks, eMacs, and PowerBooks that Apple will go back to the G4? Or that it will never upgrade those lines? That's absurd! People are buying those because that's what available right now. When Apple is ready, then they'll upgrade their lines to the G5.

Hey, as long as people are buy G5 based Power Macs, Apple might not invest in developing a G6!!

Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

Snowy_River
Feb 11, 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by MorganX
I have nothing but Kudos and look forward to IBM producing the Xbox 2 CPUs, but, Intel and AMD won't soon match the 25% increase at 90nm? Well duh, they're already at 3.4 so 25% would be 850MHz, 25% of 2 is 500MHz. Come on now..

IBM is kickin A** though.

I think that the point is that the G5 is accellerating faster than the offerings from Intel and AMD at this point. If that keeps up, then Mac users may get some real bragging rights, like the days when the G3 first came out....

Snowy_River
Feb 11, 2004, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
What you get (http://www.emachines.com/products/products.html?prod=eMachines_M6807) for the cost of a 12" PB with a combo drive isn't bad. Seeing as you get twice the RAM, twice the graphics card, a bigger screen, 802.11g installed, etc. Actually, a pretty good deal. Maybe I will get one and put Linux on it :)

What you're overlooking is that eMachines have done a good job of earning the reputation of being one of the worst PC manufacturers out there. Their machines are made with the most bargain basement parts, have a terrible failure rate, etc. Yes, you can get a warranty on them, but who wants to have to send the machine in for repairs once a month?

crees!
Feb 11, 2004, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
You get included, ... an extra 2lbs to lug about, ... Bargain.:rolleyes:

Exactly...

Weight: 7.5 lbs. (8.65 total travel weight)

It's not that heavy just sitting there.. but if you pick it up.. man, look at it pack those pounds on! :D

NusuniAdmin
Feb 11, 2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
What you're overlooking is that eMachines have done a good job of earning the reputation of being one of the worst PC manufacturers out there. Their machines are made with the most bargain basement parts, have a terrible failure rate, etc. Yes, you can get a warranty on them, but who wants to have to send the machine in for repairs once a month?

Dude what the HE** are you talking about. Emachines desktops suck, their laptops kick butt though. I know 13 people with emachine laptops and none of them have had problems.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
I'm getting the hang of PC marketing now. The notebook you mention is certainly fully loaded when you start to delve. You get included, a guaranteed regular supply of viruses and spyware, a stream of phone-home-to-Microsoft security patches, an extra 2lbs to lug about, a mere home edition of XP and the need for a second battery to match the PB's runtime. Bargain.:rolleyes:

I am not a PB owner (although I wish I was) and I am just playing devil's advocate here, but I was under the impression that the PB's were not the most battery efficient of laptops. Any good real-life comparisons?

Also, the thing that protect Macs from virus is the UNIX based OS, and be that as it may, there have been a couple of security patches for Panther on my software update. Like I said, if I got one I would put Linux on it.

I love Mac's, every computer I have owned (except my Commodore 64) has been a Mac. Honestly, before OS X, I thought about changing sides. Now, I love the operating system, but the hardware, specifically anything you can get for <$2000, is lacking.

If you are saying that a laptop with a 64-bit processor at 1.8GHz, 512 MB of RAM, a Radeon 9600 with 64 MB of VRAM, and a DVD+/-RW drive is not a good deal for $1650 ($1450 at Circuit City with rebate). Then you are not living in reality.

When the G5 PB's do come out, the same config will cost 2x that, and we don't even know when that will happen.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Uh... What? Are you suggesting that just because people are buying G4 based iMacs, iBooks, eMacs, and PowerBooks that Apple will go back to the G4? Or that it will never upgrade those lines? That's absurd! People are buying those because that's what available right now. When Apple is ready, then they'll upgrade their lines to the G5.

Hey, as long as people are buy G5 based Power Macs, Apple might not invest in developing a G6!!

Sheesh.

:rolleyes:

Not what I was saying at all. I was saying that as long people keep flocking to a 10% speed bump on the G4 PB's why would Apple race to get the G5 into PB's. If the AlBook sales were slipping then Apple's R&D money would go to getting the G5 PowerBooks out ASAP.

Apple doesn't have a track record for pushing the hardware envelope. As previously mentioned, Apple killed the clones because the clone makers wanted to release the latest technology faster and cheaper than Apple.

Wonder Boy
Feb 11, 2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by sethypoo
If it works for the IBM ThinkPads, it'll work for the PowerBook G5.

i assume your talking about the brand new ultra thin, self protecting think pad as opposed to the traditional versions i use to hold down lawn chairs during hurricanes...

cuneglasus
Feb 11, 2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by crees!
Exactly...



It's not that heavy just sitting there.. but if you pick it up.. man, look at it pack those pounds on! :D

The real problem with the machine is not weight but battery life.That was the big fault this review found.

http://compreviews.about.com/cs/laptops/gr/aaprEMachM6807.htm

It isnt really a notebook,more a desktop replacement.
The Athelon 64 at .13 microns is a power hungry chip Apple wouldnt even consider putting in a notebook.And Amd's .09 process wont be ready till the end of the year so Apple can still be the first to have a REAL 64 bit portable.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by cuneglasus
The real problem with the machine is not weight but battery life.That was the big fault this review found.

http://compreviews.about.com/cs/laptops/gr/aaprEMachM6807.htm

It isnt really a notebook,more a desktop replacement.
The Athelon 64 at .13 microns is a power hungry chip Apple wouldnt even consider putting in a notebook.And Amd's .09 process wont be ready till the end of the year so Apple can still be the first to have a REAL 64 bit portable.

Despite the battery life the reviewer still gave it 5 Stars!

cuneglasus
Feb 11, 2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Not what I was saying at all. I was saying that as long people keep flocking to a 10% speed bump on the G4 PB's why would Apple race to get the G5 into PB's.

Because the .09 nm G5's are smaller,lower power,and almost certainly cheaper than the current G4's in powerbooks.

cuneglasus
Feb 11, 2004, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Despite the battery life the reviewer still gave it 5 Stars!

See! When Apple gets its REAL 64 bit laptop they can give it 7 stars.You wont have to stay near an outlet or carry a bag of batteries.

daveL
Feb 11, 2004, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
I am not a PB owner (although I wish I was) and I am just playing devil's advocate here, but I was under the impression that the PB's were not the most battery efficient of laptops. Any good real-life comparisons?

Also, the thing that protect Macs from virus is the UNIX based OS, and be that as it may, there have been a couple of security patches for Panther on my software update. Like I said, if I got one I would put Linux on it.

I love Mac's, every computer I have owned (except my Commodore 64) has been a Mac. Honestly, before OS X, I thought about changing sides. Now, I love the operating system, but the hardware, specifically anything you can get for <$2000, is lacking.

If you are saying that a laptop with a 64-bit processor at 1.8GHz, 512 MB of RAM, a Radeon 9600 with 64 MB of VRAM, and a DVD+/-RW drive is not a good deal for $1650 ($1450 at Circuit City with rebate). Then you are not living in reality.

When the G5 PB's do come out, the same config will cost 2x that, and we don't even know when that will happen.
I don't get your message, at all. Are you saying Linux doesn't have security updates and OSX does? That's absurd and shows, clearly, that you are not a Linux user ( or maybe you don't check for updates on your Linux distro ). Linux is more widely disrtibuted than OSX, and, being largely x86, is much more inclined to be hacked than OSX, so I have no idea what you're saying. Hacks produced for x86 Linux will apply to PPC Linux, with a simple re-compile.

I have no idea why you prefer a Mac. So, you pay a primium for a Mac so you can put Linux on it, supposedly because you're paranoid about security? In so doing, you've put yourself on a platform that has less apps available than any other combination you've mentioned. Nonsense.

Not to mention, since you seem to be concerned about battery life, the PPC Linux distros available for Mac hardware aren't nearly as good about power management as OSX.

So maybe you buy Corvettes and put VW Bug engines in them so you have a lower maintenance bill?

invaLPsion
Feb 11, 2004, 09:09 PM
One mac rumor site was exactly right about the speeds of the 970FX. I have been following this site for a while and have known it to be very accurate.

http://macintosh.fryke.com

Rend It
Feb 11, 2004, 09:44 PM
As an owner of the current 15" AlBook, I have a hard time understanding how Apple will pull off a 64-bit processor inside of a notebook ~1in thick. I'm not talking about the heat dissipation of the processor, I'm just referring to having at least twice as many circuit board traces on the main board. There's barely enough room for anything in the 32-bit model I have. Think: higher density of interconnects = higher heat density and also greater incidence of failures = greater manufacturing risks and costs.

I think Apple will probably go the way of something like Centrino -- a newly designed 32-bit chip on a 90nm process. Doesn't the latest G3 chip from IBM already have 1MB L2 cache? And weren't they planning on adding SIMD (i.e, Altivec) instructions to it in a future revision? I also recall hearing (on MacRumors) that the newest G3's would scale easily to 2.0GHz.

But, then again I'm sure that the 64-bit eMachines laptop makes Apple want to push for something similar. I don't think Apple will just make a 2.0", 8lb. portable simply so they can call it 64-bit (or would they?). Apple wants something elegant. So, in all likelihood we will see another Moto-G4 revision to the PowerBook, then something completely different that will beat the socks off of what I have now. It will do for Apple's pro portable line what the PPC970 did for the PowerMacs. Perhaps there will be a specialized 64-bit PowerBook (probably only in a 17" version) close to the same time.

Eventually (in ~1.5 years), of course, all PowerBooks will move to 64-bit, I just don't think it'll be for a while yet. And no one else seems to have picked up on this, but remember how when the G5 was first announced there was an IBM presentation shortly thereafter? Well, IBM is going to be talking about the 970FX this coming week (Monday and Wednesday). Does that mean new G5's on Tuesday, the 17th?!!

;) :rolleyes:

Fukui
Feb 11, 2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer

If you are saying that a laptop with a 64-bit processor at 1.8GHz, 512 MB of RAM, a Radeon 9600 with 64 MB of VRAM, and a DVD+/-RW drive is not a good deal for $1650 ($1450 at Circuit City with rebate). Then you are not living in reality.

When the G5 PB's do come out, the same config will cost 2x that, and we don't even know when that will happen.
Except for the weight/battery, it is a good deal.

But what software does it come with?
And if apple can match those specs but cut the weight to 4~5lbs and 1-inch thich (I highly doubt the eMachines is anything less then 1.5~2 inches thick) and sell it for say 1899-even 1999, the powerbook g5 (15inch) would definitely be the better value IMO...

I don't think that apple can afford 2x prices.
In fact all thier laptops have been pretty good value for what you get, the only big difference is the speed of the CPU compared to others...hopefully that would end soon...

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by daveL
I don't get your message, at all. Are you saying Linux doesn't have security updates and OSX does? That's absurd and shows, clearly, that you are not a Linux user ( or maybe you don't check for updates on your Linux distro ). Linux is more widely disrtibuted than OSX, and, being largely x86, is much more inclined to be hacked than OSX, so I have no idea what you're saying. Hacks produced for x86 Linux will apply to PPC Linux, with a simple re-compile.

I have no idea why you prefer a Mac. So, you pay a primium for a Mac so you can put Linux on it, supposedly because you're paranoid about security? In so doing, you've put yourself on a platform that has less apps available than any other combination you've mentioned. Nonsense.

Not to mention, since you seem to be concerned about battery life, the PPC Linux distros available for Mac hardware aren't nearly as good about power management as OSX.

So maybe you buy Corvettes and put VW Bug engines in them so you have a lower maintenance bill?

No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

Also, well I admit, that Windows (particularly XP) has security problems. I hate when Mac users insist that Mac's are better because they don't get viruses. The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

I know it is a pain, but maybe you should read the whole thread before you comment on one message.

neilw
Feb 11, 2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Rend It
As an owner of the current 15" AlBook, I have a hard time understanding how Apple will pull off a 64-bit processor inside of a notebook ~1in thick. I'm not talking about the heat dissipation of the processor, I'm just referring to having at least twice as many circuit board traces on the main board.

The external buses on these systems are not directly tied to the width of the internal data paths of the processor; in fact, they are already wider.

It is true that as external buses get wider, and device pincounts gets higher, there is a need for more routing resources on the motherboard. That can usually be addressed by adding layers to the PCB, or other techniques that increase routing resources in exchange for higher cost.

But, in this case, the move from 32-bit to 64-bit internal data paths in the processor is not a direct factor in this.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by Fukui
Except for the weight/battery, it is a good deal.

But what software does it come with?
And if apple can match those specs but cut the weight to 4~5lbs and 1-inch thich (I highly doubt the eMachines is anything less then 1.5~2 inches thick) and sell it for say 1899-even 1999, the powerbook g5 (15inch) would definitely be the better value IMO...

I don't think that apple can afford 2x prices.
In fact all thier laptops have been pretty good value for what you get, the only big difference is the speed of the CPU compared to others...hopefully that would end soon...

I agree when Apple's G5 PB's come out they will kick the eMachine's ass (they will be lighter, smaller, better designed).

My point which I keep trying to make over and over is that unless you are buying a PowerMac right now, nothing Apple is offering is worth the money. Since only Apple makes OS X compatible machines, we have to wait for Apple to release technology on their internal time table. On the PC side the Dell, HP, Sony, eMachine, etc., compete with releasing different configs, styles, etc., that competetion means everyone needs to have the latest fast chips in as many machines as possible or they will fall behind. No one pushes Apple. They just go around comparing the G5 to the top of the line Intel and AMD chips and say "Look how fast our computers are!" I agree the G5 is an amazing machine, but for those of us non-power users it would be nice to not have a two year old chip (1 GHz g4 was first introduced Jan. 2002) in the machines.

I love Apple too people, but can people here at least admit that another computer manufacturer might do something better than them?

pjkelnhofer
Feb 11, 2004, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by cuneglasus
See! When Apple gets its REAL 64 bit laptop they can give it 7 stars.You wont have to stay near an outlet or carry a bag of batteries.

