Apple's Focus, Digital Music and More to Come?

[sahil]

there is

you need to have the full version (registered and all) to view movies in full screen...
did u seriously think that that integral feature was a miss in quicktime...silly you!

 

[lewdvig]

Re: Re: Re: more Macs

Originally posted by stoid
I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS. I don't see Apple shipping computers that CAN'T run their own latest software! Maybe 2 versions of 10.4, a 32-bit and 64-bit, but I don't think that Apple is in any hurry to alienate 90+% of it's customers. There are many schools that really use the latest Mac OS, but don't have the latest hardware. Making the Mac OS 64-bit ONLY is the worst decision Apple could POSSIBLY make.

How does Apple going 64 bit effect how you use your current machine? People still use Wallstreets with OS 8.6 and 9.1.

At some point in the next 1-2 years Apple will have to go 64bit. I don't see how they will be able to support 32 and 64 bit versions of all their software. They are too small.

 

[PHARAOHk]

Originally posted by rfenik
The only thing that I hate about QuickTime is that it doesn't go full screen. I have to use MPlayer to

Quicktime Pro does full screen

 

[desdomg]

2004: the year that Rumor sites were kicked into touch.

 

[lewdvig]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??

(no)

i mean, it'd be neat and all... and i would prolly get all tingly inside and have to have one, but jeez... i'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch about it... g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

Then they don't need a $1299 iMac either. A $299 Dell with free 17" monitor will do nicely.

Either Apple specs the iMac like a $1299 computer or it prices it like a 1.25GHz computer with LCD.

Neither is the case right now.

A 2.53 GHz Dell POS with 15" TFT and the same RAM, HD, Optical and I/O as the iMac is $818 after rebate.

 

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by lewdvig
Then they don't need a $1299 iMac either. A $299 Dell with free 17" monitor will do nicely.

Either Apple specs the iMac like a $1299 computer or it prices it like a 1.25GHz computer with LCD.

Neither is the case right now.

i see what you mean... but thats a little different from what i'm saying... you put a g5 in the imac and then youre REALLY gonna have some high priced machines all the way around...

 

[lewdvig]

I don't think that the 130nm process G5s left in the channel are going to cost too much now that faster G5s are immenent. And the 90nm versions are cheaper to make.

So 90nm G5s that can't do 2.4 or 2.6 can be binned as cheaper parts. Or maybe they have half the cache. IBM is serious about this chip so multiple grades should be easy. There will be lots of ways to differentiate performance for consumer and pro machines.

I read that the new G5s do 25watts at 2GHz. That is great! It easily beats the P4M and Athlon machines - and we don't know how much slewing will halp power/heat on the new G5. G5 PBs can't be that far away.

Putting 1.6 or 1.8 G5s in all iMacs would be great.

BUT

iMacs and eMacs leverage the PowerBook line for motherboards. I don't think we will see G5 consumer macs until after the G5 books are out.

That is assuming the consumer mac form factors stay the same.

I think we will see a shake up in the whole lineup this year. And at a minimum I expect that future G5 apples will be labeled as '64bit ready' or some such marketingese.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
i see what you mean... but thats a little different from what i'm saying... you put a g5 in the imac and then youre REALLY gonna have some high priced machines all the way around...

Didn't appear that's what you said.. You seemed to have gotten your panties in a bunch and were bitchin about everybody bitchen

The G4 is expensive to produce and I'm not sure how it compares to the G5. However, the FishKill plant was developed to spread the cost so smaller companies could manufacture chips without the hight cost of building a plant etc.

It' my understanding that the G5's aren't as expensive as the G4's when the G4's were launched. Nonethless, Apple could probably keep the prices lower with the G5. As other people have mentioned they would benefit from having duals in the high end models (all of them) and singles in the consumer models. I would like to see them at the same speed too.

 

[cavaleri]

From the macosrumors site...

Friday, February 6

Next-generation Powerbook G4 details: A modest update to Apple's pro laptops, to bridge the considerable gap between the current models and the Powerbook G5 that will be introduced in the late third quarter, is expected early this spring. The update will be almost entirely in the specifications list and will not introduce any major enclosure or architectural changes.

