Leaked: ****** Info!

[iLilana]

Originally posted by jettredmont


New hardware, new software ... this is going to be a jam-packed keynote (and I'm going to be there!)


Bastard....! I'll sleep with you if you take me.

Lily

[caboosemoose]

How very very strange.

We'll have a better idea on Monday, but my money says someone managed to replace the original graphic on apple's servers with this 'hacked' version.

Imagine you had a pretty good idea what the specs for the next PowerMac were and you wanted to leak these details and it just so happened that you had the technical wherewithall to do this sort of hack. Well this would be a pretty good way of getting people to believe you, ie making it look like a slip up on apple's part. And of course if your info was accurate, apple couldn't deny it today, only to confirm it on Monday.

I don't know if this is what happened, but if it is, then it was actually quite a clever way of goling about it.

I still find the wonky font size and picture size very confusing.

[bignumbers]

Originally posted by iSegway
What is a Serial ATA drive? What is he benefit/difference?

Essentially all current internal hard drives are ATA drives. ATA uses a wide ribbon cable carrying (I think) 40 different little wires. It's a parallel connection - each of 16 bits move on separate wires.

SerialATA is a serial connection, meaning one bit travels after another along the same wires. SerialATA has a 7-pin connector.

One immediate benefit is since the cable (and connector) is thinner, you won't need to worry about the old wide cables blocking air flow inside the case.

Another benefit is a longer cable limit (about three feet I think). This allows the same cable and drive to run inside or outside the case. (I'm pretty sure it's the same connector for in/out but am not 100% positive. I do know there are external SerialATA drive enclosures and so-forth.)

SerialATA drives promise to be faster, although just because of SerialATA they won't necessarily be so. There's a higher potential speed, but I don't know if any drives even reach the max throughput of the current ATA/100/133 signals.

While there are hundreds of ATA/100/133 drives out there, I could only find about 10 total SerialATA drives. The theory is they'll be easy to make since by nature they're still ATA (as opposed to SCSI which is completely different). So if the G5's do have SerialATA there won't be much of a choice of drives for a while but that could change quickly. For now, I suspect most folks will use regular drives and adapter boards.

[marco_ppc]

just to let you know...

At www.ppcnerds.org we're receiving mails from people claiming to have seen the new powermac at stores/vendors. We just publish the less fake, from a guy confirming basically the leaked specs from apple and confirming part of a post seen around teling about the new powermac case/components.

the saddest thing is that, anyway it goes, we won't have money to upgrade to a new server :)

[bignumbers]

By the way, other than MacRumors I haven't seen any other sites that removed anything at Apple's request. I think it's lame Apple only asked here. At this point it's everywhere, well beyond rumor sites and even beyond Mac-centric sites.

[iLilana]

Originally posted by caboosemoose
How very very strange.

Imagine you had a pretty good idea what the specs for the next PowerMac were and you wanted to leak these details and it just so happened that you had the technical wherewithall to do this sort of hack. Well this would be a pretty good way of getting people to believe you, ie making it look like a slip up on apple's part. And of course if your info was accurate, apple couldn't deny it today, only to confirm it on Monday.

I don't know if this is what happened, but if it is, then it was actually quite a clever way of goling about it.

I still find the wonky font size and picture size very confusing.

Then again there is that whole 'going to jail' issue. IMHO the hack is looking less and less likely.

Lil

[coumerelli]

Originally posted by iDonkey
I agree with MacBandit and others that this is more likely a hack than not.

<snip>

Some immediate differences:

<another snip>

My two cents -- and my attempt at an objective analysis in the midst of all the excitement!

Ok, that was WAY more than two cents...it was like a five dollar bill. :)

[mcs37]

What can I say but AWESOME.

[frozenstar]

In regard to Serial ATA, many of you are forgetting the most important benefit - hot swapability. Now you can plug/unplug hard drives (not the system drive) and optical drives without turning your machine off.

[frozenstar]

Originally posted by iLilana
Bastard....! I'll sleep with you if you take me.

Lily

Wow. I wish more girls were that easy. ;)

[Sun Baked]

However, if it does turn out to be a disgruntled worker at one of Apple's consulting firms with upload access to the Akamai servers, there are going to be a lot of people and alphabet soup names after this person. :eek:

And we thought the guy who let slip the pictures and drawings last time was in trouble.

Remember Worker Bee ... (The company alleges that the source gave information out via "improper means such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and/or espionage.")

If this is a stunt with "knowingly false" information ... then it looks like Worker Bee may have some company.

[iDonkey]

Originally posted by coumerelli
Ok, that was WAY more than two cents...it was like a five dollar bill. :)

With 11 pages of posts and counting, five dollars is like two cents... inflation.

[iLilana]

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,59335,00.html


If Apple backs down now, they are so screwed. Wouldn't it be wonderful if that was a hack and Apple didn't really care because the specs weren't beefed up enough?

Lil

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Specs are Leaked - by Apple!:

Removed per Apple's Request.

Apple listed the specs tonight on their Apple Store. Image here: Specs. You can also get to them yourself by going to the Apple store (http://www.apple.com/store/)

2700 positive comments in a couple of hours? Macrumors rocks and has lurkers!

Mac Central reports (a news source) that the specs are:

"The specs posted to the company's Web site list the G5 as being available in three speeds: 1.6GHz, 1.8GHz and a dual 2GHz with up to a 1GHz processor bus; up to 8GB of DDR SDRAM; Fast Serial ATA hard drives; AGP 8X Pro graphics options from Nvidia or ATI; three PCI or PCI-X expansion slots; three USB 2.0 ports; one FireWire 800 and two FireWire 400 ports; and optical and analog audio in and out.

The machines will reportedly also be Bluetooth and AirPort Extreme ready when they ship to consumers."

All I can say is why didn't they make the same error with the PB G5 1.2 15" Al?

Rocketman

[matthew24]

http://www.macfreak.org/cgi/forums/readnews.cgi?action=newspage&newscount=29#1056117763

According to a dutch site (see link), it is done by a former worker at Akamai. So we are probably back at: 1.4 1.6 and 1.8!

[zach]

I really don't think this could be a hack. If it was, don't you think Apple would instantly announce that these specs were a hack, just in case we were disapointed by what they actually had?

Even if the specs were hacked, but actually real, Apple most likely would announce that it was a hack, just to stop all the speculation.

Instead, we are seeing ceast and desist orders, and complete silence from Apple.

Therefore, I see two possiblities.

1. The specs are real, and put up by accident.

2. The specs are fake, but actually less impressive than the real specs :D

[coumerelli]

Originally posted by frozenstar
In regard to Serial ATA, many of you are forgetting the most important benefit - hot swapability. Now you can plug/unplug hard drives (not the system drive) and optical drives without turning your machine off.

Check this out....what if...there was like hole in the side of the machine just big enough for your iPod to slip into...right there is your hot-swapable hard drive. :D Sounds like a new rumor to me. But seriously, I havn't taken much look at the new iPods, but to be honest with you, that would be super sweet! And if you didn't have the new G5 towers everywhere you went, then you'd only have to count on firewire --AND (I'm goin' crazy here folks) part of the buzz with Panther... isn't there gonna be a more fluid user-ability incorporated into it? ;)

[HumanJHawkins]

Originally posted by bignumbers
<CUT>ATA uses a wide ribbon cable carrying (I think) 40 different little wires.

Yep and nope. ATA/66 and above actually have cables with 80 little wires. But, only 40 are used for data. The other 40 wires are used as insultation between the real wires to prevent induction current from corrupting the data.

Good post... Just throwing in an extra 2 cents.
Cheers!

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by avus
... Or I can almost hear Steve yelling at IBM people today, "One of our SOB ********** posted the ********** spec last night, we need a new show stopper this Monday, give us 2.5GHz chips by then, I don't ********** care you people will not eat or sleep for next 3 days, we ********** need them RIGHT NOW D*** IT!"

