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.
exciting mwny rumor
- Thread starter gralem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
>Mactracker is a good source of information about different Apple systems. That is, if you cannot get access to the info from Apple itself.
What is Mactracker you ask? It's a free software program (free for Macs, not windoze!) that gives a quick overview of a large range of Apple computers from the 128k to the modern Macs. Check out download.com.com, search for Mactracker, download the OS X version (for OS X) and away you go.
If you want more in depth info, try www.apple-history.com for extra detail.
If you want more rumors, visit the boards more often!
What is Mactracker you ask? It's a free software program (free for Macs, not windoze!) that gives a quick overview of a large range of Apple computers from the 128k to the modern Macs. Check out download.com.com, search for Mactracker, download the OS X version (for OS X) and away you go.
If you want more in depth info, try www.apple-history.com for extra detail.
If you want more rumors, visit the boards more often!
Yikes G4: Introduced: August 1999, Discontinued: December 1999.
Sawtooth G4: Introduced: September 1999, Discontinued: July 2000. Apple has no discontinue date listed for the Sawtooth, but we all know how they can be slow to update those dates. It probably just slipped through the cracks, since the Gigabit ethernet model does have a date listed (1/18/01).
Sawtooth G4: Introduced: September 1999, Discontinued: July 2000. Apple has no discontinue date listed for the Sawtooth, but we all know how they can be slow to update those dates. It probably just slipped through the cracks, since the Gigabit ethernet model does have a date listed (1/18/01).
Originally posted by hitman
I believe Apple has split the tower motherboard architecture in the past (please correct me if I am wrong.) If you recall, in the first line of G4 towers (350, 400, 450) the baseline tower was based off the old G3 motherboard. Or am I completely insane?
Yes you are completely insane, and that's bad.
Originally posted by AlphaTech
Leave it to the canadians to think that insanity is a bad thing...
They just have not felt "special" yet.
Wouldn't there be a 933 mhz G4 on the mid range imac, i don't think 900 exist.
And why would the price be droped by 5$ , that doesn't make sense.
About Yikes
---The first set of G4 systems (all speeds released) were with a hybrid motherboard (a cross-gap measure until they could get the first true G4 motherboard out) code named "Yikes". The second set of G4 systems to come out used the first true G4 motherboard, code named "Sawtooth". All the systems used the motherboard, there were not Yikes and Sawtooth in production at the same time.
Yikes used a PCI video card slot, and in speeds of 350 and 400MHz. Sawtooth used the first AGP video card slot and came in 350, 400, 450 and 500MHz models. Eventually the Sawtooth also had dual processor versions, before they went to the next motherboard revision (Gigabit ethernet) code named "Mystic" with 400MHz (single processor), 450MHz and 500MHz (dual processors). Those were the last with the 100MHz system bus, which also used PC100 memory. After that, they went to the 133MHz bus, and used PC133 memory (PC100 is not recognized in them).---
The above information is a little inaccurate. Let me clarify a bit: The lowend Powermac G4, when it was first released, was a G4 400 on a Yikes MB. This is the same MB as the B/W G3s. The Sawtooth boards were released at the same time, running at 450 and 500. So there WAS a difference of MBs across the product line during that time.
Then, two things happened. First, the G4s got downclocked to 350, 400, and 450 when apple realized that Moto couldn't ship the 500 chips.
So then there was, very briefly, a 350 mhz G4 on a Yikes MB.
Then the Yikes machines got upgraded to Sawtooth so that all the machines in the line were then on the Sawtooth board. At that point, there was a 350,400,450--all on Sawtooth.
These were sad days for Apple. I know all this becuase I bought a 400mhz Yikes. It was all I could afford, but I ended up feeling cool becuase my machine (the processor at least) ended up being as fast as the midrange machine for a awhile.
---The first set of G4 systems (all speeds released) were with a hybrid motherboard (a cross-gap measure until they could get the first true G4 motherboard out) code named "Yikes". The second set of G4 systems to come out used the first true G4 motherboard, code named "Sawtooth". All the systems used the motherboard, there were not Yikes and Sawtooth in production at the same time.