Details include PowerPC 7457 G4 processors at 1.25, 1.33, and 1.467 or possibly 1.533GHz. There may be 1MB DDR backside L3 cache memory on some high-end models, a feature that is missing from the current Powerbooks. The models which now employ the Radeon 9600 Mobility will probably be upgraded to the Radeon 9700 Mobility, offering a 30% boost to 3D performance along with reduced power consumption and operating temperatures. Larger hard drives and high-performance disk options (5400 and 7200RPM) are expected to round out the update. It is widely expected to be announced with little fanfare, but should keep new buyers interested until the PBG5 drops in August or September at 1.6-2.0GHz.


...
...

if true, it kind of seems that apple would be intent on extending the life of the G4's for a bit longer *sigh*... I for one am hopeing for either an iMac g5 product, or a faster single proc g5 PM with lower heat dissapation req's... I might get the latter sooner than the former if I had to guess based on the above. If they do upgrade the G4 procs on the powerbooks, I'd have to assume they'll do the same for the iMac's to breath a little bit more longevity into those machines.

 

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
Didn't appear that's what you said.. You seemed to have gotten your panties in a bunch and were bitchin about everybody bitchen

huh? i'm tired and confused and grumpy... i do get tired of people moaning about needing a g5 to surf the web... that was my only real point...

 

[mikeyredk]

Originally posted by lewdvig
I read that the new G5s do 25watts at 2GHz.

where?

 

[howtoplaydead]

Originally posted by yoman
consumer products need a rehaul

iMac a G5 expandable video card slot
eMac and iBook faster G4's more VRAM more RAM HARD DRIVE space.
etc...

well you get the idea.

Note: I am impatient just like everyone else but I rather have it done right then have a bunch of rev.A lemons delivered.

A bunch of lemmons help stock
I preffer lemmons than nothing... besides, I'm not going to buy these, I'm just waiting to plot out my next Mac purchase (sometime in the summer of 2005).

Never buy a rev. A
Although i'm quiet happy w/ my digital audio 733 (rev. A)
ok, avoid lemmons and thus don't buy a rev. A, but only some rev. As are flawed.

 

[starpolyp]

This iMac 500 DVse that im on (3yrs old) is doing fine but, ive been itching for something new. I dont like the specs of the current iMacs and the PM is too big for my area. Something that i can upgrade, but can still fit in my room would be greatly appreciated. I dont care if it is headless, or has an attached LCD, I just want the ability to upgrade the graphics card, etc. The ability to have access the hardrive would be nice.
I'm not buying anything w/o a G5 either. Why spend a ton of money on old technology? I will wait as long as it takes to get a G5. The sooner the better.

 

[ericdano]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
im sick of the 'i need a g5 imac' rant... do you all REALLY honestly think that the everday consumer needs a g5 to surf the web and check email and word process.....??

(no)

i mean, it'd be neat and all... and i would prolly get all tingly inside and have to have one, but jeez... i'm not gonna get my panties in a bunch about it... g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

Exactly. I still know people who use 6500s to do email and word processing.

 

[ryanw]

Re: what dude?

Originally posted by mattalici
The only innovative thing coming out of the computer world right now are viruses.

Well, I feel left out... my mac hasn't had one virus this entire year.. or ever for that matter... I'm sure macs will have their day... but for now we've been left outta' this whole virus mess. Once virus' catch up onto macs all the PC guys will say, "SEE, Macs have viruses too.." But they'll forget all the years we've had of being virus free.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Updates

It is hard to argue that the entire line is due for an update. The last thing to get a real update was the iBook in October (and that was already four months ago).

Basically, with exception of iBooks (and the xServe) every computer in Apple Store that is availible right now was in there six months ago at about the same price. Meanwhile, the iTMS and the iPod continually get updates and all the press.

I posted about month ago how I was worried that Apple was forgetting the average Mac User in the world and concentrating on digital music.

