Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.3 & 2.5 Ghz Xserve Updates?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
CTerry said:
And I am happy to see rumors once again. Not just "news".
Someone will start "The Official MWSF '05 Thread" shortly, so all rumors will be piled up in that one.
hit the wall
If they're only gonna be at 2.5Ghz for the Xserves, then the industry (aka IBM) must've really "hit the wall" with the 90nm process. This'll be 1.5 years after they were hoping for 3.0Ghz.
Hopefully IBM's restructuring (selling off PC business) will allow more resources to go into chip-making. Let's go IBM, let's go!
If they're only gonna be at 2.5Ghz for the Xserves, then the industry (aka IBM) must've really "hit the wall" with the 90nm process. This'll be 1.5 years after they were hoping for 3.0Ghz.
Hopefully IBM's restructuring (selling off PC business) will allow more resources to go into chip-making. Let's go IBM, let's go!
coolfactor said:If they're only gonna be at 2.5Ghz for the Xserves, then the industry (aka IBM) must've really "hit the wall" with the 90nm process. This'll be 1.5 years after they were hoping for 3.0Ghz.
Hopefully IBM's restructuring (selling off PC business) will allow more resources to go into chip-making. Let's go IBM, let's go!
Just because they have "hit the wall" with the 90nm 970, doesn't mean future "G5s" won't clock considerably higher. Look at the roadmap for the next few 970-variant revisions. They all start at around 3GHz I believe.
ThomasHobbes said:
ummmm, PBs are only 1.5 top end...
I wish they would update soon because I want one soon, and I don't want to buy an outdated one.
swissmann said:
If you ever visited a server room, you'd know the answer: Servers can be cooled aggressively, even if it means they produce noise like a starting jet-engine and blow lots of energy in the process.
The same is obviously not true for a laptop computer.
i_am_a_cow said:
He's referring to recent release of 1.7GHz G4 upgrades from Sonnet for the Cube and G4 PowerMacs. They are of a variant that is low enough power and low enough heat that they could be installed in a Powerbook.
swissmann said:
YES!! The XServe is huge as compared to any laptop. The 17" Powerbook has the following dimensions.
Size and weight (17-inch model)
* Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
* Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
* Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Total volume = 157.08 cubic inches.
The XServe has the following dimensions.
Size and weight (XService)
* Height: 1.73 inches (4.4 cm)
* Width: 17.6 inches (44.7 cm)
* Depth: 28 inches (71.1 cm)
Total volume = 852.54 cubic inches.
The XServe is 5.43 times larger then the 17" Powerbook.
A closer comparison would be the G5 iMac but there are serveral issues with that comparison for on the G5 iMac is also huge as compared with a 17" Powerbook. Also The G5 iMac doesn't have a keyboard built in and use the screen for one side of the housing thus not as much material is needed making it thinner yet. Finally the iMac isn't designed for the beating a Powerbook has to endure so it's not as strongly built and thus thinner yet.
I'm not saying a G5 Powerbook is not possible but it is an error to look at the iMac or XServe and ask why they can't build the Powerbook.
10 lbs Dell
[/QUOTE]I'm not saying a G5 Powerbook is not possible but it is an error to look at the iMac or XServe and ask why they can't build the Powerbook.[/QUOTE]
Just because Dell can do it i.e. making a 10 lbs 2 inch thick laptop, people will assume Apple can do it too.
I rather have a stylist computer over a computer that is 200 mhz higher!
-
[/QUOTE]I'm not saying a G5 Powerbook is not possible but it is an error to look at the iMac or XServe and ask why they can't build the Powerbook.[/QUOTE]
Just because Dell can do it i.e. making a 10 lbs 2 inch thick laptop, people will assume Apple can do it too.
I rather have a stylist computer over a computer that is 200 mhz higher!
-
Chomolungma said:
Exactly. Apple adheres to a certain level of quality and functionality that forces then to cut back on some technologies at times. They could sell a 17lb 2" G5 aptop right now if they wanted to. All they would have to do is put a lid that doubles as a fold down keyboard and a slim battery pack for the bottom of the case and tada you have the G5 lugable.
MacBandit said:
I am sure we are forgetting that the iMac G5 also has its PSU in the case and a powerbook or iBook have they adapters outside.
Speakers on a notebook are always rubbish.
You also forget that the imac G5 has a thick layer of white plastic and clear acetate and the backing for the VESA mount and stand to sit stable. All those attribute to the overall size. Plus the iMac G5 is using the first GEN G5 chips that were included in the rev A PMG5.
I am sure most of the delays have to deal with power consumption and the NEW low powered G5 chips should help in this area. Heat is always a problem look no further than the PowerBook G4 and iBook G4.
I remember that the Ti G4 PB also had heat issues.
Fitting in a 1" enclosure was pushed buy the industry its not a rule. the older powerbooks even the new ones are thicker than 1" so why are people complaining.
Suddenly people cannot carry more than 4.9 lbs in they backpack or hand.
<-- and YES I also travel with my PowerBook, and its not a burden, the only burden is the more things I have to carry around or loose for that matter.