Yikes used a PCI video card slot, and in speeds of 350 and 400MHz. Sawtooth used the first AGP video card slot and came in 350, 400, 450 and 500MHz models. Eventually the Sawtooth also had dual processor versions, before they went to the next motherboard revision (Gigabit ethernet) code named "Mystic" with 400MHz (single processor), 450MHz and 500MHz (dual processors). Those were the last with the 100MHz system bus, which also used PC100 memory. After that, they went to the 133MHz bus, and used PC133 memory (PC100 is not recognized in them).---
The above information is a little inaccurate. Let me clarify a bit: The lowend Powermac G4, when it was first released, was a G4 400 on a Yikes MB. This is the same MB as the B/W G3s. The Sawtooth boards were released at the same time, running at 450 and 500. So there WAS a difference of MBs across the product line during that time.
Then, two things happened. First, the G4s got downclocked to 350, 400, and 450 when apple realized that Moto couldn't ship the 500 chips.
So then there was, very briefly, a 350 mhz G4 on a Yikes MB.
Then the Yikes machines got upgraded to Sawtooth so that all the machines in the line were then on the Sawtooth board. At that point, there was a 350,400,450--all on Sawtooth.
These were sad days for Apple. I know all this becuase I bought a 400mhz Yikes. It was all I could afford, but I ended up feeling cool becuase my machine (the processor at least) ended up being as fast as the midrange machine for a awhile.
kevinibook:
The iMac is on a 100 MHz bus, so the clock multiplier wouldn't allow for a 933 MHz chip unless the range was moved to a 133 MHz bus, as with the current PowerMac (most CPUs need to increase the multiplier by either 0.5 or 1, such as 6 x 133 MHz or 8 x 100 MHz). With the existing design they'd probably have to move up to 900 and/or 1000 MHz G4s.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to move up to 133 MHz buses though. While my brief tryouts of the new iMac suggest that it's fast enough for the average user, some people note that it feels a bit pokey. A 133 MHz bus would make a given iMac feel faster even at the same clock speed, and it would also allow Apple more subtle changes in their lineup (i.e. they don't always have to go in 100 MHz increments).
King Cobra:
Those specs seem valid enough, but I'd change three things: first, drop the prices for the PowerMacs to where they are now. Next, I think the iMac range will still have less seperation in terms of performance; the low- and mid-range models would have 800 or 900 MHz G4s, while only the top-end has the 1 GHz chip. I'd lastly suspect that Apple would keep the Combo drive for the mid-range, since it shaves off a substantial amount of the cost but still has what most people want.
The iMac is on a 100 MHz bus, so the clock multiplier wouldn't allow for a 933 MHz chip unless the range was moved to a 133 MHz bus, as with the current PowerMac (most CPUs need to increase the multiplier by either 0.5 or 1, such as 6 x 133 MHz or 8 x 100 MHz). With the existing design they'd probably have to move up to 900 and/or 1000 MHz G4s.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to move up to 133 MHz buses though. While my brief tryouts of the new iMac suggest that it's fast enough for the average user, some people note that it feels a bit pokey. A 133 MHz bus would make a given iMac feel faster even at the same clock speed, and it would also allow Apple more subtle changes in their lineup (i.e. they don't always have to go in 100 MHz increments).
King Cobra:
Those specs seem valid enough, but I'd change three things: first, drop the prices for the PowerMacs to where they are now. Next, I think the iMac range will still have less seperation in terms of performance; the low- and mid-range models would have 800 or 900 MHz G4s, while only the top-end has the 1 GHz chip. I'd lastly suspect that Apple would keep the Combo drive for the mid-range, since it shaves off a substantial amount of the cost but still has what most people want.
>(Postal)Those specs seem valid enough, but I'd change three things: first, drop the prices for the PowerMacs to where they are now.