Apple needs to release some new "low end" computers just to hang on to the segment of the market they have left. I am in the market for a new computer soon (I currently have a G3 iMac DV) and right now Apple has nothing for me. I don't think that the iMac (or even the eMac) is worth what you pay for it, and I can totally forget about anything from the PowerMac line. If I have $1000 to spend I can get and eMac and that is that. I am seriously considering buying a cheap laptop and putting Linux on it.

 

[pjkelnhofer]

Originally posted by ericdano
Exactly. I still know people who use 6500s to do email and word processing.

That is a good point, my father also still has an 8088 in his basement that he uses and runs DR-DOS on.

 

[evilbert420]

I think Apple's classification of Consumer and Pro are obsolete.

A "consumer" cares about value, features, and longevity. The iMac line is expensive, has CPUs that are long-in-the-tooth, two-generations-old video, and a lack of longevity at this point (G4s are on the way out). The iMacs have pitiful game performance, so-so-video and audio performance, and are expensive.

A "pro" cares about performance, reliability, and longevity. Well, the Power Mac G5s seem to deliver on that pretty well. Pros aren't running games on their computers, they're running graphics, design, video editing, audio/music... they're probably not playing games and doing iLife. Maybe they're schools, businesses, etc. that need to run the machine for 3-4 years before replacing it or getting a new lease.

There's a whole legion of computer purchasers who lie between Apple's Consumer and Pro lines. People like me. We want to run games at respectable frame rates. We want to run Final Cut Express, Logic Audio, etc. Maybe we want to add another hard drive, or upgrade a component or two during the lifecycle of the machine. Apple has completely neglected us, instead catering to its skewed ideas of consumer vs. pro. I have to buy Pro to get the features I want, yet I consider myself a consumer.

Apple obviously likes to work in 3s.. the Papa Bear/Mama Bear/Baby Bear scenarios. Well, the eMac and iMac should be at the bottom, and the Power Mac at the top. In the middle should be a G5 machine with an upgradeable video card and room for a second hard drive.

 

[evilbert420]

"I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS"

FYI, when the G5 came out there was a lot of discussion of whether there was any point to a 64-bit OS.

I don't remember there being any real reason why an OS should be 64-bit vs. 32-bit. The OS isn't doing any massive computations like applications/games do that would give you the value of the 64-bit processor.

As long as a 32-bit OS can run 64-bit APPS, then we're all good. And that's right where Apple is right now.

 

[ldjessee]

Faster PC Chips every quarter?

Hello,

Intel made the announcement last week it would upgrade thier processors to 3.4GHz. Didnt they promise 4GHz by Christmas 2003 when they announced 3GHz by Christmas 2002?

Funny, I saw no big 'stink' raised for Intel taking their sweet time, how they were going to fall off the face of the planet for taking over a year to get more than a .2GHz boost from their CPUs.

Intel CPUs have gone from 3.0 GHz Christmas 2002 to 3.2 by Christmas 2003, and now in Feb 2004, have they been annouced to be 3.4 GHz soon.

So, not really sure about the comment that PCs get faster processors every quarter.

I would wait, look and see what Apple does this year, then at the end of the year, layout how Apple failed to meet my expectations for the year, instead of speculating how they are going to do it.

As for the mention of the Dell machine and its price, you could say the same thing with comparisons between a Hyundai and a BMW. Why does the BMW cost more, when they both have the same general level of specifications? (Hyundai 350 L vs BMW 3 series 325i; comparison on Hyundai's website)

I would still rather have the BMW over the Hyundai. Does BMW worry that it does not have the cheapest cars in the US? Not at all.

Does Steve Jobs worry that he does not have the cheapest desktop or laptops? I do not think so.

(of course, these are just my opinions based on my limited knowledge and experience)

LDJessee

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by evilbert420
I think Apple's classification of Consumer and Pro are obsolete.

A "consumer" cares about value, features, and longevity. The iMac line is expensive, has CPUs that are long-in-the-tooth, two-generations-old video, and a lack of longevity at this point (G4s are on the way out). The iMacs have pitiful game performance, so-so-video and audio performance, and are expensive.