Hopefully, it won't have the 15" PB screen problems or the old G3 iBook logic board issues. Are you living in reality or do you just think that everything Apple does is grand that when Steve Jobs speaks he is infallible.

The question is when is Apple's 64 bit laptop coming out? I am sure when there 128 bit laptop comes out in ten years it will be amazing, but we are talking about what Apple sells now.

From Win to Mac
Feb 12, 2004, 12:11 AM
I got the worktable, the 19 inch flat CRT, the speakers, the MiniDV camera, the accessories....

everything but the G5 !! C'mon Apple !!!

Rend It
Feb 12, 2004, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by neilw
The external buses on these systems are not directly tied to the width of the internal data paths of the processor; in fact, they are already wider.


So, the G5 already has more than 64 input data lines? And the PowerBook G4 has more than 32? I was an EE undergrad, and it's been a while since my computer design course, but I thought that a n-bit processor requires n data input lines. I suppose if the bus had n/2 lines, then you could arrange to feed n bits over 2 clock cycles, but isn't that rather slow?

And if the buses are already wider than the processor data path, does that explain why modern computers have such disparity between bus and CPU speeds? And if the bus needs to be wider to compensate, then doesn't that imply that the number of external connections needs to scale up if the processor data path increases?

Just wild-eyed speculation.

ultrafiel
Feb 12, 2004, 12:18 AM
All this is great, but I want the Powermac update soon. This will be the first time I buy a computer, and didn't get a hand-me-down for my Dad. I need to get a G5 soon, or I'll have a hard time convincing a wife why I need to spend more money for a Mac. I'm ready Apple, the money's in the bank waiting. I guess if it takes longer though, maybe I'll get an Alchemy TV DVR for it also, as a review I read for it was outstanding.

Fukui
Feb 12, 2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Actually, I don't think that the percentage of affected users has too much to do with market share more than the fact that virus writers hate MS ALOTLOTLOTLOTLOT more than they do apple.

PHARAOHk
Feb 12, 2004, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer

I love Apple too people, but can people here at least admit that another computer manufacturer might do something better than them?

I'll admit it, and also say you make an interesting point about competition that I really haven't considered. I have recently come to realize that the pro macs are very good but the consumer line is crippled. I want to use OSX so what choice do I have? It is a shame that the affordable macs aren't really competitive and hopefully the new IBM partnership will really improve this aspect of all macs.

I have also come to feel like market share isn't everything. In fact I like that macs hold a small share. I haven't seen the numbers but if Apple is a healthy company what's the big deal? BMW doesn't hold more then 5% of the auto market but so what? They are doing fine like I assume Apple is. Not getting as many viruses and having relatively more reliability is an asset for me and fundamental in preserving computer related works.
It's a sweet and sour type situation.

eric67
Feb 12, 2004, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by ultrafiel
All this is great, but I want the Powermac update soon. This will be the first time I buy a computer, and didn't get a hand-me-down for my Dad. I need to get a G5 soon, or I'll have a hard time convincing a wife why I need to spend more money for a Mac. I'm ready Apple, the money's in the bank waiting. I guess if it takes longer though, maybe I'll get an Alchemy TV DVR for it also, as a review I read for it was outstanding.
By the end of february, I would expect PMG5 update
the reason : the yesterday article regarding 90nm SOC produced by IBM for Apple has been removed from the web site!!!!!!!!!
guess who was asking for that action.........
so it confirms that updates will be here soon.
In addition, french mac rumors web site croquer.free.fr, which was the first to report PPC970 derivates (dual core, ...) reports that Apple ahs received PPC975 from IBM, those one will replace the PPC970fx found in the G5 xServe and in the next revision of PMG5.
PPC970fx was ready since a long time, but the ain reason why Apple could not deliver it is related to FSB and chipset frequency. Only the one announced yesterday will allow Aplle to install a PPC970fx running 2.5GHz (so a FSB at 1.25GHz), this chipset should allow a max FSB of 1.4GHz, so a PPC970fx at max 2.8GHz.
This chipset and PPC970fx will also find its way to the PowerBook, here more for heat release and power-consuming reason, than max performance.
Now, is Apple waiting for PPC975 for PMG5 update, or we will have PPC970fx in the PMG5 revision, I think this more important question...
PPC975 is reported currently at basal speed 2.8GHz, with current max at 3.4GHz (some at 4GHz in IBM labs).
PPC975 is based on Power5 architecture.
PPC976 will be the dual-core version of the PPC975

My prediction :
End of Feb : update of PMG5 with PPC970fx
WWDC : PowerBook G5 using PPC970fx
MacWorld July : new PMG5 update (Pro line?) including the new PPC975, available in September

let's wait and see

rweidmann
Feb 12, 2004, 05:32 AM
does anybody know how a G5 powerbook would compare to a similarily clocked Pentium-m (centrino, dothan) pc-notebook. Yes the G5 rocks but the pentium-m also is an incredibly efficient cpu that might give the g5 a run for its money (clock for clock).

ionas
Feb 12, 2004, 06:14 AM
while i dont know the numbers, i sell Pentium-M part time (in a x86 notebook-shop)

i guess they wont be faster, BUT if IBM and APPLE dont get their ass up very fast and very high ;p, their notebooks will eat more energy than the pentium-m based ones (most of them run without fan almost always, and run about 5 hours in office/internet use, its not a fake, its REAL)

snowdog
Feb 12, 2004, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by rweidmann
does anybody know how a G5 powerbook would compare to a similarily clocked Pentium-m (centrino, dothan) pc-notebook. Yes the G5 rocks but the pentium-m also is an incredibly efficient cpu that might give the g5 a run for its money (clock for clock).

Does it matter?
Does the intel run OSX?
Does the intel run iLife?
Does the intel look good?

;)

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

Also, well I admit, that Windows (particularly XP) has security problems. I hate when Mac users insist that Mac's are better because they don't get viruses. The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

I know it is a pain, but maybe you should read the whole thread before you comment on one message.

I was just about to say something about the 5% marketshare but then i saw ur post. Not even if a majority of the marketshare used mac os, even 15% would be enough to get a crap load of hackers/crackers/phreakers/virus makers...so on. Actualy now with the 5% marketshare there is enough crackers out there that use macs. Its pretty funny how bill gates uses macs, at least he is smart enough to use them.

MorganX
Feb 12, 2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Fukui
Actually, I don't think that the percentage of affected users has too much to do with market share more than the fact that virus writers hate MS ALOTLOTLOTLOTLOT more than they do apple.

They don't want to learn to program for the Mac either. They may not even have a Mac to learn on.

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

No, that isn't true at all. Security by obscurity has already been proven false - if something has a flaw and someone has a reason to take advantage of it, it will be exploited. In the case of mydoom, it is a simple exploit based on the fact that 1) Problem between keyboard and chair, 2) That certain older (and still popular) versions of M$ e-mail clients allow clicked attachments to execute & install at will. Mydoom itself is actually a rather pathetically simple to write virus. To do the equivalent on Mac or Unix would require a LOT more knowledge and circumstances that simply aren't known to exist widely at this time.

So even if Mac OS X was 50% of the known computer universe, it is highly unlikely that something like Mydoom or it's friends would be inflicted on the community every 6-12 months.

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Rend It
So, the G5 already has more than 64 input data lines? And the PowerBook G4 has more than 32? I was an EE undergrad, and it's been a while since my computer design course, but I thought that a n-bit processor requires n data input lines. I suppose if the bus had n/2 lines, then you could arrange to feed n bits over 2 clock cycles, but isn't that rather slow?

The G5 uses a pair of unidirectional 32-bit busses effectively clocked at half the CPU speed (at least in Apple's machines thus far). The G4 uses a bidirectional 64-bit bus clocked at up to 166Mhz (in existing products at least).

This is really not as big a deal as it seems, your EE professors may have just not gotten around to telling you that yet :).

All modern processors have an L1 cache, and that is where 99% of the CPU gets it's data from. The L2 (& L3 cache if present) are typically setup as victim caches - where cache lines that were evicted from the higher cache level live before being sent out completely. The L1 cache has very, very wide pathways, which is good for the CPU. The memory interface is responsible for feeding the L1 cache, and reads entire cache lines from memory. Since a cache line will always be larger than the busses leaving the CPU (G4 32 byte, G5 128 byte) the issue is simply in how fast you can fetch a cache line. How wide the bus is to do that only matters when you are determining how fast to run the bus at and how much bandwidth you will have for that task.

And if the buses are already wider than the processor data path, does that explain why modern computers have such disparity between bus and CPU speeds? And if the bus needs to be wider to compensate, then doesn't that imply that the number of external connections needs to scale up if the processor data path increases?

No, the main reason that there is such a huge disparity between bus speed & cpu speed (on most CPUs at least) is the fact that it is much harder to increase the speed of the system bus than it is to increase the speed of the CPU. Getting a fast system bus working is just like an air show - all the pilots have to perform just right or you get a potential tragedy.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by PHARAOHk
...
I have also come to feel like market share isn't everything. In fact I like that macs hold a small share. I haven't seen the numbers but if Apple is a healthy company what's the big deal? BMW doesn't hold more then 5% of the auto market but so what? They are doing fine like I assume Apple is. Not getting as many viruses and having relatively more reliability is an asset for me and fundamental in preserving computer related works.
It's a sweet and sour type situation.

I have never liked the luxury car comparison for Apple. Imagine if your car that came from a company with 5% market share used gasoline that was only availible at 5% of the gas stations (not really a fair comparison either - just trying to illustrate that Apple's proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is not good for us, the Mac users).

Not to mention as "healthy" of a company as Apple is. Right now, how much of that is based on Mac sales and how much on iPod/iTMS both of which are availible for windows.

Right now, the best thing Apple has going is OS X (to me at least, that is what really sets it apart from Windows machines) and the G5's. The problem is that since no other companies are allowed to make OS X machines Apple controls the entire G5 market. If UMax (or anyone else) were still making clones they would be trying to get a G5 based notebook out and it would put pressure on Apple to do the same.

The are two solutions (neither of which will happen) either Apple could release an x86 version of OS X, or they could bring back the clones. Either way you would end up being able to buy a $500 box that would run OS X. The problem is that while Apple's OS market share would skyrocket (particularly in the first example), their computer market share would plummet.

Obviously, Apple has decided that the money is to be made selling high-margin hardware, and that is the foreseeable future.

Jonnod III
Feb 12, 2004, 09:13 AM
Apple also controls the quality. With clones they don't.

That's how you get cruddy PCs (well, PCs that are cruddier than other PCs)

Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Jonnod III
Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

You'd be surprised :D. We just make it look easy...

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Jonnod III
Apple also controls the quality. With clones they don't.

That's how you get cruddy PCs (well, PCs that are cruddier than other PCs)

Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

Yes, but more importantly control the prices and rate at which new technology is released.

The could still makes the best OS X computers. If the were that much better quality people would still pay a premium for them.

Maybe they don't like the idea of competition... sound familiar?

MorganX
Feb 12, 2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Jonnod III
Apple also controls the quality. With clones they don't.

That's how you get cruddy PCs (well, PCs that are cruddier than other PCs)

Also software writers know what to expect on a Mac - which keys, what soundcards, video cards etc. must make it easier to program for....

When's the last time there was a major PC mohterboard issue from motherboard makers(We're talking Server, Workstation, Dual, Integrated UWSCSI, RAID, etc. etc.) ?

FIC
Tyan
Gigabyte
Supermicro
Abit
Asus
Albatron
EIC
Intel

To me this is a non-factor. There are no clones because of Apple's chosen business model and that's about the only reason IMO.

billyboy
Feb 12, 2004, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.



Lets not go down that route. The only virus that will get me to enter my password to launch an unknown programme (like MyDoom) is one injected intravenously in a serum that induces madness.

On your other point, the eMachine quoted is good value, but equally, so is a PB. The thing is, if the eMachine had the same build quality and battery power management as a PB, plus the same integrated iLife software working in tandem with the full on professional version of the latest OS, then it too would cost much the same as a PB.

The marketing strategies are different. Apple put the extra stuff into Macs to make them last and to sync the hardware with the software. This makes Macs look dear. Many PC manufacturers on the other hand tend to pummel the senses with big numbers, but dont care to mention when their boxes are way under-specced in other perhaps more critical practical departments.

Fair play to them for creating this "illusion" that Macs are over-priced, because you can sure get PCs that are equally if not more expensive than the equivalent Macs. Talking in general terms, the average price of personal computers sold in 2003 is $1295. By definition, in a land of $500 Dells or whatever, there must be some very expensive PCs getting sold - and they are dear because they are specced out in all departments, just like Macs.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by billyboy
Fair play to them for creating this "illusion" that Macs are over-priced, because you can sure get PCs that are equally if not more expensive than the equivalent Macs. Talking in general terms, the average price of personal computers sold in 2003 is $1295. By definition, in a land of $500 Dells or whatever, there must be some very expensive PCs getting sold - and they are dear because they are specced out in all departments, just like Macs.

Do you consider an 14" iBook or at 15" iMac specced out? That is what $1295 buys you at the Apple Store. My complaint is that Apple business model allows them to drag their feet when it comes to new technology. With the exception of the PowerMac most Mac (PB's, iMacs, eMacs, and iBooks) come with a 1 GHz G4 chip. Apple starting put that into computer two years ago!.

Even a $500 piece of crap Dell doesn't come with a two year old chip in it!

the future
Feb 12, 2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Do you consider an 14" iBook or at 15" iMac specced out? That is what $1295 buys you at the Apple Store.

The other poster said the *average* computer cost 1295 $ and the *specced out* PCs are much more expensive than that.

the future
Feb 12, 2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
No, that isn't true at all. Security by obscurity has already been proven false.

The "security by obscurity" argument is indeed old and tired, no matter how often Microsoft marketing will repeat it. Here is a good article on why OSX is inherently more secure than XP: http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2003-08.html

ionas
Feb 12, 2004, 10:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by rweidmann

does anybody know how a G5 powerbook would compare to a similarily clocked Pentium-m (centrino, dothan) pc-notebook. Yes the G5 rocks but the pentium-m also is an incredibly efficient cpu that might give the g5 a run for its money (clock for clock).