ROFL. I can see that too.

Steve, take a chill pill. You rock and soon everyone will know it.

Rocketman.

[Wonder Boy]

CHAOS! Go to looprumors for the specs...

Why arn't people happier? It is possible this is a hoax, but damn, the majority of the posts have been negative. This is what we've been waiting for!

[ryanmil1]

I know that there has been a lot of debate about when powerbooks with the 970 chips are going to be released with some people saying this coming week but most saying later this year. I just noticed that apple has reduced the price on the 12 and 17 inch powerbooks...maybe this next week might be even bigger than we all thought. It would be absolutly amazing if they revamped the powerbook lines with 970;s as well. Just a thought (sorry if this has already been discussed, I don't have the time to read through all 200 posts in this thread.)

[Abstract]

Originally posted by rice_web
Single 1.6GHz
Single 1.8GHz
Dual 2.0GHz

Wow. Who would have thought that 2GHz 970's would have been available.

Now we only have to hope that someone didn't hack Apple.com

Why a single proc, single proc, and dual setup? Doesn't it sound strange to anyone here that they would start at dual machines at the 2.0 GHz level? It says "1.6GHz, 1.8GHz, and dual 2.0GHz PowerPC processors", but maybe it was poorly written or something. Maybe they're all dual machines. :confused: Maybe the sky is falling.

PS: I don't think the site was hacked, but I definitely don't think this was a mistake. It was a calculated move to get people buzzing about WWDC. If they didn't, there would be much less fanfare. I saw the "leaked specs" story on the Reuters website, CNET, Google news, etc. This wouldn't have been true if the specs weren't leaked. Or maybe I should stop eating the paint peeling off the walls. ;)

[Elixant1]

With specs like these (and even the G4s now that I look at them), maybe I should consider switching from PCs to Macs ;) .

Anyways: I think the main way to decide whether those specs are real or not is Apple's reaction. If they deny this ever happening, the specs have to be real. If they were fake, Apple would have to deny them, or suffer the massive disappointment of, well, everyone. There is always the possability of the real specs being even better than the posted ones... but I guess I'll just wait and see :p .

[mproud]

You know, it was only a few weeks ago (or less) that people weren't even sure there were new computers coming to WWDC.

The fact that Apple seems to be releasing new computers, regardless of the exact specifications, is itself monumental.

Besides...

No one even knows quite what it looks like yet!

Where are all the loyal purists out there who want to be surprised?
...Or would this place be the last place they would come to?

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by Black Badger
Strange, have a look at this..
Go to Apple.com and try to get a non-existant page www.apple.com/g8/, when it comes up with "Page not found" type "G5" (no quotes) into the search box

See what comes up..... I tried G6, G7, and G8. I got a hit on G7, which was a link to http://www.g7info.com/site.html, but it turns out to be third party music notation software, not a leak about a future new processor!

[Macmaniac]

I'm doing a happy dance!!! WHOA I am going to save every peeny I own for one of these. Even If I can only get the 1.6ghz its still gonna kick so much a$$!!!!!

Go Apple there is hope!

[mproud]

More analysis...

The thing is, these specs, although quite intriguing, aren't all that different from previous reports. I mean, anyone could have come up with these as well - these stats aren't all that different.

So all these news services, people say, are now reporting this... but it's not like the rumor mill hasn't been running starting late Thursday night. I mean, Google could have posted very similar numbers that sources conjured up the night before.

In effect, this leak says little. The Keynote, obviously, will have the final word. :-P

My question is, as these new computers will most likely be expensive:

Will a new G5 line replace the current G4 line, or will it be added onto the end (perhaps pushing out the bottom feeders)?

The Dual 1.25s and 1.42s could be retained, and simply bumped down a slot. However, if a single processor 970 is released (and most likely) this would make little sense as it might confuse consumers to G4/970 Single/Dual comparisons.

Hnmm.

I'm beginning to think this won't have a huge effect on the industry. But we'll have to see. Perhaps a 15" 970 will be enough to turn some heads.

The biggest thing will come at the Super Bowl next January. I believe Apple will release the next consumer machine, and it seems like unless you're Sun or IBM and are built for business, the money, attention, and stock performance all hover around consumer (family) products - iPod included.

[akushlan]

People are wondering about the 3 USB ports, well there are also 3 firewire ports, and 3 PCI slots, not so uncommon a number for this computer:cool:

P.S.;) Maybe the old G4 will become the new low-end box now that we will have the 970???!?!?!?!?
Food for thought:rolleyes:

[jaison13]

tthe techtv show the screensavers reported apples mistake. so i guess it was a mistake and not a hack. i wonder if these new machines will be out. i don't want to drive 3 hours to the apple store in columbus, oh if they won't have the G5's.

[pkradd]

i don't want to drive 3 hours to the apple store in columbus, oh if they won't have the G5's.

Ummmm. You can always call them can't you? :D

[jaison13]

i don't think any of the stores will tell anything till after the jobs state of the nation speech. i want to go to see the speech and buy a system. so i don't think calling ahead will help.

[maclamb]

I vote forthis being an intention "mistake" by Steve to
1. promote dicussion and interest prior to one of the biggest announcements ever ( i mean, outside of developers and such, who cares about a developer conference)

2. Gauge reactions

3. Inflame purchasing desire - about like "leaking": the time rolling stones tickets go on sale.

if I were steve I would have done it.

[zoetropeuk]

There are two main reasons that I feel that the G5 spec graphic was a simple mistake.

1. I was on the apple store about 30 minutes or so before the G5 specs went live. Someone at Apple was definitely uploading new images to the store and screwed up. Why do I think this, well, the image buttons for update, continue shopping etc were sized incorrectly. The width and height attributes in the HTML did not match the actual images and were therefore distorted. I continued to refresh the page and who ever was doing the updates realized they f@cked up and were desparately trying to fix the problem but it took them 2-3 attempts to get the new images and html attributes to match.

2. If you had the skills to hack a highly secure site like Apple, would you bother ? Why not just hack the bank of America and transfer $100mil to your offshore account. The second scenario sounds impossible doesn't it !!! And it would be any easier to change a gif on the Apple site than it would be to hack the bank. I've worked on major sites with similar security measures in place to Apple and believe me when I tell you that the chances of them being hacked are ZERO, unless you're on the INSIDE!

Would you risk losing a web development job at Apple just to post the specs 3 days early, NO WAY.

And to those people blabbering on about the font size and the colour being wrong and the bullet points and whatever else, get a life. Whose to say that the entire site isn't going to be completed updated, its been a while since the site had a redesign.

[retaks]

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Question from an audio non-expert: What does the G5's "optical audio in and out" let me do?

yes, optical in and out is an awesome feature. Just like my playstation 2 there is an optical out port that i can hook to my surround sound and its amazing. This is definately a cool feature for gamers.

[crees!]

Ofcourse all this info to the public has started a frenzy... but look at this quote that I just came across.

"And Apple's close partners say significantly faster Apple machines should arrive before the end of the year." http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=2266

"Significantly faster" ... So we have supposed dual 2.0Ghz machines in 3 days. (Presuming this quote is from IBM) Apple will REALLY be back in the game with PeeCee chips. Most likely surpass them and open the rest of the worlds eyes at the same time showing that PeeCees aren't your only choice.

[macsrule89]

HOLY *****!!!!!!!!

ANY ONE WHO DOUBTS THE REALITY OF THEESE SPECS I HAVE A LINK TO A SCREEN SHOT OF THE APPLE STORE WEBPAGE LOOK UNDER STEP 1 CHOOSE...
http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/g5fullpage.html

THIS IS AWESOME THANK YOU GOD

[Judo]

I wonder if Steve will mention anything about the leak in his keynote.
I liked the part that said "the world's fastest personal computer".