A "pro" cares about performance, reliability, and longevity. Well, the Power Mac G5s seem to deliver on that pretty well. Pros aren't running games on their computers, they're running graphics, design, video editing, audio/music... they're probably not playing games and doing iLife. Maybe they're schools, businesses, etc. that need to run the machine for 3-4 years before replacing it or getting a new lease.

There's a whole legion of computer purchasers who lie between Apple's Consumer and Pro lines. People like me. We want to run games at respectable frame rates. We want to run Final Cut Express, Logic Audio, etc. Maybe we want to add another hard drive, or upgrade a component or two during the lifecycle of the machine. Apple has completely neglected us, instead catering to its skewed ideas of consumer vs. pro. I have to buy Pro to get the features I want, yet I consider myself a consumer.

Apple obviously likes to work in 3s.. the Papa Bear/Mama Bear/Baby Bear scenarios. Well, the eMac and iMac should be at the bottom, and the Power Mac at the top. In the middle should be a G5 machine with an upgradeable video card and room for a second hard drive.

Well, I see and agree with what your saying, but some may say the 1.6 is the very computer you're talking about. However, with regards to competition it's not. So essentially if you're going to run an Apple computer that's what you get. I don't care for the lineup...

 

[michael666]

g5 for the pro, g4 for the others

A new iteration of the "g3/g4" posts flooding every thread here before the G4 iBooks came out.

 

[savar]

Re: Re: Re: more Macs

Originally posted by stoid

I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS. I don't see Apple shipping computers that CAN'T run their own latest software! Maybe 2 versions of 10.4, a 32-bit and 64-bit, but I don't think that Apple is in any hurry to alienate 90+% of it's customers. There are many schools that really use the latest Mac OS, but don't have the latest hardware. Making the Mac OS 64-bit ONLY is the worst decision Apple could POSSIBLY make.

No doubt.

Remember how long ago powermacs first came out? The classic OS was at best only around 10% PPC native...OS X was the first Mac OS that was fully PPC native.

I doubt much of the OS even benefits from 64 bits. I'm sure certain parts will be recompiled/optimized for the G5 (some already have), but there will be 32 bit versions included as well.

Of course, who knows when OS XI will actually get here? Maybe it will be 64 bit...Apple still has a lot of space to improve OS X, and that means a longer life cycle.

 

[Edot]

Originally posted by evilbert420
"I think that Apple is going to have to have all 64-bit procs before we see a 64-bit OS"

FYI, when the G5 came out there was a lot of discussion of whether there was any point to a 64-bit OS.

I don't remember there being any real reason why an OS should be 64-bit vs. 32-bit. The OS isn't doing any massive computations like applications/games do that would give you the value of the 64-bit processor.

As long as a 32-bit OS can run 64-bit APPS, then we're all good. And that's right where Apple is right now.

How could you possible fill a floppy disk either? What if the OS could do massive computations while still allowing for other apps to do their work. How cool could the OS get? OS X does not run well on older hardware for that very reason. Software will only become more complex and the OS will follow, or lead.

 

[inkswamp]

Originally posted by lewdvig
IT WAS THE BLOODY ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMPUTER AS WE KNOW IT AND APPLE LET IT PASS. YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY BETTER DELIVER THE GOODS!

What did you want? Some tearful, nostalgic look back? Maybe Steve could appear on a special heartfelt episode of Oprah and unveil an iMac G5 that looks like the original Mac while they sip tea and weep. I mean, really, I was thrilled that Apple decided to forego any false nostalgia, which is usually just a pretense for the marketing dept to squeeze any publicity out of it. It's all self-congratulatory wankery anyway, so who cares? Apple is doing their best work now. Why waste time looking back?

One of my favorite bands is the Canadian trio Rush. When a bunch of younger bands got together to put out a Rush tribute, the band balked and got very upset about it. The reason? Such a look back carries the hidden message that the best is in the past. Rush didn't want that as they feel that they are still vital and doing great work (and they are!) I think Apple has no reason to look back or do any special 20th anniversary bunk. Let MacWorld and MacAddict do that for them--at least the editors of those magazines did it honestly and with a minimum of market-speak.