Quote:Originally posted by snowdog
Does it matter?
Does the intel run OSX?
Does the intel run iLife?
Does the intel look good?

it does matter, more than speed/clock does speed/watts matter.

intel does not run os x but only darwin, so its not usable for most of us, still it can look good (thoshiba, sony, and if you are excentric - ibm)

and the pentium-m is a great cpu; much better than all other intel cpus, though being a 32bit cpu even much better than the chips that amd offers for notebooks and quite workstations.

the opteron and co are great chips; for servers and high performance workstations; but not for much else.

this is the reason i want to see 90nm SoC clocked at 1.5-1.7ghz max (the actual centrino/pentium-m clocks like that)

i want to see 65nm fast so that we can have an even cooler system that goes up to 2ghz...

and pls apple - put in some really good displays and batteries - i want 5 hours work without cable at least!
i want 1400*1050 at 14,15" and 1680*1050 at 17".

1280*960 @ 12" would be nice (and possible, and no you can read the font fine, ppl saying otherwise didnt see the HP NX7010 yet (15" wide screen tft notebook with 1680*1050); now THAT might be too much, but anything else isnt.


apple/ibm - SUPRISE ME - please - once again.


else the "year of the notebook" continues - but NOT for apple.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
No, that isn't true at all. Security by obscurity has already been proven false - if something has a flaw and someone has a reason to take advantage of it, it will be exploited. In the case of mydoom, it is a simple exploit based on the fact that 1) Problem between keyboard and chair, 2) That certain older (and still popular) versions of M$ e-mail clients allow clicked attachments to execute & install at will. Mydoom itself is actually a rather pathetically simple to write virus. To do the equivalent on Mac or Unix would require a LOT more knowledge and circumstances that simply aren't known to exist widely at this time.

So even if Mac OS X was 50% of the known computer universe, it is highly unlikely that something like Mydoom or it's friends would be inflicted on the community every 6-12 months.

lol, you are way off, it is all about the marketshare. I have written several programs that can render mac os x helpeless let alone unix is not as hard to hack as everyone thinks it is. It is all about the marketshare, yes unix is more secure that windows, but it is still very hackable. I would say the classic mac os is actualy harder to hack then unix, the only way to hack classic os is if you are running a server or remote desktop (and a few other things). With mac os x, it is a whole new system, a whole new thing. if someone did care about the 5% marketshare and wrote a virus for os x i personaly think apple would not know what to do.

Fukui
Feb 12, 2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by MorganX
They don't want to learn to program for the Mac either. They may not even have a Mac to learn on.
Whats to learn? Its all just BSD on the inside. If anything, you can learn more about how OS X works than windows does...for free!

And don't forget, the majority of servers world wide use Unix/Linux, hmm why is it still that the MINORITY OS - WINDOWS - is the one hacked on the most? The marketshare argument in this case falls apart.

People that write virusus do so because they H8 BIll Gates, H8 MS, and H8 Windows to such a degree that they'll do anything to make windows look bad IMO. Think about it, why is it that virusus/trojans on windows never delete the user's data or wipe thier HD, and instead send a DOS attach at MS's or reciently SCO's website?

Its not about market share. Really.

snowdog
Feb 12, 2004, 11:36 AM
The point I was trying to make was that if I want to run iLife I HAVE to choose a Mac.
It isn't available on anything else.
Same thing for OSX.

So it really doesn´t matter which cpu has the most Ghz.

Fukui
Feb 12, 2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
I would say the classic mac os is actualy harder to hack then unix...
Actually, I would say thats patently false.
Classic has NO MEMORY PROTECTION.
Classic has NO IDEA OF PERMISSIONS.
Classic has NO REAL MULT-TASKING.

If anyone could exploit a flaw in say a webservice running on clasic, the attacker would ALWAYS have ROOT priveleges and be able to just screw up anything running in memory, including the kernel. You could even just get the web server to hang, then the computer would freeze up! Not hard at all really.

the only way to hack classic os is if you are running a server or remote desktop (and a few other things).
Um, isnt that how windows and UNIX are hacked too?

wrldwzrd89
Feb 12, 2004, 11:45 AM
I disagree with the statement an earlier poster made about all the Macs besides the PowerMacs not being competitive. Why would the average Mac user care about whether their eMac/iMac/iBook/PowerBook was competitive with the equivalent Intel/AMD machine when their primary concern is whether the computer they have is fast enough for their needs? That's the way I see it now and the way I saw it when I bought my 17" iMac. Sure, a PowerMac G5 is nice, but it's only meant for those doing heavy-duty work that requires the extra power.

Fukui
Feb 12, 2004, 11:45 AM
I have written several programs that can render mac os x helpeless let alone unix is not as hard to hack as everyone thinks it is.

I would like to know what they are.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 12, 2004, 11:47 AM
(post removed by original poster as it was no longer necessary)

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by snowdog
The point I was trying to make was that if I want to run iLife I HAVE to choose a Mac.
It isn't available on anything else.
Same thing for OSX.

So it really doesn´t matter which cpu has the most Ghz.

But wouldn't it be nice if you could buy a computer from some one else that could run OS X, iLife, etc? You can't! Not because there are no companies that want to build OS X compatible machines... but because Apple won't let anyone else build OS X compatible machines.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 11:57 AM
Windows and unix generaly have tons of leaks that leave them suceptible (did i spell that right??) to attacks over the 'net. With classic mac os it was way different. Yes if you can get into classic then you always have root and so on, but getting into it is different that most other oses. os x is very easy to write bugs for, for example, you could very easily write a foundation kit or extension that makes it so you cannot shut off the extensions (aka: safe boot (apple copyed name from windows haha)) and have it load a simple script (maybe applescript) that tells the system to restart, putting it into a never ending loop, unless you boot up in single user mode and so on. That is all I am going to say about about that cause i dont wanna get banned. Apple is actualy scaring people with os x i think, noone cared about security with os 9 and below but with x people are like "omfg a security download ahhh im gonna get hacked". The marketshare with with x released still is not much higher that when classic was out ( i believe it was higher then) so why do people get scared now?

daveL
Feb 12, 2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
No, maybe I should have been clearer. I was referring to the eMachines 64-bit notebook when I said I would but Linux on it.

Also, well I admit, that Windows (particularly XP) has security problems. I hate when Mac users insist that Mac's are better because they don't get viruses. The truth is that the main reason there are no Mac viruses is because someone writing a virus isn't going to waste there time with the 5% (or whatever the current number) that use Mac OS. Believe, if the majority of business used OS X, mydoom who have been written in to attack your computer.

I know it is a pain, but maybe you should read the whole thread before you comment on one message.
I did read the whole thread. I can't help it if you don't communicate what you intend.

pgwalsh
Feb 12, 2004, 12:13 PM
Okay... This thread is about IBM processors and Apple's possible use. It's tranformed into the ever long debate of which OS is more secure..... who gives a rats ass. We all know the world would be a better place if there were multiple OSes. Until that day comes the dominate OS will have more problems with jackasses then the obscure OS. :rolleyes:

Not trying to tick anyone off, just trying to get back on the excitement trail of possible new PowerMacs and PowerBooks.. :cool:


What's it going to be?
2.0, 2.2, 2.4?
or
2.4 2.6 2.8?

or 2.3?

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 12:17 PM
Is it just more or does it seem like just yesterday the mac first reached 1 ghz....And now we are talking about 2+ ghz......wierd how time passes.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I disagree with the statement an earlier poster made about all the Macs besides the PowerMacs not being competitive. Why would the average Mac user care about whether their eMac/iMac/iBook/PowerBook was competitive with the equivalent Intel/AMD machine when their primary concern is whether the computer they have is fast enough for their needs? That's the way I see it now and the way I saw it when I bought my 17" iMac. Sure, a PowerMac G5 is nice, but it's only meant for those doing heavy-duty work that requires the extra power.

But today's "extra-power" is tomorrow's outdated system. When you bought a 17" iMac you basically bought a two year old technology for $1800.
My point is that with Apple's pricing policy and product seperation only the high-end do you get what you pay for compared the PC world. Heck Apple even underclocks (http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eMac/eMac-upgrade.html) the G4 chips to keep their rigidly segmented product line intact.

Just because a computer is "fast enough" today. In two years you may not even be able to run iLife. If you bought a iBook pre-October you already cannot run iDVD (needs 733 GHz G4) or take full advantage of GarageBand (G4required for GarageBand software instruments). So 40% of it is useless. How long until you can't update anything?

True most people don't need the latest software. Heck my dad still types things in WordStar on an 8088 HeathKit Computer and prints it out on a TTX printer. Maybe I should go to my parents' house find my Commodore 64 in the basement hook up the 2400 Baud modem and write an email program in BASIC.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Is it just more or does it seem like just yesterday the mac first reached 1 ghz....And now we are talking about 2 ghz......wierd how time passes.

It was two years ago that the first Mac reached 1 GHz, and Apple is still selling computers that haven't.
:( :confused: :mad:

Jonnod III
Feb 12, 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Is it just more or does it seem like just yesterday the mac first reached 1 ghz....And now we are talking about 2 ghz......wierd how time passes.


Hmmm, aren't we actually talking about 3ghz ones - we've got the 2ghz ones....
;)

Fukui
Feb 12, 2004, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
os x is very easy to write bugs for, for example, you could very easily write a foundation kit or extension that makes it so you cannot shut off the extensions (aka: safe boot (apple copyed name from windows haha)) and have it load a simple script (maybe applescript) that tells the system to restart
Yea, and I can write a crappy Kernel Extention that crashes the kernel on boot up. Whats the revelation? You can do the same thing on windows with DLLs. And, in fact, if you wanna install a kernel extention YOU MUST ENTER YOUR PASSWORD and username. Also, kernel extentions don't suddenly activate when sent in mail attachments etc. Thats a long way off from a virus or a trojan horse I'm affraid.

Yes if you can get into classic then you always have root and so on, but getting into it is different that most other oses.
Whats different about classic? It has a stack, a buffer, its gets overrun, boom, hacked. How is that any different than any other OS? Unless apple was using some kind of runtime that has no stack? Not likely.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Jonnod III
Hmmm, aren't we actually talking about 3ghz ones - we've got the 2ghz ones....
;)

Ya i ment to write 2+ghz sorry, fixed now

MorganX
Feb 12, 2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by pgwalsh

Not trying to tick anyone off, just trying to get back on the excitement trail of possible new PowerMacs and PowerBooks.. :cool:


Since iMac sales have dropped 30%, I have a feeling they may see these new processors soon as well.

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Windows and unix generaly have tons of leaks that leave them susceptible (did i spell that right?? - no) to attacks over the 'net. With classic mac os it was way different. Yes if you can get into classic then you always have root and so on, but getting into it is different that most other oses. os x is very easy to write bugs for, for example, you could very easily write a foundation kit or extension that makes it so you cannot shut off the extensions and have it load a simple script (maybe applescript) that tells the system to restart, putting it into a never ending loop, unless you boot up in single user mode and so on.

Yes, you could do that. Here's why no one would.

First, you have to learn how to write an kernel extension, Assuming you only want your intended effect (restart loop) then you have to actually write one that works. If your kext only causes a kernel panic, then the user will be told to reboot with extensions off and you'll be booted in short order.

Now that you have to deliver your kernel extension, you need to deliver it to the user somehow. A command line app will never work because most users won't be able to execute it (they would need knowledge of the cmd line). A normal application won't work because it will not be able to get permission to write to the required folder. You could write code to do that, but then the user may well wonder why they are being asked to enter their password to see your silly little app that they just saved from their inbox. So ok, we'll try an installer package. That will get you the admin password in a way the user is probably used to, but wait - why is the installer running for this stupid little toy I was sent again? And the list goes on and on. Sure you can do it, but you have to do so many things that entice the user into letting their guard down long enough for you to get that password *and* you have to wait for that first restart before your little bomb even goes off.

In the clients that MyDoom affected, you clicked on the attachment in your e-mail client and you were infected. It doesn't get much easier than that. And MyDoom can be put together by a 12 year old in Visual Basic in a day. So can the apple script that your using to reboot, but that is the least of your concerns in writing the Mac OS X virus you outlined.

Oh, and all the information you need to do this little virus is sitting there waiting on Apple's developer site. It takes you at most 5 minutes to find all the documentation you need to learn how to write a kernel extension. Actually learning to write one takes longer, but so goes life. The Apple script isn't hard to write, but neither is the unix code that does the same.

I never said it wasn't possible. But the techniques to do it are simply not as easy or straightforward as they are on Windows, and there aren't nearly as many Application/OS bugs for you to exploit to do it. The fact that Mac OS X is <5% isn't the reason it is secure, it's the fact that these things aren't left as low hanging fruit. And while many of us love to rib M$, they are slowly but surely trying to fix their issues - they just had a lot more to start with and would have less bad press on it if people actually kept their software up to date.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42

I never said it wasn't possible. But the techniques to do it are simply not as easy or straightforward as they are on Windows, and there aren't nearly as many Application/OS bugs for you to exploit to do it. The fact that Mac OS X is <5% isn't the reason it is secure, it's the fact that these things aren't left as low hanging fruit. And while many of us love to rib M$, they are slowly but surely trying to fix their issues - they just had a lot more to start with and would have less bad press on it if people actually kept their software up to date.

Isn't longhorn supposedly gonna be unix based when its released in 2 thousand...whenever

It would be funny if they make a language err framework similar to cocoa for longhorn called aococ and instead of NS stuff (like NStabs and NSApp) it will be MStabs and MSApp and MSMonopoly (har har)

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Not what I was saying at all. I was saying that as long people keep flocking to a 10% speed bump on the G4 PB's why would Apple race to get the G5 into PB's. If the AlBook sales were slipping then Apple's R&D money would go to getting the G5 PowerBooks out ASAP.

Apple doesn't have a track record for pushing the hardware envelope. As previously mentioned, Apple killed the clones because the clone makers wanted to release the latest technology faster and cheaper than Apple.