Now all I need is the dollars.

Anyone wanna buy a G3 smurf for $3000.
Comes bundled with the legendary hockey puck mouse.

[voicegy]

As stated above, thinksecret.com still has the specs...apparently no letter from Apple asking them to pull them. MacInTouch.com still has them as well, as of this writing.

Why are they still out on some heavily trafficed mac related sites, and not on MacRumors? I ponder...

[evolu]

since they released it on the internet, they can't legally ask anyone to pull it. They could say "pretty please" but they could not legally do much.

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by voicegy
As stated above, thinksecret.com still has the specs...apparently no letter from Apple asking them to pull them. MacInTouch.com still has them as well, as of this writing.

Why are they still out on some heavily trafficed mac related sites, and not on MacRumors? I ponder...

I don't understand how Apple can do anything about these pictures. Apple mistakenly uploaded them onto their PUBLIC store, and somebody took a picture of it. How can Apple force you to take down a picture that they provided you, inadvertently or not?

Evolu: I'm a few seconds too late :)

[voicegy]

Originally posted by Judo
I wonder if Steve will mention anything about the leak in his keynote.


A much bigger gaffe happened back when Time Magazine Canada released via their web site the cover shot of Steve with his redesigned iMac (the lump-stick-rectangle we've all come to know and love) the night before a January keynote in San Francisco. Steve didn't mention a word...probably because most of the audience was not up at midnight scanning the web looking for clues. So he probably won't say a thing come Monday either. Of course, the previous gaffe wasn't an Apple Official Site "mistake"...the fact that the "G5" specs appeared on their own site makes this whole thing quite credible, in my opinion.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Freg3000
I don't understand how Apple can do anything about these pictures. Apple mistakenly uploaded them onto their PUBLIC store, and somebody took a picture of it. How can Apple force you to take down a picture that they provided you, inadvertently or not?

Evolu: I'm a few seconds too late :)

Actually they could sue over the use of the image but they can't do anything about people reprinting the specs in there own type.

[bbanzai]

Here's a thought -- What if:

* It's not a hack.
* It's not a mistake -- it was put there purposefully.
* But yet, it's not the real specs, either -- they're actually lowballed.

That way, Steve gets to come out on Monday, with everyone expecting, oh, say, 1.6, 1.8, and dual 2.0, and instead, he announces (pulling numbers out of the air here) 1.8, dual 2.0 and dual 2.5 (or quad 2.0!). And a bunch of speedy G5 PowerBooks! Boom! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

This fanciful scenario gets to be consistent with:

1. The latest word from MacWhispers' sources (that the 970 we see would be "perhaps, much, much faster" than 1.4 and 1.6...)

2. Our understanding of how Apple and its Web site operate -- and Steve, for that matter.

3. The market -- Apple gives up one weekday of PowerMac sales (that they would probably have to cancel come Monday, anyway...), and gets a double media bounce -- today's furor over the leak, and then Monday's big improvement on it.

I have no inside information; I've just been pondering this today. Any thoughts?

[evolu]

i'm just thinking about how fast osx is on these fricking moto processors - I don't think I can wrap my head around how fast these machines are going to be...

probably the wrong thread for this - couldn't help it!

[waitingfornewpb]

Apple cannot protect the specs as a trade secret, as trade secrets require secrecy to be protected. Their release of the info makes it fair game to be published. I wouldn't take them on in court on this, though.

There is no way this is a hack, unless the g5s are coming, and are BETTER than what was posted. If they were hacked, they would have to let everyone know or else the entire mac community would be furious and booing during the keynote. This would really hurt them and it would be better to admit it now than on Monday. It's not like we wouldn't figure it out after Steve's speech. And not heading off the rumors now could expose them to liability in the form of a shareholder lawsuit, provided the stock tanks after wwdc.

If they were hacked and wanted to appear secure, they'd just lie and say an employee did it anyway.

[gopher]

Originally posted by bbanzai
Here's a thought -- What if:

* It's not a hack.
* It's not a mistake -- it was put there purposefully.
* But yet, it's not the real specs, either -- they're actually lowballed.

That way, Steve gets to come out on Monday, with everyone expecting, oh, say, 1.6, 1.8, and dual 2.0, and instead, he announces (pulling numbers out of the air here) 1.8, dual 2.0 and dual 2.5 (or quad 2.0!). And a bunch of speedy G5 PowerBooks! Boom! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

This fanciful scenario gets to be consistent with:

1. The latest word from MacWhispers' sources (that the 970 we see would be "perhaps, much, much faster" than 1.4 and 1.6...)

2. Our understanding of how Apple and its Web site operate -- and Steve, for that matter.

3. The market -- Apple gives up one weekday of PowerMac sales (that they would probably have to cancel come Monday, anyway...), and gets a double media bounce -- today's furor over the leak, and then Monday's big improvement on it.

I have no inside information; I've just been pondering this today. Any thoughts?

bbanzai, if you are right, that would be something. Even more impressive is if Apple overclocked the G5 to make it go to 4 Ghz. The PC world would go nuts!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by retaks
yes, optical in and out is an awesome feature. Just like my playstation 2 there is an optical out port that i can hook to my surround sound and its amazing. This is definately a cool feature for gamers.

plus, the optical in would allow audio folks to bypass the firewire port. many studios (home & pro) have outboard analog->digital converters that must be passed along a firewire path to get it into the mac.

though there's no great issue w/ using firewire, it might save someone from having to buy a piece of gear.

[porovaara]

Originally posted by gopher
bbanzai, if you are right, that would be something. Even more impressive is if Apple overclocked the G5 to make it go to 4 Ghz. The PC world would go nuts!

There is *no* way the 970 can even go 2.5ghz until it gets down to .09

What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.

[alia]

Well, I have a friend who was told by an Apple employee today that indeed those are the specs and that indeed someone's head rolled at Apple. I can tell you that the source is reliable, but whether you choose to believe me is up to you.

:)


Alia

[unSane]

Originally posted by zimv20
plus, the optical in would allow audio folks to bypass the firewire port. many studios (home & pro) have outboard analog->digital converters that must be passed along a firewire path to get it into the mac.

though there's no great issue w/ using firewire, it might save someone from having to buy a piece of gear.

If you want to use multiple macs as audio workstations running software synths and samplers and feeding the audio back to a central mac which is running, say, cubase SX, then you need optical in/out. Firewire doesn't work. This is a pretty big deal in the audio world, especially since Apple now own Logic and it's been having a tough time competing with Cubase.

[PowerBook User]

Originally posted by akushlan
People are wondering about the 3 USB ports, well there are also 3 firewire ports, and 3 PCI slots, not so uncommon a number for this computer:cool:

P.S.;) Maybe the old G4 will become the new low-end box now that we will have the 970???!?!?!?!?
Food for thought:rolleyes:
I hope there are more than 3 PCI slots on the computer. Why would they have one PCI slot less than current Power Macs?

[PowerBook User]

Originally posted by retaks
yes, optical in and out is an awesome feature. Just like my playstation 2 there is an optical out port that i can hook to my surround sound and its amazing. This is definately a cool feature for gamers.
It would be nice if Apple also added RCA and S-Video in/out ports like they did on some older Macs (some Beige G3's, Power Mac 8600's, etc.).

[macsrule89]

There is *no* way the 970 can even go 2.5ghz until it gets down to .09

What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM WHAT I HAVE READ IN THIS AND OTHER AGES IAND THE IBM SITE IS THAT THE 970S COULD GO TO 2.5 AND WE MAY ALREADY BE THERE ANOTHER POST MENTIONED THAT ONE SITE SAID THAT A FEW 2.5 WERE ALREADY SHIPPED TO APPLE

[zimv20]

Originally posted by unSane
If you want to use multiple macs as audio workstations running software synths and samplers and feeding the audio back to a central mac which is running, say, cubase SX, then you need optical in/out.

i didn't even think of that. kickass. great way to scale processing power.

