Why G5 sooner, rather than later
I agree in that there is no substantial benefit from a "today" perspective.
However, I disagree from the perspective of there being no benefit whatsoever: not only is there the marketing and bragging rights angle, but you also need to strategically deploy 64bit hardware into your installed base "today" to be able to successfully transition to full 64bit "tomorrow".
The underlying reality here is that software vendors are going to be reluctant to investing in a 64bit rewrite until there's the signs of a viable marketplace to buy it. The way for Apple to build this marketplace is to strategically transition their hardware base so that its ready: needing to upgrade software is always going to be a smaller barrier to adoption than needing to upgrade both software and hardware.
Technically, I wholeheartedly agree. My concern is merely from a non-nearterm viewpoint, this does not promote a strategy of moving forward to 64bit.
Of course, there are middle-ground approaches, such as going to a G5 for the Powerbook and notch up to a dual-core G4 for the iBook.
Also good points, and it would be interesting to see if Apple's willing to state that they're taking their time with rolling out 64bit hardware because their crystal ball of the RAM market shows that it is premature to put hardware out that people can't effectively afford to use. Even so, I think that Apple's move to the G5 for the iMac is telling that they believe that 64bit will probably happen within the lifecycle of that hardware (eg, <5 years).
-hh
AidenShaw said:Actually, what I'm saying is that without the 8 GiB of RAM in the system - bragging about 64-bit is just willy-waving. There's almost no point in running a 64-bit operating system on a PowerPC with 512 MiB of RAM.
I agree in that there is no substantial benefit from a "today" perspective.
However, I disagree from the perspective of there being no benefit whatsoever: not only is there the marketing and bragging rights angle, but you also need to strategically deploy 64bit hardware into your installed base "today" to be able to successfully transition to full 64bit "tomorrow".
The underlying reality here is that software vendors are going to be reluctant to investing in a 64bit rewrite until there's the signs of a viable marketplace to buy it. The way for Apple to build this marketplace is to strategically transition their hardware base so that its ready: needing to upgrade software is always going to be a smaller barrier to adoption than needing to upgrade both software and hardware.
In particular, what I'm saying is that a dual-core G4 PowerBook would be a lot more bang-for-the-buck than a G5 PowerBook at this point in time.
Technically, I wholeheartedly agree. My concern is merely from a non-nearterm viewpoint, this does not promote a strategy of moving forward to 64bit.
Of course, there are middle-ground approaches, such as going to a G5 for the Powerbook and notch up to a dual-core G4 for the iBook.
Note that the dual-core G4 is not stuck with the 133/167 MHz FSB, and also note that a follow-on 64-bit version is planned. It might be a year or two longer for the 64-bit version - but maybe by then we'll have reasonably large memory chips for laptops.
Also good points, and it would be interesting to see if Apple's willing to state that they're taking their time with rolling out 64bit hardware because their crystal ball of the RAM market shows that it is premature to put hardware out that people can't effectively afford to use. Even so, I think that Apple's move to the G5 for the iMac is telling that they believe that 64bit will probably happen within the lifecycle of that hardware (eg, <5 years).
-hh