I think that your argument is a little hollow. Yes, the offerings from Apple aren't terribly exciting right now (except the G5 and G5 xServe). That means that only the people who need a new machine will buy one. The rest of us are sitting on our hands. I'm sure that Apple is well aware of the lack of 'impulse' buys, and I'm sure that they are aware of the reason for that lack. If you think that just because some people are buying the current G4 based models that there isn't a drive at Apple to produce something better, I think that you have a very superficial view of market forces.

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Isn't longhorn supposedly gonna be unix based when its released in 2 thousand...whenever

It would be funny if they make a language err framework similar to cocoa for longhorn called aococ and instead of NS stuff (like NStabs and NSApp) it will be MStabs and MSApp and MSMonopoly (har har)

Not that I've heard, Windows is (and likely forever will be) a completely Microsoft venture. However, you may have heard them improving their POSIX layer (I can't confirm) which is something it has in coming with Unices of all kinds.

Fukui
Feb 12, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Isn't longhorn supposedly gonna be unix based when its released in 2 thousand...whenever

It would be funny if they make a language err framework similar to cocoa for longhorn called aococ and instead of NS stuff (like NStabs and NSApp) it will be MStabs and MSApp and MSMonopoly (har har)
Not Unix based, same kernel well mostly, but added stuff that supposedly bolts the security of windows to the CPU (Palladium/NGSB) so that there are segments of the RAM that are totally inaccessible from any application but the kernel, and apps that are not "certified" may not run at all...of course we'll see how far this goes when it comes out.

And MS is working on a Cocoa-like framework: .NET . Its actually more like Java, but since Java was designed to be like Cocoa (OPENSTEP), I guess you could call them siblings...though they don't get along very well....

neilw
Feb 12, 2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
The G5 uses a pair of unidirectional 32-bit busses effectively clocked at half the CPU speed (at least in Apple's machines thus far). The G4 uses a bidirectional 64-bit bus clocked at up to 166Mhz (in existing products at least).

I guess I should have originally said, more correctly, that the existing processors already have memory buses wider than their internal pipelines. G4 systems have 64-bit memory systems, while the dual-banked G5's effectively have 128 bits (I believe). 32-bit x86 systems have at least 64-bit memory buses as well.

Ditto to the rest of what Rincewind42 said.

We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion on Mac viruses or the lack thereof...

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
...No one pushes Apple...

While you keep saying this, I keep disagreeing. In fact, at least where style is concerned, Apple is the one that does almost all the pushing in the computer industry. But, on the hardware front, if Apple doesn't maintain its hardware, as best it can, it faces having people switching from Mac to Windows. When their hardware is in good standing, then they get switchers from Windows to Mac. So, I'm sure that they're working on the next big thing. I'm sure that new iMacs, eMacs and PowerBooks are coming (iBooks will probably stick with the G4 for a bit longer). These lines will be converting over to the G5 as soon as it's economical for Apple to do it. But it's certainly not a simple matter to slap a G5 into an iMac, for example. In fact, it's probably as challenging to produce a G5 iMac, given the current - and likely future - form factor, as it is to produce a new G5 PowerBook.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 02:00 PM
ok thanks, i was a little confused on that, i guess the source that i heard that from is wrong.

[edit: hmmmm imagen.....the albook g4 a little over 5-7 pounds ( a estimate) the pbook g5.......a little over 50 pounds....includes 17 fans and a 20" screen haha]

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
...Apple's proprietary OS on proprietary hardware is not good for us, the Mac users...

...Right now, the best thing Apple has going is OS X... and the G5's...

Contradicting yourself?

Besides, in what way is Mac OS more proprietary than Windows? My understanding is that it's much less...

army_guy
Feb 12, 2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by ionas


the opteron and co are great chips; for servers and high performance workstations; but not for much else.


Its a great workstation chip especially againt the Itanium 2 and Power 4 and Ultra Sparc workstations, engineers wanting to work at home (like me) have been waiting for a high performance 64-bit platform to run the EDA applications, until now we were stuck with 32-bit machines and still are. Due to engineer demand companies such as MENTOR, CADENCE and SYNOPSIS are working hard to update thier current 64-bit apps to support Opteron, compare this to Itanium which only has half a dozen or so EDA apps in the 10 years its existed. Cadence entire tool set is roadmapped for release 2004-2006 for OPTERON.

Jonnod III
Feb 12, 2004, 02:06 PM
It's always interesting looking at figures like 'iMac sales down by 30%'.

But all these figures have to be looked at in context. What have comparable machines been up to - have they gone down/up etc. and at this time in the product's life - is this an acceptable sales drop? The chioces of colours in the original iMac changed within a year - from what I remember - then we were on to spotty dog ones....

I love all this market share stuff too - Apples market share is now x% but this is a huge drop from y% in the mid 1990's. Yes true - but was Apple prifitable then? They could get buckets of market share if they sold iMacs at 400 dollars. Company would fold pretty quick.

Lets face it - they are a cutting edge company, making a profit, with a small market share. If they had 40% of the market most of their effort would go into keeping it - not innovating. Then we'd all be Longhorners of some kind or another.

army_guy
Feb 12, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Frobozz
Oy. Based on what?


Current Opterons (unlocked at 800MHz HT clock, ie not overclocked) can clock at 2.5GHz using air-cooling (Ive got them higher but using 4 phase power again using air-cooling) , as the 970 is half the size (and using the same process) I think it would be able to clock at least 2.6-2.8 and maybe 3GHz. Then again it has a bigger die so it would run cooler due to the larger contact area.

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by wrldwzrd89
I disagree with the statement an earlier poster made about all the Macs besides the PowerMacs not being competitive. Why would the average Mac user care about whether their eMac/iMac/iBook/PowerBook was competitive with the equivalent Intel/AMD machine when their primary concern is whether the computer they have is fast enough for their needs? That's the way I see it now and the way I saw it when I bought my 17" iMac. Sure, a PowerMac G5 is nice, but it's only meant for those doing heavy-duty work that requires the extra power.

I would suggest that you are in a minority. Perhaps a significant minority, but a minority none the less. What's more, you're in a minority that Apple doesn't have to worry too much about. So long as they can offer you a newer, better, faster machine, you're happy.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
As previously mentioned, Apple killed the clones because the clone makers wanted to release the latest technology faster and cheaper than Apple.

That's simply not true. When Apple authorized clones the result was that the clones gained marketshare and Apple lost marketshare. The net marketshare of Mac OS based computers was fairly static. However, as Apple was losing market share, they were going into a financial tailspin. If they hadn't reigned in the clones, Apple likely would have gone out of business. So, the choice to end the clone program was in our best interest.

Wonder Boy
Feb 12, 2004, 02:34 PM
i used a clone for the first time today at an elementry school i taught at. it was cool. it worked very well, while "looking" inexpensive. no wonder the clones are dead.

wrldwzrd89
Feb 12, 2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
I would suggest that you are in a minority. Perhaps a significant minority, but a minority none the less. What's more, you're in a minority that Apple doesn't have to worry too much about. So long as they can offer you a newer, better, faster machine, you're happy.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

Thanks for letting me know this, Snowy_River. Now that I know my views are in the minority, I can worry less about my purchase, my future Mac purchases, and why my posts aren't quoted very often.

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
... Heck Apple even underclocks (http://www.lbodnar.dsl.pipex.com/eMac/eMac-upgrade.html) the G4 chips to keep their rigidly segmented product line intact...

Just to keep the record straight, do you know that Apple was sent this chip as a 1.33GHz rated chip? If Moto sent this chip to Apple as an 800MHz chip, but knew that it was rated to 1.33GHz, then the blame should be pointed there.

Also, almost all chips can be overclocked to some extent or another. There is a margin of error, there. So, just because this person was able to overclock his eMac doesn't mean that Apple underclocked it from the beginning.

My point is that we don't know. You're assuming the worst. Why add so much negativity to the world?

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
That's simply not true. When Apple authorized clones the result was that the clones gained marketshare and Apple lost marketshare. The net marketshare of Mac OS based computers was fairly static. However, as Apple was losing market share, they were going into a financial tailspin. If they hadn't reigned in the clones, Apple likely would have gone out of business. So, the choice to end the clone program was in our best interest.

It was then, but is it still know. Apple would not have lost market share if the clones were doing something right to get people to buy them instead of "true" Apples.

Now Apple has a UNIX-based OS that many agree blows away the competition, but the cost of the hardware required to change to it is too high. From companies who can buy Dell's (like mine does) at bargain prices and set them up as workstations to consumers who put price first. There are plenty of people out there who would consider Mac, but for one thing cost.

And, now a clone question for some one who understand these things better than me: Would it be possible for a company to reverse-engineer the chip (I believe it is the Boot ROM or the BIOS) that makes a Mac a Mac and not just another PPC computer. If so could they then start making OS X compatible computers without Apple's blessing? Isn't that how Compaq made the original IBM clones?

MorganX
Feb 12, 2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Jonnod III
It's always interesting looking at figures like 'iMac sales down by 30%'.

But all these figures have to be looked at in context. What have comparable machines been up to - have they gone down/up etc.

They would have to collectively have gone up by 30%, which is a huge increase, to offset.

As a previous iMac owner, it is seriously underpowered for the price premium. It needs the FX. I have a feeling it's going to get it sooner rather than later. A 30% drop in sales year over year is a 30% drop in sales year over year.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Just to keep the record straight, do you know that Apple was sent this chip as a 1.33GHz rated chip? If Moto sent this chip to Apple as an 800MHz chip, but knew that it was rated to 1.33GHz, then the blame should be pointed there.

Also, almost all chips can be overclocked to some extent or another. There is a margin of error, there. So, just because this person was able to overclock his eMac doesn't mean that Apple underclocked it from the beginning.

My point is that we don't know. You're assuming the worst. Why add so much negativity to the world?

What I took from the article is that Apple is using essentially the same chip in the 800 MHz - 1.33 GHz G4's and setting to run at a specific speed. I realize that they would not be the only ones doing this if it were true, but Apple has become so rigid in it's product structure even the BTO options are going down. One used to have the chose of Combo or SuperDrive on all the iMac's. Now the 15" comes with combo the 17" and 20" with Super. No up or downgrading allowed. The iBook has no SuperDrive option (ostensibly to keep it seperated from the PowerBook).

I love OS X, what a world it would be if I could go into any computer store and get something that ran it or *gasp* put one together myself (buying G3 mobos on eBay doesn't count).

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Contradicting yourself?

Besides, in what way is Mac OS more proprietary than Windows? My understanding is that it's much less...

Maybe proprietary is not the correct word here. I am trying to say that if I want OS X I have to buy an Apple. If I want to use Windows I do not buy the computer from MicroSoft I buy it from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. There are choices.

windowsblowsass
Feb 12, 2004, 03:39 PM
AND we were doing so well we had at least 3 threads in a row with no mention of g5 powerbook on the first page

invaLPsion
Feb 12, 2004, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by windowsblowsass
AND we were doing so well we had at least 3 threads in a row with no mention of g5 powerbook on the first page

I know, I'm tired of talking about the G5 powerbook. G5 updates are a lot more plausible at this time. Wait a few months until even conceiving that the powerbook G5 will be released soon.

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Maybe proprietary is not the correct word here. I am trying to say that if I want OS X I have to buy an Apple. If I want to use Windows I do not buy the computer from MicroSoft I buy it from Dell, Sony, HP, etc. There are choices.

As I indicated in an earlier post about why Apple pulled the clones, there is good reason why there isn't choice in hardware. If other companies were allowed to create clones again, Apple would face the same financial problem again. I read an article a number of years ago that addressed this issue. According to the economic analysis in that article, if/when Macs get up to about 10%-15% (IIRC) marketshare, then not only will it be in Apple's best interest to start licensing clones again, but they will have to if they want to be able to keep up with demand. In this sense, you really can't compare the PC market to the Mac market. If you try to apply the same rules then you'll destroy the Mac platform. If you want to see more choices, clones, etc., then help Apple grow their market share. So long as they are stuck at <10% they have to keep their hardware manufacturing in-house, or face big problems.

(Now, those big problems could be addressed by radical steps, like splitting Apple into two companies, one for hardware and one for software. However, such radical steps are equally likely to drive our beloved Mac platform into the ground...)

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
It was then, but is it still know. Apple would not have lost market share if the clones were doing something right to get people to buy them instead of "true" Apples.

I remember the clone days pretty well. Up until the end, all the clone makers but one were basically offering the exact same thing Apple was cheaper. Why? Because Apple was still the one making mother boards for most of them. Power Computing was poised to be the first to market with a G3 when Apple killed the clones.

And, now a clone question for some one who understand these things better than me: Would it be possible for a company to reverse-engineer the chip (I believe it is the Boot ROM or the BIOS) that makes a Mac a Mac and not just another PPC computer. If so could they then start making OS X compatible computers without Apple's blessing? Isn't that how Compaq made the original IBM clones?

There already is enough information to do that, it's the same info that is used towards things like PPC Linux etc. There is just no one currently willing to go up against Apple to do it, mostly because the Mac OS X license would allow Apple to sue anyone that did...

What I took from the article is that Apple is using essentially the same chip in the 800 MHz - 1.33 GHz G4's and setting to run at a specific speed.

That's wrong. Currently the only machines using G4s capable of reaching 1.33 Ghz are the PowerBook G4s. The PBs are using 7447 chips, the rest of the line uses 7445/7455 chips.