[cubist]

Originally posted by porovaara
... What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.

Your point? The 1.42 GHz G4s are sucking tons of power and requiring a lot of cooling today. I recall people expressing disbelief at the size of that monster heat sink (two pounds of solid copper!) and all those fans. But they did it, and that was Apple's top of the line ... until Monday.

Credit card in hand, buddy.

[TPistrix]

I'm a little surprised no one's brought up this argument:

What about Ockham's Razor? Basically, it means all things being equal, the simplest explaination is generally the right one. So in this case, what sounds more plausible. Some tech screwed up and posted the wrong graphic, or some cracker, who derives some kind of sadistic glee from tormenting Mac fans or hurting Apple stock, decides that it's worth a possible ass pounding from the Feds to hack into Apple's website (nearly impossible from what I gather, though I suppose someone from the inside could do it) for 3 days of satisfaction...

Or perhaps even more applicable Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Personally, I'll be at CambridgeSide Galleria waiting to be wowed (Apple seems to have been holding some punches the last couple years, and I'm waiting for those great "Holy *****" moments of old). My prediction: The actual stats will be even more impressive, or at least the case will be extrodinarily drool-worthy. Not necessarily because I think that's what will happen, more because I'll look so cool if I turn out to be right ;-). I won't be buying a PowerMac though. I need a 15.4" PB... *Crosses fingers for a 970 PB*

[diuqseht]

Originally posted by voicegy
Steve didn't mention a word...
Sure he did.

Near the end of the keynote, he said something along the lines of "if you haven't already seen it, the latest Time magazine features the iMac and there's a copy for each of you to pick up on your way out."

Originally posted by voicegy
probably because most of the audience was not up at midnight scanning the web looking for clues.
Eh? Just as with any "winter holiday" eve, I'm sure you see that it's considerably difficult to sleep on the eve of a MacWorld keynote. Since we all have a voracity for fresh speculation at that point, naturally I was "up at midnight scanning the web looking for clues".

Let's not forget about The Incredible Keynote Waiting Line. Anyone who wasn't aware of the leak beforehand was sure to find out from the rest of the crowd that morning.

This mishap won't be news to many folks come Monday. And I'm sure Steve could find a way to slip in a quick reference to it that'd pass right by anyone who was already left out. Acknowledging it keeps him looking sharp. Otherwise he'd seem slightly ignorant or oblivious.

[macmusic]

I guess I was right about the speeds. I made a few post a few days ago.
NICE.

[Bolt]

I really can't wait to watch the keynote at my local apple store on monday :D

[iDonkey]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
And to those people blabbering on about the font size and the colour being wrong and the bullet points and whatever else, get a life. Whose to say that the entire site isn't going to be completed updated, its been a while since the site had a redesign.

I think probably "get a life" is a little uncalled for, especially considering the extent to which all of us are choosing to indulge in speculation and debate over something that simple patience will resolve in three days time.

And to be completely fair and sober, the inconsistency of style in the leaked graphic must be accounted for. Despite what you imply, it doesn't take a nitpicking, socially stunted obsessive with a microscope to see the glaring stylistic differences between the leaked graphic and every other graphic on the site. It's immediately obvious in a side-by-side comparison.

And although it is, after all, just one piece of the overall puzzle, it is a relevant piece nonetheless. Whether you believe it was a hacker perpetrating a hoax, a negligent web designer being sloppy, or a precursor to a complete site redesign (which, for the record, I think is the most unlikely possibility), the observations should be noted and ultimately accounted for in your personal point of view on what happened (just as we must all take into consideration Apple's silence thus far and the fact that MacRumors was silenced whereas other rumor sites and legitimate media outlets have been allowed to publish the same facts and screenshots).

Obviously, all of us want the specs to be true and accurate. But that doesn't mean we should take complete leave of our senses and capability for rational, civil speculation and debate. Anyway, at the moment, I am liking the Occam's Razor approach. Simple is better. And we can also always rely on the lapses of judgment and sheer stupidity of others, however uncharacteristic it might be for such a tight ship as Apple's.

Anyway, I just think you discount too rashly the contributions of others in our mutual endeavor towards reaching some sort of common understanding regarding this unusual turn of events, that's all.

[crees!]

Originally posted by porovaara
There is *no* way the 970 can even go 2.5ghz until it gets down to .09

What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.

Let me back you up on this porovaara. This is a quote from http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6132089.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM also has plenty of opportunity to continue boosting the chip's performance,
Brookwood said, when it moves from a 130-nanometer production process
to a more advanced 90-nanometer.

``It would be pretty straightforward to move it to the advanced process,''
Brookwood said, ``which would typically boost performance about 50 percent.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


SO, IBM states it would be pretty straightforward to boost performace about 50%... just think about that. This is pretty much guaranteed that no matter what speeds are released this coming week.. that by Christmas we should see TWICE that.

[bretm]

Originally posted by crees!
Let me back you up on this porovaara. This is a quote from http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6132089.htm

That would be 200%, not 50%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM also has plenty of opportunity to continue boosting the chip's performance,
Brookwood said, when it moves from a 130-nanometer production process
to a more advanced 90-nanometer.

``It would be pretty straightforward to move it to the advanced process,''
Brookwood said, ``which would typically boost performance about 50 percent.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


SO, IBM states it would be pretty straightforward to boost performace about 50%... just think about that. This is pretty much guaranteed that no matter what speeds are released this coming week.. that by Christmas we should see TWICE that.

[eric_n_dfw]

...the Apple response on their main/front page: http://www.apple.com (http://www.elroyonline.net/misc/apple/apple.html)
:eek:

[nagromme]

Every other site BUT MacRumors and AppleInsider seems to still have not only the specs, but the image too. Odd.

[shecky]

just out of curiosity, has Apple made any formal statement yet regarding the leak? I am not talking about apple retail employees saying "we do not know what you are talking about" but i mean any actual statement? i have not seen any.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by mrjamin
oh yeah - well spotted. You should work for the FBI in their X-Files dept ;)
God, I'm so *********g obsessed with the rumors that I was trying to figure out what kind of computer term "FBI" stands for. :confused: I guess I should get some sleep...

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
...the Apple response on their main/front page: http://www.apple.com (http://www.elroyonline.net/misc/apple/apple.html)
:eek:

LOL, sorry I can't stop laughing

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by crees!
SO, IBM states it would be pretty straightforward to boost performace about 50%... just think about that. This is pretty much guaranteed that no matter what speeds are released this coming week.. that by Christmas we should see TWICE that.

50% increase = x + .5x, or 1.5 times the current performance.

A 100% increase would be twice the current performance (x + 1.0x).

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
50% increase = x + .5x, or 1.5 times the current performance.

A 100% increase would be twice the current performance (x + 1.0x).

I think you mean 2.0x equalling double the speed or a 100% increase.

[Black Badger]

Curious - check this out.

If you go to the Apple site and enter a non existant URL, you end up at a "Page not Found" screen. At the bottom is a search box, enter "G5" and the result you get back is a shortcut link to te PM G4 Processors page. The interesting thing is that the string "G5" does not appear on the page, even in the source html.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by PowerBook User
It would be nice if Apple also added RCA and S-Video in/out ports like they did on some older Macs (some Beige G3's, Power Mac 8600's, etc.).

The video on the new powermacs is not built-in on the mobo, and has not been for some time. So if you wanted composite/component video, you have to talk to ATI or Nvidia.

[tazznb]

Originally posted by rice_web
Single 1.6GHz
Single 1.8GHz
Dual 2.0GHz

Wow. Who would have thought that 2GHz 970's would have been available.