MacBandit said:
Apple and Steve Jobs, also toots that they have the BEST engineers and invest in R&D big time. Might as well get what you pay for.
Why do some of you have the need to stand up for Apple, are you on they payroll. If you were that is another story.
The easiest way to think of Xsan is to think about NFS, and other networked filesystems. You have multiple computers, all accessing the same filesystem at the same time. With NFS and similar, the server does the actual operations, preventing any corruption from occurring (due to two or more systems writing to the same file at the same time.)mattroberts said:
Xsan, CXFS, and similar products (Sistina's GFS? -- now part of Redhat) take this to the logical next step. Instead of relying upon a TCP-IP network to allow multiple systems to access a single filesystem simultaneously, they take advantage of the SAN infrastructure to do the same job over the SAN. It's literally the case that you have one raw disk hooked up to several systems at the same time; in principle, you could do the same thing with Firewire and SCSI hard drives. (SCSI would be limited by the number of devices on the chain, so for most purposes wouldn't be practical, especially if you want to RAID the physical drives.)
In order to avoid filesystem corruption, CXFS (and almost certainly Xsan) use a "metadata server". Each system allocates storage through the metadata server, but actually accessing that storage is done directly. Things like updating directory entries and so forth are also done through the metadata server. Often, the metadata server is clustered, to cope with unexpected hardware failure and other such lossage.
All of this is most useful when dealing with large files, such as media editing. If you're dealing with smaller files, like Word documents, etc., standard networked filesystems are most likely to be far more cost effective.
If you need this sort of capability now, talk with SGI. CXFS is available for OS X right now. Xsan is still under testing. I actually might have been able to get a job working on the OS X port of CXFS; I didn't bother applying for various reasons.
Face facts. If you can buy it, it's obsolete. The only question is how much so. Buying the bleeding edge will always be exorbitantly expensive. Me? I'm quite happy with my 1.25 GHz 15" PowerBook, thank you very much.i_am_a_cow said:
m a y a said:I am sure we are forgetting that the iMac G5 also has its PSU in the case and a powerbook or iBook have they adapters outside.
Speakers on a notebook are always rubbish.
You also forget that the imac G5 has a thick layer of white plastic and clear acetate and the backing for the VESA mount and stand to sit stable. All those attribute to the overall size. Plus the iMac G5 is using the first GEN G5 chips that were included in the rev A PMG5.
I am sure most of the delays have to deal with power consumption and the NEW low powered G5 chips should help in this area. Heat is always a problem look no further than the PowerBook G4 and iBook G4.
I remember that the Ti G4 PB also had heat issues.
Fitting in a 1" enclosure was pushed buy the industry its not a rule. the older powerbooks even the new ones are thicker than 1" so why are people complaining.
Suddenly people cannot carry more than 4.9 lbs in they backpack or hand.
No I thought of those things and yes it does have a thicker case then a Powerbook but if you factor in the fact that it only has a case on the back and not on the back and front like a Powerbook (because the screen is the front) then it's not as big a difference. Also all laptops have a built in Powersupply. The external powersupply is a converter to down conver AC to usually 12VDC. The internal Powersupply regulates battery power and distributes power to all the individual power consumers (i.e CD/DVD, PCMCIA, Wireless card, LCD, CPU, etc.).
I was just trying to say with my post that the engineering required to put a G5 in an iMac is no where near as difficult as that of a laptop. Also while the 1" standard is self adhered it would be a mistake to make a laptop too much thicker or heavier as it would look like a downgrade by consumers.
m a y a said:Apple and Steve Jobs, also toots that they have the BEST engineers and invest in R&D big time. Might as well get what you pay for.
Why do some of you have the need to stand up for Apple, are you on they payroll. If you were that is another story.
You might also ask why some people have the need to tear Apple down. I don't worship Apple like some and I'm not one that thinks Apple can do no wrong but I do think that on the whole they make a very nice product expense aside.
MacBandit said:
If you are stringing the cord that I am "tearing down" Apple, you are wrong. I am neutral in these matter as with any company, I do expect what I pay for, if I am paying 1000+ I expect that amount of quality and service.
m a y a said:If you are stringing the cord that I am "tearing down" Apple, you are wrong. I am neutral in these matter as with any company, I do expect what I pay for, if I am paying 1000+ I expect that amount of quality and service.
No, no, I was infering no such thing. I was simply stating a counter point to your question.
DPazdanISU said:I really want to buy an iMac but I can't stand the video card. Gimme a processor boost to 2ghz and even at least an optional upgrade to 128 video. Then an iMac will be in my room
Hope you're prepared to wait a while. The iMac has been shipping for only 10 weeks. Furthermore, the delay in the iMac was (reportedly) heat issues. What makes you think they'll be able to bump the processor and video card in a Rev B? Faster chip, faster FSB, better video card= way more heat. The iMac is awesome, you want it/need it, buy it!
m a y a said:The cheque is in the mail.
Thanks, didn't think it would be that easy! Wait a second, you don't have my address....
Mudbug said:
I never knew that site even existed! Man, I'm going to be having some fun on there, methinks....