And as someone else said, Apple gets their G4s from Motorola, which rates them in their own way. Generally the CPU industry rates CPUs by determining how many they need at a particular speed, checking them at that speed, and accepting/rejecting until they get the number they need. Then they go to the next lower speed and do the same. So it is entirely likely that they will get a huge number of chips in the bottom rank that could have gone in the top rank (it was well known a couple years ago that you could easily overclock a P3 Celeron by 50% for example, not because it was a good chip, but because of how the lots were determined)

billyboy
Feb 12, 2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
...., there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

Not being funny, but if rocket scientists are happy choosing Powerbooks over anything else, they cannot be all that bad for the rest of the real world users!
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/32837.html

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 05:13 PM
Thanks, you answered several questions of mine.
Originally posted by Rincewind42
I remember the clone days pretty well. Up until the end, all the clone makers but one were basically offering the exact same thing Apple was cheaper. Why? Because Apple was still the one making mother boards for most of them. Power Computing was poised to be the first to market with a G3 when Apple killed the clones

But what about the ones that didn't Apple didn't make the mobos for. Basically, they were able to make a Mac OS compatible computer and sell it cheaper than Apple. They also, in Power Computing's case, wanted to release technology (the G3) before Apple. This my original point about the clones. Not only were other people making Mac-clones cheaper than Macs, but the were ready to put out G3's before Apple. If Power Computing hadn't been there could it have taken even longer for Apple to release the G3?
I only remember the Mac-clones vaguely. In 1996 I almost got rid of my IIx and got a UMax machine (don't remember the model name any longer). Do to some financial trouble at the time (as in I quit my job and went back to school to change careers) the IIx survived until the purchase of my current iMac DV SE in 2000.


There already is enough information to do that, it's the same info that is used towards things like PPC Linux etc. There is just no one currently willing to go up against Apple to do it, mostly because the Mac OS X license would allow Apple to sue anyone that did...

This is the big part. I did not realize that there was language in the OS X license that said that it was illegal to install it on a non-Apple computer. Or are we only talking about pre-installing for resale. In which case, could you make a computer that was capable of running OS X, but sell it with no OS?


That's wrong. Currently the only machines using G4s capable of reaching 1.33 Ghz are the PowerBook G4s. The PBs are using 7447 chips, the rest of the line uses 7445/7455 chips.

And as someone else said, Apple gets their G4s from Motorola, which rates them in their own way. Generally the CPU industry rates CPUs by determining how many they need at a particular speed, checking them at that speed, and accepting/rejecting until they get the number they need. Then they go to the next lower speed and do the same. So it is entirely likely that they will get a huge number of chips in the bottom rank that could have gone in the top rank (it was well known a couple years ago that you could easily overclock a P3 Celeron by 50% for example, not because it was a good chip, but because of how the lots were determined)

I guess I did not fully understand this part before. I thought they basically made one chip and set it up to run a different clocks speeds. What you are saying that a chip just has to be able to run at or above 800 MHz to get that specification. It may be able to run faster but if that was all they were looking for then that is the rating it will get.

My main complaint is that Apple still want us to get excited about 1 GHz G4's. The first one came out two years ago. Even if today's 1 GHz G4 is a different chip, it is the same basic architecture and same clock speed as then. Is the any real world difference between the 7455, 7441, 7445 and 7447 chips running at the same clock speed? It would be one thing if these chips were in a $500 machine or even just the very bottom of the Apple line, but they are in everything except the PowerMacs.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
n the other hand, there are a lot of people out there, including professionals, who look at both PCs and Macs, and weigh the pros and cons of switching one way or the other. If I was working in an industry where I need as fast and powerful a machine as possible, even if I've been working on a Mac, I'll consider switching to Windows if it means that my main software application would run a lot faster...

I agree totally. There are also a lot of industries where companies use software (databases, etc.) that are designed specifically for them. I work at a TV station for one of the biggest media companies in the world. While there are Mac for the design department because they want/need Photoshop, After Effects, etc., and PC's in accounting because the want/need PowerPoint, Excel, etc. Many of the programs we use are written specific by or for our company. So our companies buys Dells (by the tens of thousands - no I am no proud) because they are cheap and they are really only used as workstations (the only programs on most of the are for viewing news wires, or laying out a show, or editing video) so they could have been anything.

I know the IT guy at my station, and he wishes he did not have to deal with a building full of WindowsNT machines, but that is what they buy and what they design software for because they are so friggin' cheap.

I am not saying that it would happen, but if some one turned out Mac-clones at comparitive prices, and they had a much more solid OS behind them, thing could change.

Rincewind42
Feb 12, 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
But what about the ones that didn't Apple didn't make the mobos for. Basically, they were able to make a Mac OS compatible computer and sell it cheaper than Apple. They also, in Power Computing's case, wanted to release technology (the G3) before Apple. This my original point about the clones. Not only were other people making Mac-clones cheaper than Macs, but the were ready to put out G3's before Apple. If Power Computing hadn't been there could it have taken even longer for Apple to release the G3?

Power Computing was pretty much the only one willing to do their own design. And the reason why even they could sell cheaper than Apple is simple, Apple has a lot more overhead than any of the other clone makers, even Power Computing. So in order for Apple to survive (esp at the time of the clones) they needed to make more gross profit from each machine, thus Apple's price couldn't go down, while everyone else could. The clones sucked Apple dry...

This is the big part. I did not realize that there was language in the OS X license that said that it was illegal to install it on a non-Apple computer. Or are we only talking about pre-installing for resale. In which case, could you make a computer that was capable of running OS X, but sell it with no OS?

My understanding (second hand mind you) is that the license agreement doesn't allow you to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine. This would prevent someone else from pre-installing
or advertising support for an install of Mac OS X. However, IANAL so I cannot tell you if that is entirely correct, or if that is all it does.

I guess I did not fully understand this part before. I thought they basically made one chip and set it up to run a different clocks speeds. What you are saying that a chip just has to be able to run at or above 800 MHz to get that specification. It may be able to run faster but if that was all they were looking for then that is the rating it will get.

Exactly, each chip is different, even on the same wafer. Some can run well above their rating safely, and some can't even run stably at the minimum rating that the chip is sold at. There have been people that have overclocked P4s up to 4Ghz, but Intel won't sell them above 3.2 because of the extreme situations required to make the chip stable at such speeds (such as cooling to -40!).

My main complaint is that Apple still want us to get excited about 1 GHz G4's. The first one came out two years ago. Even if today's 1 GHz G4 is a different chip, it is the same basic architecture and same clock speed as then. Is the any real world difference between the 7455, 7441, 7445 and 7447 chips running at the same clock speed? It would be one thing if these chips were in a $500 machine or even just the very bottom of the Apple line, but they are in everything except the PowerMacs.

I don't think Apple expects us to get excited by 1Ghz, I give them enough credit that they realize that Motorola's G4 has been a painful part of their history. But when the G5 was introduced it was a great step ahead, but not perfect. At the moment, the 970FX is looking to be a great replacement in the entire line, so hopefully we'll see some nice G5 iMacs & PowerBooks soon as well as a rev to the PowerMac.

So for those who were worried about topic, we've gotten back on!

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
As I indicated in an earlier post about why Apple pulled the clones, there is good reason why there isn't choice in hardware. If other companies were allowed to create clones again, Apple would face the same financial problem again. I read an article a number of years ago that addressed this issue. According to the economic analysis in that article, if/when Macs get up to about 10%-15% (IIRC) marketshare, then not only will it be in Apple's best interest to start licensing clones again, but they will have to if they want to be able to keep up with demand. In this sense, you really can't compare the PC market to the Mac market. If you try to apply the same rules then you'll destroy the Mac platform. If you want to see more choices, clones, etc., then help Apple grow their market share. So long as they are stuck at <10% they have to keep their hardware manufacturing in-house, or face big problems.

(Now, those big problems could be addressed by radical steps, like splitting Apple into two companies, one for hardware and one for software. However, such radical steps are equally likely to drive our beloved Mac platform into the ground...)

You know Snowy_River, I think in some ways we agree more than we disagree. Everything you wrote above is true, but Apple is not going to increase market share when it's cheapest computer is $800 and all but impossible to upgrade. Apple has stated that they are happy with their market share. So long as they are making money they are happy. Right now, they are making their money selling iPods, and those of us who want lower cost OS X machines are going to have to wait in line.

I agree that splitting the company would solve some of the problems, but I disagree that it would kill the software/OS part. I just think it might kill the hardware part unless Apple decides that more sales and lower margin is the only way to survive.

I had no idea I was so opinionated on this subject. Really it all stems from the fact I love my Mac (and pre OS X, thought about giving it up), but it is four years old and I want to try iDVD and GarageBand, but nothing in the current Apple line-up with my budget seems worth the money. So I just wait impatiently for something to change.

Then mocked me for saying that someone might make a computer that was a better value than a Mac, and it really drives me crazy when people are like Mac's rule and PC's suck no matter what. Apple has made a lot of mistake. The Motorola G4's have not been what was expected. Apple has a lot of deficiencies just like any big corporation, but sometimes people around here seem to think they are flawless and here to save us from Bill Gates. I just wish people would take a step back and look at some of the things Apple does and try to judge them objectively. Let's face it Apple has us in their own little monopoly. We love the OS so we need to buy our hardware from them or vice versa.

I have made too many posts in the last hour. I am going to go back to my real life for a while and take a break from these forums.

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
... While there are Mac for the design department because they want/need Photoshop, After Effects, etc., and PC's in accounting because the want/need PowerPoint, Excel, etc.

Just for the record, PowerPoint, Excel, etc., are available on the Mac... ;)


Many of the programs we use are written specific by or for our company.

I realize that many big companies use custom software. For them, they may be locked into whatever platform they originally had it written on, unless there's some very significant reason to change. I know a lot of companies choose a *nix flavor for this reason. It allows much more portability between hardware platforms, and the OS isn't M$.

...but that is what they buy and what they design software for because they are so friggin' cheap...

And, at least for the foreseeable future, PCs are going to continue to corner the market on cheap machines. No question. Really, no point in arguing about it.

I actually get paid to be a computer technology advocate. Part of my job is understanding that there are some things that PCs running Windows are best suited for, some things that PCs running Linux are best suited for, and some things that Macs are best suited for. Trying to fit one in where another fits better is always painful. Not such a good thing to do...

pjkelnhofer
Feb 12, 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
I don't think Apple expects us to get excited by 1Ghz, I give them enough credit that they realize that Motorola's G4 has been a painful part of their history. But when the G5 was introduced it was a great step ahead, but not perfect. At the moment, the 970FX is looking to be a great replacement in the entire line, so hopefully we'll see some nice G5 iMacs & PowerBooks soon as well as a rev to the PowerMac.

So for those who were worried about topic, we've gotten back on!

First of all thanks for getting us back on topic. You are probably right. They don't want us excited, but they do want us to buy the machines which is just as bad.

Now on topic:
Hopefully, the 970FX will be fast enough soon enough that the whole Mac line can go to 64-bits faster than they all went to G4. I almost wonder if the do not want to bother with a 2.0 GHz, Dual 2.2 GHz, Dual 2.4 GHz line if the really think it could be 2.6 GHz, Dual 2.8 GHz, Dual 3.0 GHz by June (wasn't 3.0 GHz with the next year Steve's promise?).
If that happens, there is no reason not to put the slower (ie < 2 Ghz) PPC970's into the the consumer lines. Then there would be value in Apple's low-end models (the iBooks could even stay G4 if it the had the 1.25 and 1.33's and offered a SuperDrive option).

I already broke my promise... now I am really going to take a break for the forums.

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
You know Snowy_River, I think in some ways we agree more than we disagree.

I think that you're right...

Everything you wrote above is true, but Apple is not going to increase market share when it's cheapest computer is $800 and all but impossible to upgrade.

Well, yes and no. If it was $800 because it was a PoS, made with the cheapest parts, etc., this would ultimately come back and byte them in the end. Now, if it was something like a headless iMac (something that many people, including myself, have been calling for), then it could work. It would allow the consumer level user to choose whatever monitor they want, and it would eliminate the $700-$1000 cost of the monitor on the iMac. So, I'd suggest that we all pray for a new Cube! ;)

I agree that splitting the company would solve some of the problems, but I disagree that it would kill the software/OS part. I just think it might kill the hardware part unless Apple decides that more sales and lower margin is the only way to survive.

There are other huge risks with such a move. I'll see if I can track down the article that talked about that back in the day...

...nothing in the current Apple line-up with my budget seems worth the money. So I just wait impatiently for something to change.

Yeah, I'd agree, if you don't need a consumer level computer then now isn't the time to be buying one...

...I have made too many posts in the last hour. I am going to go back to my real life for a while and take a break from these forums.

Me too. See ya!

Snowy_River
Feb 12, 2004, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
First of all thanks for getting us back on topic. You are probably right. They don't want us excited, but they do want us to buy the machines which is just as bad.

Just because they still have the product available does that mean that they want/expect us to buy them? Would you rather that they discontinued offering any consumer level products until they had something new/more competitive to offer? They're providing us with what they have to offer...

Now on topic:
Hopefully, the 970FX will be fast enough soon enough that the whole Mac line can go to 64-bits faster than they all went to G4. I almost wonder if the do not want to bother with a 2.0 GHz, Dual 2.2 GHz, Dual 2.4 GHz line if the really think it could be 2.6 GHz, Dual 2.8 GHz, Dual 3.0 GHz by June (wasn't 3.0 GHz with the next year Steve's promise?).
If that happens, there is no reason not to put the slower (ie < 2 Ghz) PPC970's into the the consumer lines.

Except the design work that would need to go into creating these whole new products...

Then there would be value in Apple's low-end models (the iBooks could even stay G4 if it the had the 1.25 and 1.33's and offered a SuperDrive option).

There is another consumer option that has been rumored. That is the 750VX, the G3 class processor that has Altivec. So, the 750VX could be called a G4, and is rumored to scale up past 1.5GHz, and run cooler than the current G4s, at least at the same clock speeds. So, having the G4 in the consumer line may not go away just yet, but simply superceded by the 750VX-G4.

I already broke my promise... now I am really going to take a break for the forums.

Oops, so did I...

Hasta...

NusuniAdmin
Feb 12, 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
[B]I think that you're right...
Well, yes and no. If it was $800 because it was a PoS, made with the cheapest parts, etc., this would ultimately come back and byte them in the end. Now, if it was something like a headless iMac (something that many people, including myself, have been calling for), then it could work. It would allow the consumer level user to choose whatever monitor they want, and it would eliminate the $700-$1000 cost of the monitor on the iMac. So, I'd suggest that we all pray for a new Cube! ;)


Well my dads emac is great, been running flawlessly for a half year with no problems whatsoever. Ya a new cube would be great.......oO(the iCube).....lol

neilw
Feb 12, 2004, 10:42 PM
One note about the clones.