Now we only have to hope that someone didn't hack Apple.com

If Apple wasn't hacked....

To all the people that cussed out / bad-mouthed Macbidouille ..... I believe you owe them a BIG apology .

They probably had everything RIGHT allllll along! :eek:

Too bad I can't watch all the groveling, and a$$ kissing they'll be owed; In reality all those that made promises to appease all the bad-mouthing will forget they ever done anything wrong.

That's one of the bad things about the internet; you can cause loads of damage to others, and walk away scott-free :mad:

[Golem]

Originally posted by Black Badger
Curious - check this out.

If you go to the Apple site and enter a non existant URL, you end up at a "Page not Found" screen. At the bottom is a search box, enter "G5" and the result you get back is a shortcut link to te PM G4 Processors page. The interesting thing is that the string "G5" does not appear on the page, even in the source html.

Hmm it knows what G5 is but not G6 since its not triggering off "G" in that case their is probably deliberate.

[markiv810]

I think now everyone believes in the fact that G5's are going to be released in a matter of few days, but no one seems to be addressing the key issue of pricing, one of the major reasons of Apple desktop sales failing (or falling) is their high pricing of the PowerMac series (besides the mhz trailing). Now if they have comptetive prices, I mean pricing comparable to the exisiting G4 series they are a sure shot winner then. What Apple should realize is that by lowering down their profit margin ( not that they sell it lower than the cost price) they can boost up the sales and make much more money, and have more buyers and gain more market share. This is my advice to the guys at Apple. Just my 2 cents.

[skunk]

Originally posted by markiv810
no one seems to be addressing the key issue of pricing, one of the major reasons of Apple desktop sales failing (or falling) is their high pricing of the PowerMac series (besides the mhz trailing).
Nobody wants to buy something perceived to be so slow at ANY price. If the specs are right, the pricing is fine. Cheaper would help market share, of course, but the main thing is the performance.

[markiv810]

So, any speculation on pricing, my personal price range (estimate) is $1500 to 3500 - $4000, as the lowest end is a single processor 1.6 ghz unit and the highest end is a dual 2.0 ghz unit. Performance obviously is the key issue, the pricing too matters a lot. I have saved about $1200 dollars already for the machines and could arrange about 300-400 more but anything more than that is something beyond my student budget. One of the prime reasons of concern.

[Evinyatar]

According to this (http://www.macfreak.org/cgi/forums/readnews.cgi?action=newspage&newscount=29#1056117763) (Dutch site) it's a prank by a former employee from a bureau Apple works with. According to the site that information has also been confirmed by a contact from inside Apple Cupertino. Apparently this person had access to Apple's Akamai content, and the specs are very probably fake.

But seriously people, you think that Apple pulls this information from so many sites because it is true? Hasn't it occured to you that they might be pulling it because it is false? Think about it; high expectations about the new Apple hardware spreading across the globe based on information everybody believes is true because it came from the Apple site... Expectations which Apple will probably not be able to live up to. That's not good for business; everyone would be hugely dissappointed. But I guess the harm is done already seeing from the number of replies in this thread. I hope Apple survives this if the specs are indeed fake, but it sure is gonna be rough. So please people, don't get your hopes up.

[burger011]

https://jobs.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Employment.woa/wa/jobDescription?RequisitionID=1978437
I don't know if someone posted this or not but Apple needs to fill a Web Publishing Store Manager position.

Interesting none the less.

burger

[crees!]

Originally posted by markiv810
So, any speculation on pricing, my personal price range (estimate) is $1500 to 3500 - $4000, as the lowest end is a single processor 1.6 ghz unit and the highest end is a dual 2.0 ghz unit. Performance obviously is the key issue, the pricing too matters a lot. I have saved about $1200 dollars already for the machines and could arrange about 300-400 more but anything more than that is something beyond my student budget. One of the prime reasons of concern.

I hope that is the range. Maybe even a bit lower for the dual2.0. I'm a student too and have just what you do.. about $1,200. I'm looking to purchase a PowerBook though.

*Step away from keyboard. The weekend is here. Go outside for once. Tomorrow is Sunday, no big deal. Then Monday comes and you can flip the ******* out!*

[gulliver]

Originally posted by voicegy
...probably because most of the audience was not up at midnight scanning the web looking for clues.

Have you ever thought that this world is a little bigger than just America? At midnight in Silicon Valley it is 9 a.m. in Europe and 8 p.m. in Japan!

BTW: What if these specs are really fake and Apple called the IBM people for a meeting to cope with this situation? If they were fake but the specs are possible within say 2 months, they could still announce them and ship later.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/6131212.htm

[jthrasher]

Originally posted by Evinyatar
According to this (http://www.macfreak.org/cgi/forums/readnews.cgi?action=newspage&newscount=29#1056117763) (Dutch site) it's a prank by a former employee from a bureau Apple works with. According to the site that information has also been confirmed by a contact from inside Apple Cupertino. Apparently this person had access to Apple's Akamai content, and the specs are very probably fake.

But seriously people, you think that Apple pulls this information from so many sites because it is true? Hasn't it occured to you that they might be pulling it because it is false? Think about it; high expectations about the new Apple hardware spreading across the globe based on information everybody believes is true because it came from the Apple site... Expectations which Apple will probably not be able to live up to. That's not good for business; everyone would be hugely dissappointed. But I guess the harm is done already seeing from the number of replies in this thread. I hope Apple survives this if the specs are indeed fake, but it sure is gonna be rough. So please people, don't get your hopes up.

I'm suprised that not many people have commented about what is currently up at apple.com. Obviously it's not fake now. There is NO way this would be posted if it was. I can't stop laughing though. Steve seems mighty pissed. Those are some pretty harsh words.

[harvester]

Someone please tell me that it was NOT a bad idea that I just bought a new dual 1.42 about a month ago. If these new G5s are released and not just announced, would it drop my value for my dual 1.42 and would I not be able to sell it as much? From reading posts here it seems that none of my programs would really benefit from the 64bit part, and the altivec does have some sort of performance drop [though they will still be faster?]. But I also heard somewhere that since the IBM chips are cheaper to make than the motorola, that these computers won't be as expensive as the "older" G4's. What do you guys think?

-Jamie

[MacFan25]

Originally posted by markiv810
I have saved about $1200 dollars already for the machines and could arrange about 300-400 more but anything more than that is something beyond my student budget. One of the prime reasons of concern.
But remember if you are a college student, you can get an education discount.

[crees!]

Originally posted by MacFan25
But remember if you are a college student, you can get an education discount.

Which is approximately $150 and not that much. But any type of discount for students is a plus. If you're a comp. sci major look into ADC for Students. It costs you $99 to join but you get 20% of your purchase, which sums up to a heck of a lot more than the regular student discount.

[blahblah123]

Originally posted by jthrasher
I'm suprised that not many people have commented about what is currently up at apple.com. Obviously it's not fake now. There is NO way this would be posted if it was. I can't stop laughing though. Steve seems mighty pissed. Those are some pretty harsh words.
Did I miss something or are you joking? All I see is QuarkXPress.

[daveL]

Originally posted by jthrasher
I'm suprised that not many people have commented about what is currently up at apple.com. Obviously it's not fake now. There is NO way this would be posted if it was. I can't stop laughing though. Steve seems mighty pissed. Those are some pretty harsh words.
I'm not sure what you are referring to?

[skunk]

Originally posted by daveL
I'm not sure what you are referring to?
He's obviously under the impression that this is Apple's site....:rolleyes: http://www.elroyonline.net/misc/apple/apple.html as posted a couple of pages back under the name "www.apple.com"
Anyway, as far as I can see, there are only 2 possibilities now: either the specs are true and posted by mistake, or the actual specs are even better and it's a wind-up.

[GovernmentAgent]

It is news that the image appeared on Apple's official website. If Apple accidently posted a tradesecret on their official website, then it might be Apple's problem that they disclosed their own tradesceret. If the disclosure was a hack, then it is up to Apple legal to decide whether or not to disclose that their site was hacked. If the website was hacked, and Apple does not disclose it, then it might suck for Apple when people get angry over stock purchases made early Monday morning based on the disclosed news and information, but went bad after it becomes clear that the disclosure was a hack. Apple might consider publically commenting on the accuracy of the information disclosed on its website before anyone has a chance to purchase Apple stock. Apple legal might consider whether or not Apple could have some problems with the SEC if they do not comment of the disclosure of information posted to their official website hack, accident, intentional, whatever. NOTE: I am not a lawyer and I am not providing any form of legal advise or advising people how to act or behave.

[skunk]

Originally posted by GovernmentAgent
It is news that the image appeared on Apple's official website. If Apple accidently posted a tradesecret on their official website, then it might be Apple's problem that they disclosed their own tradesceret. If the disclosure was a hack, then it is up to Apple legal to decide whether or not to disclose that their site was hacked. If the website was hacked, and Apple does not disclose it, then it might suck for Apple when people get angry over stock purchases made early Monday morning based on the disclosed news and information, but went bad after it becomes clear that the disclosure was a hack. Apple might consider publically commenting on the accuracy of the information disclosed on its website before anyone has a chance to purchase Apple stock. Apple legal might consider whether or not Apple could have some problems with the SEC if they do not comment of the disclosure of information posted to their official website hack, accident, intentional, whatever. NOTE: I am not a lawyer and I am not providing any form of legal advise or advising people how to act or behave.
Whoa, man! Chill out! I'm sure Apple's huge and well-paid legal team are aware of the ramifications. And I'm equally sure that those specs are either real or understated...

[blahblah123]

[blahblah123]

Originally posted by skunk
Whoa, man! Chill out! I'm sure Apple's huge and well-paid legal team are aware of the ramifications. And I'm equally sure that those specs are either real or understated...
I assume the specs are real/understated as well, but the truth is that if they're not -- as GovernmentAgent point out -- Apple could easily have some issues to sort out with the SEC.

In fact, if Apple's stock had changed significantly yesterday but failed to make a press release about the issue, they could have faced some unfortunate legal problems. Since the stock only went up 31 cents, it would be tough for anyone to make it into a legal issue.

[evolu]

Originally posted by harvester
Someone please tell me that it was NOT a bad idea that I just bought a new dual 1.42 about a month ago. If these new G5s are released and not just announced, would it drop my value for my dual 1.42 and would I not be able to sell it as much? From reading posts here it seems that none of my programs would really benefit from the 64bit part, and the altivec does have some sort of performance drop [though they will still be faster?]. But I also heard somewhere that since the IBM chips are cheaper to make than the motorola, that these computers won't be as expensive as the "older" G4's. What do you guys think?

-Jamie

I'm in the same boat with a 2-month-new 1.42

Of course our machines will be valued less.

And - of course there will be a performance lag between the g4 and the g5 - that is the nature of computers. By the time Panther is released, most of the iApps and Pro software will probably be updated (a Smeagol like update that will optimize for the 64 bit machines). So the 64 bit will matter to your everyday life.

The real performance boost will come after the developers at the conference all go back to their cubicles on tuesday and prep their apps for the 970.

Price wise, it appears that as Apple charges EVERYONE for updates (not complaining - I've accepted it), prices for hardware will become more competitive. The few people buying new machines will benefit from lower prices. The g5 chips are cheaper, yes - but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the price of the rest of the machine's gear.

I'm just glad that I don't feel obligated to upgrade to a new and untested machine... I'll wait till the excitement around the new machines wears off a bit, then sell my dual for what it's worth.

[pianojoe]

I just recieved an Apple eNews email. The second headline says:

The Apple Store - the first place to look for lots of fun.

Now, that's what I call self-critizism.

[GovernmentAgent]

I am chilled out. I am just wondering what the discussion is like amongst the lawyers over at Apple legal as to how to deal with the situation. I don't really care if the specs are accurate or not. I will not be in the market for a new computer for a while. I finally broke down and allowed a PC into the house after 14 Mac-only years because of some sewing machine software that my wife needed to run. The PC machine and XP are a pain compared to our trusty Snow G3 running OS X 10.2. One thing that I notice about the PC is that websites that I surf through have an ability to change the way my computer works. For example, some advertising company out of Hungary set up shop giving me 2 or 3 "relational" pop-ups per page that I surfed to on the PC. That was a b***h to fix in the execution files. Also PC drivers seem to become fully functional after being installed many times as opposed to once. Damn it! I am no longer chilled out~#@$!

[reflex]

Originally posted by crazzyeddie
page is back to normal! They put up the old G4 specs!

Don't you mean the current G4 specs? ;-)

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I think you mean 2.0x equalling double the speed or a 100% increase.

x + 1.0x = 2.0x. ;)

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
x + 1.0x = 2.0x. ;)

Ah yes, stupid me. I was focused on multiplication and your addition was staring me in the face. A millions appologies.:)

[TPistrix]

If the object was both to have a little fun with the crazy/rabid mac-enthusiasts (read: us) and to create some extra hype for the upcoming machines, what better time than at midnight? It's at a point when the vast majority of "normal" customers would never see it, so the only people bound to catch it would be us, right? The nerds always stay up late ;-). And of course it spread like wildfire through word of mouth. Every Mac enthusiast who was up knew by 3AM. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Ktulu]

I don't make many posts, I just like to see what the rest of the Mac community is talking about. I can say this much about the graphic in question:

I called the Apple store and told them that I would like to order one of the new G5's. I was told that Apple did not have a G5 and did not have any new products to order. When I mentioned to him that I was looking at the store as we were talking and that they are advertising a PowerMac G5, the only reply I got was...and I quote "Many sites try to copy the Apple/Apple Store site and that I wasn't at the 'Official' Apple Store site". I read to him the address in my browser-(I was at the 'Official' Apple Store site, it's not like there are thousands of 'fake' Apple Store sites out there, at least none that I have come across) he simply told me that I was wrong about where I was and the phone call ended.

Take this info for what it is worth, I think they are legitimate specs and someone just got the wrong image mixed up with the right image.

[jamin]

Someone above said they thought that 8 GB of RAM was far fetched. I thought the whole reason for a 64 bit CPU was larger memory mapping. I think that If Apple releases Xserves with the 970 chips they will have even higher memory capacities.

[crees!]

Originally posted by jamin
Someone above said they thought that 8 GB of RAM was far fetched. I thought the whole reason for a 64 bit CPU was larger memory mapping. I think that If Apple releases Xserves with the 970 chips they will have even higher memory capacities.

I don't know how far this logic flies.. but the way I initially see it is that todays machines.. PC's inparticular max out at 4GB of ram... with a 32Bit processor... so my ASSUMPTION is that a 64Bit processor would accept double that (8GB).

I am probably totally wrong.. but that's my unresearched opinion.

[jamin]

Actually I think the memory addressing is in the TeraBytes. I have read some info on the Athlon64 and that is what they are saying for that platform.

"Both the Opteron and Athlon 64 boast 64-bit data and address paths and break through current 32-bit CPUs' 4GB memory addressing cap with 40-bit physical (up to 1 terabyte) and 48-bit virtual (up to 256 terabytes) memory addressing space."

[DHagan4755]

I think I said this in another forum...but I'll say it here...

I think this leak was a mistake. If it were a hack, Apple would immediately deny it with a Press Release. If it were intentional, we should then see more "teasers." Since Apple has been mum about the situation since the hours after it happened, it appears to have been an accidental posting of future product information.