As a past satisfied owner of a Power Computing machine, I was pretty upset when Apple pulled the rug out from under them. Nowadays I understand their reasons better, and believe they did what they had to do at the time.

However, what is sometimes extraordinarily frustrating about being a Mac owner is that, in the absence of the clones, Apple has taken an anti-choice approach, at least with regards to the desktop line. They feel that they can shoehorn their customers into their narrow categories, and I guess they can because there's nowhere else to turn.

If clones were still around, you can obviously assume that something equivalent to a headless iMac would be available, because there is demand for it. But for now, we are subject to Apple's (and maybe just Steve's) marketing whims.

It would be nice if Apple, knowing that they're the only game in town for Mac users, elected to make sure they covered the bases pretty well, so that at least *most* potential Mac users would have machines suitable for them. Instead, they have decided that all desktop users are served by either a giant workstation-class system, or a non-expandable all-in-one, and if you don't like it than tough luck. It's really amazing they've gotten away with it, though based on market share numbers you could argue whether they actually have.

Clearly, the pre-Jobs product line was ridiculous, but Apple has taken it way too far in the other direction. Obviously I'm hoping at some point for an affordable non-AIO machine, but at the very least make the AIO machines competitive. Right now that means G5. I hope that once the 970FXs are really flowing, the whole line will get updated, and the sooner the better.

Snowy_River
Feb 13, 2004, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Well my dads emac is great, been running flawlessly for a half year with no problems whatsoever. Ya a new cube would be great.......oO(the iCube).....lol

Yeah, the eMacs are pretty nice. I've known several people that have bought them and been very satisfied with them. They are definitely an example of what Apple can do with low end machines. If they were to use that same chipset and processor installed in a basic mini-tower or a desktop like the cube that had some minimum level of expandability, it would be great and could cost as little as $600.

Snowy_River
Feb 13, 2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by neilw
One note about the clones.

As a past satisfied owner of a Power Computing machine, I was pretty upset when Apple pulled the rug out from under them. Nowadays I understand their reasons better, and believe they did what they had to do at the time.

However, what is sometimes extraordinarily frustrating about being a Mac owner is that, in the absence of the clones, Apple has taken an anti-choice approach, at least with regards to the desktop line. They feel that they can shoehorn their customers into their narrow categories, and I guess they can because there's nowhere else to turn.

If clones were still around, you can obviously assume that something equivalent to a headless iMac would be available, because there is demand for it. But for now, we are subject to Apple's (and maybe just Steve's) marketing whims.

It would be nice if Apple, knowing that they're the only game in town for Mac users, elected to make sure they covered the bases pretty well, so that at least *most* potential Mac users would have machines suitable for them. Instead, they have decided that all desktop users are served by either a giant workstation-class system, or a non-expandable all-in-one, and if you don't like it than tough luck. It's really amazing they've gotten away with it, though based on market share numbers you could argue whether they actually have.

Clearly, the pre-Jobs product line was ridiculous, but Apple has taken it way too far in the other direction. Obviously I'm hoping at some point for an affordable non-AIO machine, but at the very least make the AIO machines competitive. Right now that means G5. I hope that once the 970FXs are really flowing, the whole line will get updated, and the sooner the better.

I share your hopes, but for now, I think that Apple is trying to stay to a fairly narrow and safe course.

Jonnod III
Feb 13, 2004, 01:48 AM
I agree that splitting the company would solve some of the problems,

What problems???

Apple is profitable. Granted the sales fluctuate - but I bet almost all other computer manufacturers would kill for Apple's profitability.

Apple haver one of top 5 most recognisable brands in the world. Of anything, not just computers.
Apple design products that change the world. Think translucent plastic. Think iPod. Think iTunes.

It's easy to speculate about which processor should be used where - but just try doing it when the future of your company depends on it and your speculatation is a tad more important than just to impress some posters on this forum ;)

I'm just happy that Apple are still here, are healthy, are profucing knockout product (ok, maybe not as knockout as it could be... :p ).... without their underpowered machines, their lack of a 'headless iMac' etc etc, I'd have to use a machine from the Axis of Evil.

Supa_Fly
Feb 13, 2004, 03:07 AM
Does anyone remember that a seriously low-profile mini-tower NEVER existed on the MS PC platform until after the Cube??

I do.

Now, for those of you calling for a mini-tower or Cube rennaissance, of consumer headless; I personally think your off your rocker, but I understand.

I'm hoping that the 970FX will eventually allow all Macs except low end consumer line to go fully 64-bit, OS and all.

A non-upgradeable Cube like machine will just piss most of you off again - man we're already having this conversation in various threads as it is. When the Cube was out hardly anyone bought it, the cracks really annoyed some, and until they pulled the plug everyone avoided them like the plague except for a few astute ones, wish I had the cash then. Collectors are now loving it. PoS Cube I don't think is needed - as the iMac FP replaces it sweetly, as its head can be swung around to show clients the breakdown of pricing to solve discrepancies. Furthermore, they take up SOooooOO much less space, and USB/FIrewire connectors for laser/IR scanners/printers etc. Its all there just open your mind a little. Sure the pricing is expensive but imagine it with OLED or the new AOLED that Sony is gonna put into their future PDA's.

Most of us actually hated the iMac FP when it was introduced as well, but we all had to see it in person and see it in use to fully appreciate it. Same with the PowerMac G5; I personally loved it at first sight along with the Cube. There are target markets that need certain kinds of Targets, yet I think Apples research team is doing a fine job of shoe-horn fitting because of the lack of design on the other side currently.

Thus far its working pretty well according to the numbers (profitability, sales, etc)

I see Apple surprising us with increased speed bump on Steve's 3Ghz promise late summer, but not before tantilizing us with a revised iMac line....maybe called a new system with a Mac name in it of course.:D

Toreador93
Feb 13, 2004, 04:52 AM
It took me an hour and a half to read all 7 pages of this!

I've been going back and forth between getting a Powerbook and a PC.
Especially today, my girlfriend is using her professor's PB 667MHz, and while she was working at our Residence Building's front desk, people kept commenting on how cool it was. She got a kick out of it.

Recently, though, I've discovered a high-end PC manufacturer. Actually, I think I first saw it in one of MacRumor's threads. Voodoo PC (http://www.voodoopc.com)

Their Pent M notebooks are 1.1" thick, and all notebooks are painted with 8 layers of auto paint & clearcoat (your choice of color), 72 hour burn-in, and ability to upgrade.
Voodoo Notebooks (http://www.voodoopc.com/systems/notebook.aspx)

Their Pent Ms get 4hr+ battery life, while their AMD 3200/3400 gets over 3 hours. So I don't understand why eMachine's battery rating was low.

I understand this is a Mac forum, but some people question the availability of good looking, performance tuned PCs. While I haven't taken the plunge either way yet, a Voodoo looks very tempting.
_________

I would love to use OS X, and have that sexy Al case, but Apple really has to do something with the internals.
I like to game, but still want the perks of OS X. If there were "Clones", I'm sure they would've come out with this machine already. And with the availability of these machines, I think game makers would take a second look at the Mac, which I know would make a lot of people happy.

But as long as Apple is happy with their 5% market share, this will never happen.

Snowy_River
Feb 13, 2004, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Prom1
Does anyone remember that a seriously low-profile mini-tower NEVER existed on the MS PC platform until after the Cube??
...

Just for the record, there's a big difference between a Cube and a mini-tower. Most PCs today are mini-towers. Technically, the G5 is a mini-tower. What I was talking about was the reintroduction of a mini-tower that was aimed more at the consumer market. It could be more 'mini' than the G5, but more expandable than the iMac/eMac/Cube. Best of all worlds...

(A full tower has no less than six card slots...)

Snowy_River
Feb 13, 2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Toreador93
...I understand this is a Mac forum, but some people question the availability of good looking, performance tuned PCs. While I haven't taken the plunge either way yet, a Voodoo looks very tempting....

Actually, I think that there are relatively few people around that would deny that there's some very nice hardware on the PC side. It's just that most of it isn't. And that the default OS is... less than desirable. ;)

...
I would love to use OS X, and have that sexy Al case, but Apple really has to do something with the internals.
I like to game, but still want the perks of OS X.

My friend, I'm not sure that a Mac is the best option for you. In general, with anyone who says 'I like to game', I immediately tend to point them toward PCs. Sure, Macs have games, but the lack of releases and the delayed releases of most games tend to frustrate gamers to no end. In the end, the gamers that I've known who bought Macs ended up selling them, and telling everyone they know how much Macs suck because they couldn't get game XYZ.

If there were "Clones", I'm sure they would've come out with this machine already. And with the availability of these machines, I think game makers would take a second look at the Mac, which I know would make a lot of people happy.

As I've already discussed, if there were clones, there probably wouldn't be a Mac platform, at this point. I don't see the point in discussing it further.

But as long as Apple is happy with their 5% market share, this will never happen.

This has been said many times now. Who says they're happy with 5%? Perhaps they're happy with where they're at right now (which is how I interpret most comments that come from Cupertino on this subject), but that doesn't mean that they don't want to grow. There's a difference between content and complacent...

Snowy_River
Feb 13, 2004, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Jonnod III
What problems???...

Splitting the company into a hardware and a software company would be an enormously expensive endeavor. It could easily result in an immediate loss of confidence from Wall Street, making Apple almost worthless. It would risk the tight integration between the hardware and software that we all love about the Mac systems. If it were done in concert with openning up licensing for clones, then the sudden proliferation of cheap PoS Mac clones could result in significant degredation of the overall stability of Macs, and thus tarnish their otherwise stellar reputation (yes, there are those who've had bad experiences, but the are vastly in the minority...). With a tarnished reputation, people would be more likely to go the Windows route, driving Mac marketshare even lower. Even the OS branch would then face big problems. If they chose to produce an x86 version of Mac OS X, they'd just be another little operating system in a very big pond, going head-to-head with Windows. In the end, they'd very likely face the same fate as BeOS, a better operating system that died.

army_guy
Feb 13, 2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
Just for the record, there's a big difference between a Cube and a mini-tower. Most PCs today are mini-towers. Technically, the G5 is a mini-tower. What I was talking about was the reintroduction of a mini-tower that was aimed more at the consumer market. It could be more 'mini' than the G5, but more expandable than the iMac/eMac/Cube. Best of all worlds...

(A full tower has no less than six card slots...)

G5 is a midi tower in height, not in expandability. Full tower is too tall for my liking I prefere 4u and 5u rackmount chassis anything else is too big or too noisy due to small fans.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 13, 2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Snowy_River

...snipped out good points about splitting up software and hardware...

If they chose to produce an x86 version of Mac OS X, they'd just be another little operating system in a very big pond, going head-to-head with Windows. In the end, they'd very likely face the same fate as BeOS, a better operating system that died.

It would have one advantage though. It would already have a large PPC installed user base, and many of us (ourselves, friends or family) also have an x86 machine from which we would gladly remove Windows or at the very least make it a dual boot system.

I don't think the answer is splitting the company or releasing an x86 version of OS X either. I just wish that there were other was to get an OS X capable computer then always going through Apple.

And, I would like to make this point. If Apple OS X were the dominant OS in the world. Apple would be in the position that MicroSoft is in. Everything else they made (software, the iPod, and PowerMacs) would be scrutinized to be sure that they were not using there power as the dominant OS to push their other products.

I also had a marketing idea today that I already posted here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=707402#post707402) that would help to grow market share IMHO.

pishnaris
Feb 13, 2004, 07:46 PM
Steve tried to catch that wave back in '92, I think, when he released NeXTStep on the Intel chip. It worked, but didn't really catch on. The apps were still too expensive.

Of course, OS 10 is NeXTStep, essentially, and maybe the time has come for this to be tried again. Everyone in the world is fed up with Windows Whatever. It truly sux.

leftbanke7
Feb 13, 2004, 08:36 PM
Based on all of what I have read on this thread, I have come up with a product line that might appease most everybody:

Pro Line:
G5 with the new IBM chips
(keep them at the same price or maybe a 100 dollar drop)

Laptop line:
PB with underclocked G5 chip
(1600.00-2100.00)
iBook with the beefed up Altivec enabled G3*
(low end at around 700.00-750.00 to about 1100.00 for top end)

Consumer Line
iMac with underclocked G5 with 3 screen sizes (15", 17" 20")
(1400.00-2000.00)
Headless iMac with underclocked G5
(1100.00 - 1300.00)

Budget Models
iMac with Altivec enabled G3 and 2 screen sizes (15", 17")
(800.00 - 1000.00)
Headless iMac with Altivec enabled G3
(500.00 - 700.00)
eMac with Altivec enabled G3
(800.00 - 1000.00)

*There needs to be a new name for these chips as G3 tells people that the technology is 5-6 years old and G4 tells people that they are getting crappy MotoSlowa chips.

Suggestions? Additions? Comments? Complaints (which on this site there should be many of them)?

Rincewind42
Feb 13, 2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by leftbanke7
Altivec enabled G3

Can we please stop with the altivec enabled G3? It makes no sense now, it never made any sense in the past, and it makes less sense as time goes on. The G4 already goes faster than IBM's current G3s, a G3 w/Altivec would use as much power as a G4 at the same speed and with the 970FX drawing a dozen watts at 1.4Ghz there really isn't any point to making a G3 w/Altivec running at the same speed and consuming the same amount of power.

The 750VX rumor never made sense, can we please let it die?

NusuniAdmin
Feb 13, 2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Can we please stop with the altivec enabled G3? It makes no sense now, it never made any sense in the past, and it makes less sense as time goes on. The G4 already goes faster than IBM's current G3s, a G3 w/Altivec would use as much power as a G4 at the same speed and with the 970FX drawing a dozen watts at 1.4Ghz there really isn't any point to making a G3 w/Altivec running at the same speed and consuming the same amount of power.

The 750VX rumor never made sense, can we please let it die?