[chetwilliams]

Originally posted by markiv810
So, any speculation on pricing, my personal price range (estimate) is $1500 to 3500 - $4000
That is too big a spread for most businesses to justify buying the top of the line. They would just go with the low/mid tier if it is $2500 cheaper.

This is my guess for the price range:
1.6 Ghz $1799
1.8 Ghz $2199
Dual 2.0 Ghz $2799
Dual 2.0 Ghz Best (Radeon 9800, more mem, bigger HD) $3399

[chetwilliams]

Originally posted by gulliver
Have you ever thought that this world is a little bigger than just America? At midnight in Silicon Valley it is 9 a.m. in Europe and 8 p.m. in Japan!


Apple has different stores for different countries. I believe the errant specs were only posted on the US store so someone going to the Japanese store site at 8pm would not have seen the change.

[pestle]

smeagol is going to use all those 'precious' 2nd 1.8's in the new 15" 970 powerbooks.... (wishful thinking)

[AdamR01]

I beleive the statement to which you refer was refering to the Time Canada iMac ordeal and not the recent link.

[imaswitcheryeah]

Originally posted by chetwilliams
That is too big a spread for most businesses to justify buying the top of the line. They would just go with the low/mid tier if it is $2500 cheaper.

This is my guess for the price range:
1.6 Ghz $1799
1.8 Ghz $2199
Dual 2.0 Ghz $2799
Dual 2.0 Ghz Best (Radeon 9800, more mem, bigger HD) $3399

No way no way no way no way......

I really truly feel the entry-level will start at $1399-$1499, just as current PowerMac prices are set at now. The PPC 970's are cheaper for Apple than current G4's are. I am sure that if this is true, Apple would not take advantage of this to get a higher profit margin. They will use this to pass the saving on and get more units sold instead of making more money on the units that actually do sell. At least I hope Apple will do this. If they don't, it will definately tarnish my view of them as the greatest computer company in the world.

All in all, my prediction is that the PowerMac line will either stay at current prices, or ideally, drop $100 across the line. We'll see Mon. won't we?

[syco]

Originally posted by Ktulu
Take this info for what it is worth, I think they are legitimate specs and someone just got the wrong image mixed up with the right image.
So, why were they futzing with the original image? It was set, fine, all perdy, but Apple just decided to do something with it to cause the problem in the firstplace...it doesn't make sense.

[rjstanford]

Originally posted by crees!
I don't know how far this logic flies.. but the way I initially see it is that todays machines.. PC's inparticular max out at 4GB of ram... with a 32Bit processor... so my ASSUMPTION is that a 64Bit processor would accept double that (8GB). Just FYI, there's a much larger difference than that. This is one of the main reasons why the move from 8->16 bits was huge, 16->32 was enabling, and 32->64 is, well, kinda nice. 128 is quite a way off, even for most enterprise level needs.

Fire up your trusty calculator and hit 2^32. That is, in bytes, the addressable memory size of a 32 bit processor. Divide by 1024 (2^10) to get kilobytes, by another 1024 (2^10) to get megabytes, and by yet another 1024 to get gigabytes.

Or an easier way to do it is just to think "address space == 2^(bitLevel-30) gigabytes". Thus a 32-bit processor can address 4 gig, a 36-bit address-space processor (like recent intels) can address 64 gig, and a 64-bit processor can address 17179869184 gig.

There are other benefits -- being able to quickly perform 64-bit integer based arithmatic, for example, which is usefull if you feel like tracking items globally at a millimeter resolution. And numbering lots of them, for that matter.

-Richard

[markiv810]

Originally posted by imaswitcheryeah
No way no way no way no way......

I really truly feel the entry-level will start at $1399-$1499, just as current PowerMac prices are set at now. The PPC 970's are cheaper for Apple than current G4's are. I am sure that if this is true, Apple would not take advantage of this to get a higher profit margin. They will use this to pass the saving on and get more units sold instead of making more money on the units that actually do sell. At least I hope Apple will do this. If they don't, it will definately tarnish my view of them as the greatest computer company in the world.

All in all, my prediction is that the PowerMac line will either stay at current prices, or ideally, drop $100 across the line. We'll see Mon. won't we?

I agree shooting up the prices of the entry level PowerMac raised by $ 300 dollars would really suck. The price difference between the lowest end and highest end model would be something like 2000-2500 dollars. It's a dual 2.0 Ghz so I would guess the price difference between the entry level model would be something like 2000 dollars. We'll know on Monday. Good luck to us all.

[reflex]

Originally posted by terceiro
These are good specs, yes. Will they be astronomically expensive? Heck yeah. If Apple is going to sell "the world's fastest personal computer" it's going to cost like it, too. That's how business works: when you want the best product you have to pay for it.

Doesn't sound like a good idea to raise the price for the G5, especially considering the current G4's are more expensive than Intel/AMD computers already. Also keep in mind that this is still "only" 2GHz (even if it's dual) while Intel is at 3GHz and will be moving on in the near future.

[Doctor Q]

As I understand it, 64-bit addressing is the end of the line. There may be 128-bit processors for computational purposes, but 64 bits is enough to address as much RAM as you could possibly ever have in a computer of the future. With 64 bits, you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, which is (hold on while I count on my fingers and toes...) something like 10 billion gigabytes. So we're in the range of exabytes, the units that come after terabytes and petabytes.

Unless you need to address every atom in the observable universe (estimated to be something like 10^80), you won't be needing more than 64-bit addressing.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Doctor Q
As I understand it, 64-bit addressing is the end of the line. There may be 128-bit processors for computational purposes, but 64 bits is enough to address as much RAM as you could possibly ever have in a computer of the future. With 64 bits, you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, which is (hold on while I count on my fingers and toes...) something like 10 billion gigabytes. So we're in the range of exabytes, the units that come after terabytes and petabytes.

Unless you need to address every atom in the observable universe (estimated to be something like 10^80), you won't be needing more than 64-bit addressing.

That's what I thought about a gigabyte of memory just 10 years ago. It's nearly impossible to accurately predict future needs as with most things they grow exponentially.

[Mehmet]

hey guys.. a hybrid user here :D (use windows/mac os/linux)..

anyway, quick question.. now, if these specs are true, than the 1.6 ghz would have a DDR bus of 800.. no? and a TRUE bus speed of 400 mhz. now, how is DDR memory going to handle this? i mena, DDR 400, is supposed to handle a true FSB of 200 mhz..

is there going to be a Memory to FSB ratio of 1:2 ?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Mehmet
hey guys.. a hybrid user here :D (use windows/mac os/linux)..

anyway, quick question.. now, if these specs are true, than the 1.6 ghz would have a DDR bus of 800.. no? and a TRUE bus speed of 400 mhz. now, how is DDR memory going to handle this? i mena, DDR 400, is supposed to handle a true FSB of 200 mhz..

is there going to be a Memory to FSB ratio of 1:2 ?

I believe your ratio is correct unless they use quad pumped ram which is just now coming out.

[Mehmet]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I believe your ration is correct unless they use quad pumped ram which is just now coming out.

but but.. but...

nooo..


that means that apple is basically (if im not wrong) doing what intel is doing.. Quadpumping the FSB to make it look fast.. sorta like those honda civics with the huge mufflers..

[capacity]

not sure if this has already been posted...didn't feel like going through all 15 pages...but hahaha

https://jobs.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Employment.woa/wa/jobDescription?RequisitionID=1978437

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Mehmet
but but.. but...

nooo..


that means that apple is basically (if im not wrong) doing what intel is doing.. Quadpumping the FSB to make it look fast.. sorta like those honda civics with the huge mufflers..