Uhhhgg I have said this tons of times, IBM IS MAKING A ALTIVEC G3, called the 750GX this is a REAL chip that ibm will start manufacturing very soon, in fact it might be already since according to articles on ibm.com it said planning stopped in december. The 750 VX is a dumb rumor from someone who does NOT real ibm.com articles. lol ok its ok...im ok ....im ok

Sun Baked
Feb 13, 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by NusuniAdmin
Uhhhgg I have said this tons of times, IBM IS MAKING A ALTIVEC G3, called the 750GX this is a REAL chip that ibm will start manufacturing very soon, in fact it might be already since according to articles on ibm.com it said planning stopped in december. The 750 VX is a dumb rumor from someone who does NOT real ibm.com articles. lol ok its ok...im ok ....im ok I cannot find the Altivec included stuff in the PowerPC 750GX Product description (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/D6E15FAFF8BFB21387256DCC007B2114)

Where is it?

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=695236

pjkelnhofer
Feb 13, 2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
I cannot find the Altivec included stuff in the PowerPC 750GX Product description (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/D6E15FAFF8BFB21387256DCC007B2114)

Where is it?


I cannot find it either. Also, it only lists speed up to 1.1 GHz. Hardly a replacement for the Moto Chips.

Rincewind42
Feb 13, 2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
I cannot find the Altivec included stuff in the PowerPC 750GX Product description (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/D6E15FAFF8BFB21387256DCC007B2114)

Where is it?

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=695236

The 750GX doesn't have it. At least, IBM has never come out and said that it has Altivec. The only PPC that IBM has said has Altivec is the 970, and given the design of the 750 I seriously doubt that they expect anyone to use it for high performance computing - the spec sheet specifically calls it out as a low-power CPU that just happens to be capable of good performance if you need it - and then you clock back down to low power on idle.

It's pretty simple - there is no reason to put Altivec in a the 750 - if you want Altivec in that kind of CPU, you can get it in the 74xx from Motorola.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 14, 2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
The 750GX doesn't have it. At least, IBM has never come out and said that it has Altivec. The only PPC that IBM has said has Altivec is the 970, and given the design of the 750 I seriously doubt that they expect anyone to use it for high performance computing - the spec sheet specifically calls it out as a low-power CPU that just happens to be capable of good performance if you need it - and then you clock back down to low power on idle.

It's pretty simple - there is no reason to put Altivec in a the 750 - if you want Altivec in that kind of CPU, you can get it in the 74xx from Motorola.

Basically then, unless the 750VX really does exist and IBM is keeping it a secret until Apple releases it in a Mac, the G3/G4 is really dead and the next step (for processors) if the PPC970 (or some version) of it in all Mac models.

Essentially, everything will go G5 because there is nowhere else to go.

NusuniAdmin
Feb 14, 2004, 06:55 AM
I swear I have read, maybe it was a misread, anyways I will look around for that article i saw it on.

rdowns
Feb 14, 2004, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by leftbanke7
Based on all of what I have read on this thread, I have come up with a product line that might appease most everybody:

Pro Line:
G5 with the new IBM chips
(keep them at the same price or maybe a 100 dollar drop)

Laptop line:
PB with underclocked G5 chip
(1600.00-2100.00)
iBook with the beefed up Altivec enabled G3*
(low end at around 700.00-750.00 to about 1100.00 for top end)

Consumer Line
iMac with underclocked G5 with 3 screen sizes (15", 17" 20")
(1400.00-2000.00)
Headless iMac with underclocked G5
(1100.00 - 1300.00)

Budget Models
iMac with Altivec enabled G3 and 2 screen sizes (15", 17")
(800.00 - 1000.00)
Headless iMac with Altivec enabled G3
(500.00 - 700.00)
eMac with Altivec enabled G3
(800.00 - 1000.00)

*There needs to be a new name for these chips as G3 tells people that the technology is 5-6 years old and G4 tells people that they are getting crappy MotoSlowa chips.

Suggestions? Additions? Comments? Complaints (which on this site there should be many of them)?

Underclocked, you must have went to the Steve Jobs School fof Marketing.

Apple needs to put the G5 in its entire line.

PowerMacs needs latest G5s, all dual processor.

No underclocked G5s in the iMac line. Single, fastest G5s they have. Limited expandability and single processors are enough differentiation from the PM line. Stop crippling this line. Drop the 15" and offer 17" and 20". Want a 15", buy the headless model and choose your own monitor.

Powerooks should use the same chips as the iMac. The motherboards could be similar with regard to heat issues. All wide screen line. Could lead to better economies of scale for Apple.


I like the idea of slower G5s in a headless design. Keep it simple, 2 models tops. This becomes their "budget" (can you use that word for Apple products?) line. If you look at the iMacs today, they are "budget" lines already if you take away the expensive LCD. (The 20" Cinema LCD costs $1299, the 20" iMac $2199. There's your under $1,000 "budget" computer although the delta is wider if you use the 17" as a comparison but you have a wide screen on the iMac.)

As for eMac, return to its roots as an education machine. The only reason Apple released it to consumers was because of its price point. The headless G5 would replace it in the Apple lineup.

Slower G5s in the iBook 6 months after the PowerBook G5 comes out. Diffrentiate these models by speed, RAM expandability, video card, video out and no wide screen models.

G5s everywhere. Hasten the move to all an all 64 bit lineup and move to 64 bit OS and apps within 3 years. Lay out a roadmap for your developers and consumers. (yeah, like that will ever happen)

Rant over, off to buy some over priced roses (Apple must have something to do with this) for my sweetie.

Rincewind42
Feb 14, 2004, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Basically then, unless the 750VX really does exist and IBM is keeping it a secret until Apple releases it in a Mac, the G3/G4 is really dead and the next step (for processors) if the PPC970 (or some version) of it in all Mac models.

Essentially, everything will go G5 because there is nowhere else to go.

And this is a bad thing because :D

pjkelnhofer
Feb 14, 2004, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
And this is a bad thing because :D

Actually, I meant that it is a wonderful thing. I have been saying all over these boards that Apple needs to get the G5 into as many products as they can ASAP. A lot of the time people respond saying that the alleged IBM G3+Altivec is the next step for many of the machines (in particular the iMac, iBook, and eMac).

However, there still is not solid reason to believe IBM is going to release such a chip. I cannot find a single source the doesn't lead back to the same AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=318) report.

I say get the G5's into everything but the iBooks by the end of the year. The iBook can stay G4 for a well over another year (since it has splenty of G4 speed bumps left and when it has a different processor than the PowerBook it can be given the SuperDrive).

edit:
Upon further review, not only does every 750VX/"Mojave" rumor trace back to AppleInsider, but also it is constantly earmarked for the iBook line. If it does exist (which I still doubt) it is probably just a way to get the iBook line to up to 2 GHz (so it competes with low-end Wintel notebooks in GHz) while keeping it segregated from the PowerBook. If the rumors are true and it is slated to be released in Q3 2004 in the iBook then most certainly the PowerBook will be G5 at that time. They are not going to put a faster newer chip into the iBooks!!!

Rincewind42
Feb 14, 2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
Upon further review, not only does every 750VX/"Mojave" rumor trace back to AppleInsider, but also it is constantly earmarked for the iBook line. If it does exist (which I still doubt) it is probably just a way to get the iBook line to up to 2 GHz (so it competes with low-end Wintel notebooks in GHz) while keeping it segregated from the PowerBook. If the rumors are true and it is slated to be released in Q3 2004 in the iBook then most certainly the PowerBook will be G5 at that time. They are not going to put a faster newer chip into the iBooks!!!

Yea, I've always been in the camp that the 750VX doesn't exist, mostly for the reason that Moto's G4, while not as advanced, will probably do fine for the iBooks. After all, Pentium-M notebooks are only doing 1.6Ghz right now iirc, and may hit 2Ghz by the end of the year. But P-M notebooks are also the high end of the PC market, so I think Apple would probably consider the iBook against the P-M rather than the P4M, while the PB goes off past 2Ghz with the 970.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 14, 2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Yea, I've always been in the camp that the 750VX doesn't exist, mostly for the reason that Moto's G4, while not as advanced, will probably do fine for the iBooks. After all, Pentium-M notebooks are only doing 1.6Ghz right now iirc, and may hit 2Ghz by the end of the year. But P-M notebooks are also the high end of the PC market, so I think Apple would probably consider the iBook against the P-M rather than the P4M, while the PB goes off past 2Ghz with the 970.

Additionally, they have to compete with the Athlon 64 notebooks that are already out there doing 1.8 GHz. I believe that Apple knows that the G5 PowerBook is a must. If for no other reason that to seperate them from the iBooks. Right main thing seperating them is the SuperDrive (sure the PB's have slightly faster G4's, but not by much heck both are availible at 1 GHz).

Like I said, I doubt the 750VX exists. Even if it does, it is not the future of the PowerBook (or even the iMac/eMac).

aswitcher
Feb 14, 2004, 04:24 PM
Am I right in thinking that the G5 Powerbooks when they finally come out are going to have to have ram obey the rules seen with the towers, that is two sticks of the same ram? Is this going to be a problem for people because those wanting 3rd party ram face buying at least two sticks of 256?

Could apple possibly come up with a different configuration, like two sticks on the motherboard of 256 and two slots free?
What about 4 slots like the 1.6? To big even for the 15 and 17?

:confused:

pjkelnhofer
Feb 14, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by aswitcher
Am I right in thinking that the G5 Powerbooks when they finally come out are going to have to have ram obey the rules seen with the towers, that is two sticks of the same ram? Is this going to be a problem for people because those wanting 3rd party ram face buying at least two sticks of 256?

Could apple possibly come up with a different configuration, like two sticks on the motherboard of 256 and two slots free?
What about 4 slots like the 1.6? To big even for the 15 and 17?

:confused:

I believe this is not correct. I think that the memory in pairs is not a function of the G5 itself, but of the system bus on the motherboard. I am not an expert, but glancing at this block diagram (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/2Architecture/chapter_3_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000803/TPXREF102) seems to confirm this. You should be able to have a G5 chip without having the memory in pairs.

army_guy
Feb 14, 2004, 04:38 PM
just occured to me, the powerbook G5 maybe awaiting DDR2, so far these module consume alot less power, less heat and are much smaller than thier DDR parts. IMO the powerbooks will be anounced at the next show in June/July with availability in october/november. So much is gona start happening in the computer industry 2Q, 3Q, and 4Q, all components will move onto the next generation.

army_guy
Feb 14, 2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
I believe this is not correct. I think that the memory in pairs is not a function of the G5 itself, but of the system bus on the motherboard. I am not an expert, but glancing at this block diagram (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/2Architecture/chapter_3_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP30000803/TPXREF102) seems to confirm this. You should be able to have a G5 chip without having the memory in pairs.

If thier not in pairs you dont get the whole BW for the memory because of the dual channel design, you think pairs are bad try double pairs for the DUAL Opteron (even with 3 sticks it runs in single channel mode, it needs the full 4) and more for the latter.

aswitcher
Feb 14, 2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
just occured to me, the powerbook G5 maybe awaiting DDR2, so far these module consume alot less power, less heat and are much smaller than thier DDR parts. IMO the powerbooks will be anounced at the next show in June/July with availability in october/november. So much is gona start happening in the computer industry 2Q, 3Q, and 4Q, all components will move onto the next generation.

Oct/Nov...too far away for me...Even a G4PB tweak and price drop would do me rather than wait 8-9 months...

army_guy
Feb 14, 2004, 04:48 PM
too far but realistic, think about it. What other show can they announce the PB G5's. OK so availability might be immediate in June/July 5-6 months? Then again DDR2 is gona be expensive hmm. It maybe better to wait until the modules mature enough, iam prety sure it will hurt high BW machines such as the G5/Opteron/FX due to the rediculous latencies in the current 533MHz modules, could be better to wait the the 666/800Mhz DDR2 modules.

Rincewind42
Feb 14, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by aswitcher
Am I right in thinking that the G5 Powerbooks when they finally come out are going to have to have ram obey the rules seen with the towers, that is two sticks of the same ram? Is this going to be a problem for people because those wanting 3rd party ram face buying at least two sticks of 256?

It may be less performance, but I don't think that Apple will design the PowerBook G5 motherboard to require RAM sticks in matched pairs - there is just too little free space on the motherboard to make this a simple thing to design. None-the-less I wouldn't put it past them to design a PBG5 for pure performance and give it 4 RAM slots. But I also don't think the PBG5 will use DDR-400 SO-DIMMs (from what I've heard in the past they are notoriously hard to find).

Personally for various reasons, I would expect the PBG5 to initially clock in no higher than 1.5/1.65/1.8 Ghz on a 500/550/600Mhz bus.

aswitcher
Feb 14, 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
It may be less performance, but I don't think that Apple will design the PowerBook G5 motherboard to require RAM sticks in matched pairs - there is just too little free space on the motherboard to make this a simple thing to design. None-the-less I wouldn't put it past them to design a PBG5 for pure performance and give it 4 RAM slots. But I also don't think the PBG5 will use DDR-400 SO-DIMMs (from what I've heard in the past they are notoriously hard to find).

Personally for various reasons, I would expect the PBG5 to initially clock in no higher than 1.5/1.65/1.8 Ghz on a 500/550/600Mhz bus.

Well waiting 8-9 months for that...nice to have a G5 but thats its a long wait for a slight speed improvement. Sure they will also tweka the graphics card, maybe a better screen, etc but I am not sure how much better it will really be over a G4 I could buy now...

pjkelnhofer
Feb 14, 2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
too far but realistic, think about it. What other show can they announce the PB G5's. OK so availability might be immediate in June/July 5-6 months?

I agree. The last PB update (Paris) were they availible almost immediately (not counting BTO's)?

[i[Originally posted by army_guy
If thier not in pairs you dont get the whole BW for the memory because of the dual channel design, you think pairs are bad try double pairs for the DUAL Opteron (even with 3 sticks it runs in single channel mode, it needs the full 4) and more for the latter.


So there is no way to make a single processor G5 to see a single ram chip? I would hope Apple can figure out how.

Rincewind42
Feb 14, 2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by pjkelnhofer
So there is no way to make a single processor G5 to see a single ram chip? I would hope Apple can figure out how.

It's not a matter of the chips must be installed in pairs, but rather that you get more bandwidth that way. You can certainly create a G5 system that took RAM in singles, but you'd get max 3.2 GBps (with PC3200 RAM) vs the 6.4 GBps that the top end PowerMac G5s get.

Now, a G5 running on a 500Mhz bus would get a combined bandwidth of about 4GBps (2GBps in each direction). Assuming no more than 2 RAM chips on the system in a non-dual channel setup that means you could write one PC2700 chip while reading from another at full bandwidth (or even do so for PC2100 chips for that matter). A 600Mhz bus could max out at 4.8 GBps (2.4GBps each direction) which would still not saturate a PC2700 chip.

So for the bus speeds that I think are likely in a PowerBook (3:1 instead of the 2:1 in the PowerMacs) I don't think that dual channel will be necessary. Now if they decide to go for more industry ball busting, then they would probably go ahead and do PC3200 dual channel 4 slots and 2:1 bus ratio. But then I would also expect them to give us 2Ghz G5s in the low-end models and 2 hour battery lives :D.

pjkelnhofer
Feb 14, 2004, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Rincewind42
It's not a matter of the chips must be installed in pairs, but rather that you get more bandwidth that way. You can certainly create a G5 system that took RAM in singles, but you'd get max 3.2 GBps (with PC3200 RAM) vs the 6.4 GBps that the top end PowerMac G5s get.

Thanks, that answers the original question posted by aswitcher who was concerned that G5 PB's would have to have two open slots which would have to be filled in tandem.

So other than heat/cooling issues are there an real hurdles in the way of G5 PB's. I don't really believe these are major obstacles as I assume Apple knows/has known what to expect heat wise from the 970fx chips for quite some time. In general, how long before actual production would Apple get prototypes to design around.

Bilba
Feb 14, 2004, 11:48 PM
If the G5 pbook update will only become available arround Oct, it only makes sense for Apple to release an updated version of the current model. I don't see how Apple can keep on selling the current model for extra 8-9 months. This will mean that the current model will be going for more than 1 year. This does not make sense. The current model is already "behind", and having it as the top model for so much time is stupid.
If Apple do know that they need 8 more months for the G5, they will release an updated version that will carry them throughout this time. What they might put in it is unknown, but maybe the reports at macosrumors.com are correct and we will see the new model in the next 2 weeks or so. Seeing an updated version should also be seen as an hint about when the G5 version will be out (about 6-8 months).
Anyway, Apple could also take as all by surprise, and release the G5 powerbook in 2-3 weeks...Yeah right.

I am still holding my powerbook purchase until the end of Feb.

Good luck for us all.

neonart
Feb 15, 2004, 12:31 AM
I find interesting that we know the new processors (970FX) are going in Xserves. We know they can do dual 2 Ghz in a 1U enclosure.
WHY THE HECK HAVE THE TOWERS NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED?
Do they not have any chips besides 2Ghz?

...wait... I get it. The 970FX is just out. The Xserve was announced because it's a brand new product that is announced before it's shipped. The speed upgrades on the G5 towers will be announced ONCE they can be shipped without (long) wait. That means that the towers will probably be announced in March, when the first Xserve G5's start becoming available. I think this makes sense. Right?

aswitcher
Feb 15, 2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Bilba
If the G5 pbook update will only become available arround Oct, it only makes sense for Apple to release an updated version of the current model. I don't see how Apple can keep on selling the current model for extra 8-9 months. This will mean that the current model will be going for more than 1 year. This does not make sense. The current model is already "behind", and having it as the top model for so much time is stupid.
If Apple do know that they need 8 more months for the G5, they will release an updated version that will carry them throughout this time. What they might put in it is unknown, but maybe the reports at macosrumors.com are correct and we will see the new model in the next 2 weeks or so. Seeing an updated version should also be seen as an hint about when the G5 version will be out (about 6-8 months).
Anyway, Apple could also take as all by surprise, and release the G5 powerbook in 2-3 weeks...Yeah right.

I am still holding my powerbook purchase until the end of Feb.

Good luck for us all.

Yeah, the wait continues.

If they do a new G4 PB, a slight speed boost would be nice. Shame there is no likelyhood of putting in a better bus.
Beefed up L2 might help?

A price drop - especially for Oz - would also be very well received

Having Airport X and Bluetooth standard on all models makes sense.

Faster superdrive. Maybe super as standard?

Bumped graphics card. 9800?

Larger standarded harddisk - 80 Gig - possibly faster?

Minimuim 512 MB Ram would be another smart standard - its a power book after all.

Appleworks as standard would be another step to promote
Apple's stuff...but I wonder if the deal with Microsoft in January might preclude such an option.
An OEM discounted version of Office would also be good - something present for most PC systems.

I think that completes my wish list if I must by a new G4 PB

Anybody got any other ideas?

ionas
Feb 15, 2004, 03:36 AM
if you are talking about PB
no 9700er mobility, takes more energy afaik

just use the 9600pro.

harddisk: most ppl wont need faster than 4200RPM.

maybe as a BTO option (60/80 GB 7200)

bluetooth and airport extreme default makes sense - yes.

higher resolutions would be good!

12" 1280*960 (non widescreen) SXGA
14" 1400*1050 (non widescreen) SXGA+
15" 1400*1050 (non widescreen) SXGA+
15" 1440*900 (widescreen) WXGA
17" 1680*1050 (widescreen) WSXGA+

but apple still stells low resolution cheap crap displays in their PBs

i dont get that. (well its a sireous cost factor - still i dont get it)

Jonnod III
Feb 15, 2004, 03:49 AM
following on from the screen resolution point - as a recent convert to OS X, is it me or is all the text bigger in OS X than in OS 9? I mean system stuff, like Finder windows etc.
I've seen PC laptops with incredibly high resolutions, (1600 x whatever), in the same size screen as my Pismo (1024 x whatever) however XP at the resolution requires you to have excellent eyesight.
My Pismo running OS X looks big and chunky against my sister's iMac 17". Looks like OS X was designed to work on higher resolution screens.

(hope this makes sense!!)

neonart
Feb 15, 2004, 08:03 AM
You're right, OSX is really made for slightly higher resolutions, but not necessarily those extremely hi-res people speak of. You're Pismo is a few years old, introduced in Feb of 2000. The newer line of Powerbooks has higher resolutions - and has for a while.
It would be nice if Apple had at least one option for a really high-res display in their pro laptops, maybe as a BTO option. But general demand (and marketing) may be indicating different. As you said- reading stuff on a small (14-15") 1600x1200 screen is not good on the eyes- it's not for everyone.

OK, back to the subject. When do we get new G5 towers? Powerbooks?

army_guy
Feb 15, 2004, 08:05 AM
doesnt the current PB G4 17" feature ATI 9600, lst time I looked it did. THey may or maynot update the graphics chip. In the current powerbooks the 9600 is CPU limited anyway so G5 + 9600 would equal much better performance. Thier is a mobile 9700 but I think heat will be an issue.

invaLPsion
Feb 15, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by neonart
I find interesting that we know the new processors (970FX) are going in Xserves. We know they can do dual 2 Ghz in a 1U enclosure.
WHY THE HECK HAVE THE TOWERS NOT BEEN ANNOUNCED?
Do they not have any chips besides 2Ghz?

...wait... I get it. The 970FX is just out. The Xserve was announced because it's a brand new product that is announced before it's shipped. The speed upgrades on the G5 towers will be announced ONCE they can be shipped without (long) wait. That means that the towers will probably be announced in March, when the first Xserve G5's start becoming available. I think this makes sense. Right?

I think Apple is disregarding their consumers for VT instead. The Xserves must already be available if MacMall is able to sell the VT powermacs.

numediaman
Feb 15, 2004, 10:42 AM
MacOSRumors is reporting:

We may have to wait until Summer, but Dual Optical G5s are coming. There's no clear word on whether this will be part of the forthcoming PowerMac update or if we will have to wait for the promised summer/autumn (3GHz) revision, but one of the most long-awaited G5 features is said to be addressed in Apple's plans for more evolved PowerMacs.

Either way, by the end of the year, PowerMacs will once again be available with two internal optical drives (Superdrive/Combo or Dual Superdrive) preinstalled as an option, and standard models will have the empty second removable drive bay available for future upgrades.


Leaving the source aside, this wouldn't be earth shattering news since most people have been stating their desire to see dual drives, at least as an option. I don't really care either way -- I have a preference for external CD burners.

I still see this update coming in March -- the most likely dates being the 23rd or the 30th. The 9th would be nice, though.

I haven't heard whether 10.3.3 has been re-seeded. If they finish work on this update soon, then I figure two to three weeks or so after that for the update. But, what do I know, right? ;)

invaLPsion
Feb 15, 2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by numediaman
MacOSRumors is reporting:

We may have to wait until Summer, but Dual Optical G5s are coming. There's no clear word on whether this will be part of the forthcoming PowerMac update or if we will have to wait for the promised summer/autumn (3GHz) revision, but one of the most long-awaited G5 features is said to be addressed in Apple's plans for more evolved PowerMacs.

Either way, by the end of the year, PowerMacs will once again be available with two internal optical drives (Superdrive/Combo or Dual Superdrive) preinstalled as an option, and standard models will have the empty second removable drive bay available for future upgrades.


Leaving the source aside, this wouldn't be earth shattering news since most people have been stating their desire to see dual drives, at least as an option. I don't really care either way -- I have a preference for external CD burners.

I still see this update coming in March -- the most likely dates being the 23rd or the 30th. The 9th would be nice, though.

I haven't heard whether 10.3.3 has been re-seeded. If they finish work on this update soon, then I figure two to three weeks or so after that for the update. But, what do I know, right? ;)

Nothing, I hope. Because March is a long time to wait. I don't know where you're getting this march release from. Nobody else is saying that.

neonart
Feb 15, 2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by invaLPsion
I think Apple is disregarding their consumers for VT instead. The Xserves must already be available if MacMall is able to sell the VT powermacs.

You're right. MacMall's site says shipping will begin the week of Feb 16th- that's tomorrow. XServe's must already be a VT for that to happen. This means that the 970FX is shipping in current machines. Which in turn means that Tuesday Feb 16th we should see announcements for new Towers. (Or I will eat my left buttock.)
At least I think it makes sense? If FX's are in the shipping Xserves, what the heck are we waiting for on the towers?

mdriftmeyer
Feb 15, 2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
too far but realistic, think about it. What other show can they announce the PB G5's. OK so availability might be immediate in June/July 5-6 months? Then again DDR2 is gona be expensive hmm. It maybe better to wait until the modules mature enough, iam prety sure it will hurt high BW machines such as the G5/Opteron/FX due to the rediculous latencies in the current 533MHz modules, could be better to wait the the 666/800Mhz DDR2 modules.

World Wide Developer Conference.

mdriftmeyer
Feb 15, 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by army_guy
doesnt the current PB G4 17" feature ATI 9600, lst time I looked it did. THey may or maynot update the graphics chip. In the current powerbooks the 9600 is CPU limited anyway so G5 + 9600 would equal much better performance. Thier is a mobile 9700 but I think heat will be an issue.

I can't find the heat dissipation numbers yet on this chip but the flexibility to connect to HDTV via OEM custom versions as well as configurations of either 64MB or 128MB gives Apple the option of putting this in the upper two laptops.

http://www.ati.com/products/mobilityradeon9700/features.html

Snowy_River
Feb 15, 2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by rdowns
...No underclocked G5s in the iMac line ... Stop crippling this line...

Who said that this would be to cripple the line? Was it crippling the PowerBook line not to put 1.4GHz G4s in them as soon as they were available in the Power Macs? No. It was a temperature issue. The iMacs have similar heat issues to the mobile enclosure, so they need to have slower "underclocked" chips to avoid overheating...

numediaman
Feb 15, 2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by invaLPsion
Nothing, I hope. Because March is a long time to wait. I don't know where you're getting this march release from. Nobody else is saying that.

14 days is a long time? We've been waiting months now!

If you want to credit me for being the one to say "March" then great. But there is a whole thread on the idea of the release date being March 26th -- either here or at AppleInsider.

Why March? 1) Because the 10.3.3 seed was pulled and has not been reintroduced (as far as I know). 2) Because QuickTime 6.5 was pulled for the G5s because it didn't work, and, again, has not been reintroduced. 3) Because G5 users are reporting huge problems with both iMovie 4 and iDVD 4. Revisions will need to be introduced for both, or all of iLife. 4) Because the XServe is just beginning to ship. 5) and because it won't be MWSF, January, or early February. That doesn't leave a lot of options does it?

Does this mean it will be March? No, it could be this Tuesday, or April, or May, or . . .

If the G5s are updated this Tuesday then I will be off by two weeks -- and I'll be as happy as everyone else. If they are announced in March will you buy me a new G5?

invaLPsion
Feb 15, 2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by numediaman
14 days is a long time? We've been waiting months now!

If you want to credit me for being the one to say "March" then great. But there is a whole thread on the idea of the release date being March 26th -- either here or at AppleInsider.

Why March? 1) Because the 10.3.3 seed was pulled and has not been reintroduced (as far as I know). 2) Because QuickTime 6.5 was pulled for the G5s because it didn't work, and, again, has not been reintroduced. 3) Because G5 users are reporting huge problems with both iMovie 4 and iDVD 4. Revisions will need to be introduced for both, or all of iLife. 4) Because the XServe is just beginning to ship. 5) and because it won't be MWSF, January, or early February. That doesn't leave a lot of options does it?

Does this mean it will be March? No, it could be this Tuesday, or April, or May, or . . .

If the G5s are updated this Tuesday then I will be off by two weeks -- and I'll be as happy as everyone else. If they are announced in March will you buy me a new G5?

Apple Insider believes that the releases are "imminent." That is not March. The entire basis of the March 26th thing was that that was when the Australian Trade-up program ended.

No, I will not buy you a G5.:D

army_guy
Feb 16, 2004, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
World Wide Developer Conference.

OK iam corrected.

IMO G5 revisions will be available at WWDC together with the annoucement of the PB G5 but id say it will be 1-2 months before they (PB G5) ship and even if they ship straight away they will be gone ;) as to demand or pre ordered into christmass YAH ;)