Ah, no. The FSB is not quad pumped it actually burns along at that speed. The system bus may be quad pumped no one knows. There are other options with HyperTransport though I don't know anything about it really but I know it's a true speed rather then the quad pump, super pump, hyper pump, pumped pump, thing.

[Mehmet]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Ah, no. The FSB is not quad pumped it actually burns along at that speed. The system bus may be quad pumped no one knows. There are other options with HyperTransport though I don't know anything about it really but I know it's a true speed rather then the quad pump, super pump, hyper pump, pumped pump, thing.


ah, so its like a ratio that some of the super overclocking pc motherboards have.. memory to bus ratio's..

hrm.. that seems pretty c00.. but as the processors get faster, im guessign that apple thinks that memory will be able to keep up??

How bout dual channel? is it in the new macs?

[Kool]

...

[Sabenth]

Dose it matter whats reall and whats been hacked or slashed or what ever my first port of call is why is apple staying shumm on the matter of so called things going up then things going down and oh who the hell is in charge of apple anyways...... dont say steve because if he was well none of this so called crap should happen from what i keep reading about him been quite about things not letting things get out christ i let out more farts than he dose news......



Baring in mind that tormow i get my orignal i mac back from the shop and that i will be going what in godsname do i need this for bring on the 2ghz mommmaaaaaa

[zoetropeuk]

Why was Kool's comment re the dutch site pulled ?

[Panther]

Originally posted by rjstanford
Just FYI, there's a much larger difference than that. This is one of the main reasons why the move from 8->16 bits was huge, 16->32 was enabling, and 32->64 is, well, kinda nice. 128 is quite a way off, even for most enterprise level needs.

Fire up your trusty calculator and hit 2^32. That is, in bytes, the addressable memory size of a 32 bit processor. Divide by 1024 (2^10) to get kilobytes, by another 1024 (2^10) to get megabytes, and by yet another 1024 to get gigabytes.

Or an easier way to do it is just to think "address space == 2^(bitLevel-30) gigabytes". Thus a 32-bit processor can address 4 gig, a 36-bit address-space processor (like recent intels) can address 64 gig, and a 64-bit processor can address 17179869184 gig.

There are other benefits -- being able to quickly perform 64-bit integer based arithmatic, for example, which is usefull if you feel like tracking items globally at a millimeter resolution. And numbering lots of them, for that matter.

-Richard This doesn't quite fly for the 970... According to the specs I'm looking at (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf), the 970 only supports 42 bit "real addressing", which means it can handle 4096GB of physical memory (though potentially more virtual memory... like you'd need more in the forseeable future :D )

On a historical note, its a bit like the original 68000 that Apple had in the original Macs... That was a 32-bit CPU, but only had 24 bit "real addressing", so it could only handle 16MB of physical memory. When the Mac II came out it used a 68020 which supported 32 bit real addressing. Turned out lots of apps blew up on the Mac II solely because they'd used the other 8 bits of the addressing registers as bonus 8 bit registers to hold onto data... which of course caused page fault exceptions once the CPU understood what those extra 8 bits meant. Even Apple's own MacPaint failed!

I'm thinking the 970 won't be a naive as the 68000, and won't let you use the extra 22 bits that way :rolleyes:

<edit>2^42 is 4096GB not 1024GB as originally stated</edit>

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Mehmet
ah, so its like a ratio that some of the super overclocking pc motherboards have.. memory to bus ratio's..

hrm.. that seems pretty c00.. but as the processors get faster, im guessign that apple thinks that memory will be able to keep up??

How bout dual channel? is it in the new macs?

Yeah if the rumors are correct they have dual channel on the dual processor machines with a memory bus for each processor. It's not really dual channel since it's for each processor but it is the same layout with dual paths of memory at the system bus.

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by Panther
On a historical note, its a bit like the original 68000 that Apple had in the original Macs... That was a 32-bit CPU, but only had 24 bit "real addressing", so it could only handle 16MB of physical memory. When the Mac II came out it used a 68020 which supported 32 bit real addressing. Turned out lots of apps blew up on the Mac II solely because they'd used the other 8 bits of the addressing registers as bonus 8 bit registers to hold onto data... which of course caused page fault exceptions once the CPU understood what those extra 8 bits meant. Even Apple's own MacPaint failed!Ah, yes. Remember the good old days when you had to use the mode32 extension and worry about which applications were 32-bit-clean?

[Panther]

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Ah, yes. Remember the good old days when you had to use the mode32 extension and worry about which applications were 32-bit-clean? Ah the tricks of the trade... back when you thought a machine with 512K of RAM was cooking with gas (4x more than the Classic!!)... and these little tricks were how you eeked the most out of it... and you'd still have MacWrite, HyperCard and CricketDraw all running on it at the same time.

Now we're complaining that 4GB addressable is not enough (on our office servers)... funny how times change.

[Mehmet]

Ok, here's something to ponder about..

the leaked specs, they talked about all 3 of the machines that will probably be released.. (assuming the leaked info is true). Now, if apple is going to release only the lower end 970 powermacs, why would they have a graphic for the specs of all of them?? (assuming thats the graphic they are going to use when they update their site after the keynote (also assuming that they will be announced)).

[TheBrain]

Lets face it Gerbils... if Apple was really about to release new G5 super duper machines don't you think they would change the graphics to reflect the fact that its a fantastic new machine..

It would be highly unlikely of the geniuses at Apple to use a worn out boring graphic on what will be their newest product yet.....

[ZildjianKX]

Originally posted by TheBrain
Lets face it Gerbils... if Apple was really about to release new G5 super duper machines don't you think they would change the graphics to reflect the fact that its a fantastic new machine..

It would be highly unlikely of the geniuses at Apple to use a worn out boring graphic on what will be their newest product yet.....

Hey genius... that happens after they're announced...

[TheBrain]

Well.. Oh er of course after they are announced Apple will use the same graphics as they did for the G4.. NOT !!

Doh...Thats just stupid logic...

[moss84]

Originally posted by Doctor Q
As I understand it, 64-bit addressing is the end of the line. There may be 128-bit processors for computational purposes, but 64 bits is enough to address as much RAM as you could possibly ever have in a computer of the future. With 64 bits, you can address 2^64 bytes of memory, which is (hold on while I count on my fingers and toes...) something like 10 billion gigabytes. So we're in the range of exabytes, the units that come after terabytes and petabytes.

Unless you need to address every atom in the observable universe (estimated to be something like 10^80), you won't be needing more than 64-bit addressing.

That sounds a lot like this famous quote...

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by moss84
That sounds a lot like this famous quote...

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981 Yup, and "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", said in 1943 by Thomas Watson, then chairman of IBM.

That's why the article was so interesting. (I wish I had a real citation to post...sorry.) It wasn't saying that computer speed and memory capacities won't continue to grow at impressive speeds. It was disputing the common misconception that doubling the word size every few generations would be part of that process. Once your Mac has more RAM addresses than there are photons, it's hard to see how you could need more address space.

[ErikGrim]

It may be too late for today's keynote, but wouldn't it rock to be in the audience with one of these?

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/0/6449500_F_tn.jpg http://prodtn.cafepress.com/0/6449500_B_tn.jpg (http://www.cafeshops.com/g5specs)

The geekette-version is fun too:

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/0/6449650_F_tn.jpg (http://www.cafeshops.com/g5specs)

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Once your Mac has more RAM addresses than there are photons, it's hard to see how you could need more address space.

Well, think about how you would move that much information in and out of the RAM - its not instantaneous.

Right now its irrelevant and I'm looking forward to the new machines today.

D

[isgoed]

HAHAHAHA

Noticed anything strange about the new G5 Apple Store Site??

The G4 Specifications are still on.

For the legacy, here's the proof. I have both sites saved as PDF.

Apple Shop Pre And Post WWDC (http://www.home.zonnet.nl/isgoed/WWDC/)