Here is why I didn't. The powerbooks to 667MHz did get the low $3000 price for the high end, but then the prices shot back up. I am afraid that the same thing will happen to the PowerMacs. But I didn't want to put the top end near $4000, since adding a 17 inch monitor would bring the whole cost to a ridiculous half $10k. I could be wrong, but with the trend of the Powerbook prices I would expect Apple to continue the trend with their PowerMacs. Otherwise, sales in the Powerbook world would go down, plain and simple.
>Next, I think the iMac range will still have less seperation in terms of performance; the low- and mid-range models would have 800 or 900 MHz G4s, while only the top-end has the 1 GHz chip.
Remember back to the last revision of the Apple iMac G3 CRT? The models went from 500MHz to 700MHz. Also, it seems as if the high end iMac is usually right around the speed for the low end PowerMac. Finally, I assumed for a guess that since the iMac G4 700MHz was the low end for the last top model G3 iMac in terms of speed, I expect the low end of the revived iMac G4 to have the low end 800MHz. But you may be right, Postal. Maybe Apple will have less separation and go with 900 and 1000MHz models.
>I'd lastly suspect that Apple would keep the Combo drive for the mid-range, since it shaves off a substantial amount of the cost but still has what most people want.
I'll give you this one entirely. I'm going to edit my previous post for this setup.
Here is why I didn't. The powerbooks to 667MHz did get the low $3000 price for the high end, but then the prices shot back up. I am afraid that the same thing will happen to the PowerMacs. But I didn't want to put the top end near $4000, since adding a 17 inch monitor would bring the whole cost to a ridiculous half $10k. I could be wrong, but with the trend of the Powerbook prices I would expect Apple to continue the trend with their PowerMacs. Otherwise, sales in the Powerbook world would go down, plain and simple.
>Next, I think the iMac range will still have less seperation in terms of performance; the low- and mid-range models would have 800 or 900 MHz G4s, while only the top-end has the 1 GHz chip.
Remember back to the last revision of the Apple iMac G3 CRT? The models went from 500MHz to 700MHz. Also, it seems as if the high end iMac is usually right around the speed for the low end PowerMac. Finally, I assumed for a guess that since the iMac G4 700MHz was the low end for the last top model G3 iMac in terms of speed, I expect the low end of the revived iMac G4 to have the low end 800MHz. But you may be right, Postal. Maybe Apple will have less separation and go with 900 and 1000MHz models.
>I'd lastly suspect that Apple would keep the Combo drive for the mid-range, since it shaves off a substantial amount of the cost but still has what most people want.
I'll give you this one entirely. I'm going to edit my previous post for this setup.
Alpha - check your facts..
Remember the first series of MP G4s...
It'll be integrated as much as Airport is. A little birdie told me Apple is looking at including it in the displays...and not in the G4 units themselves.
Frankly I'd be disappointed if this wasn't across the board.
FireWire2 ain't even port compatible...who knows when we'll see this.
I'd not be terribly surprised in seeing a lower end "Yikes!" option - frankly I'd like Apple to do a baseline machine - a Cube that was priced right with one PCI and one AGP slot. Inexpensive but not cheap.
Remember the first series of MP G4s...
It'll be integrated as much as Airport is. A little birdie told me Apple is looking at including it in the displays...and not in the G4 units themselves.
Frankly I'd be disappointed if this wasn't across the board.
FireWire2 ain't even port compatible...who knows when we'll see this.
I'd not be terribly surprised in seeing a lower end "Yikes!" option - frankly I'd like Apple to do a baseline machine - a Cube that was priced right with one PCI and one AGP slot. Inexpensive but not cheap.
How does this sound:
PowerMac 1.4Ghz DP 4 MB L3 512 k L2 2x 120 GB 2 GB DDR RAM 4,200
22 LCD 2,500
PowerBook 1 Ghz 1 MB L3 256 k L2 60 GB 1 GB RAM 3,800
Two Total of the following:
iMac G4 800 Combo 60 GB 512 RAM 1,500
iBook 12.1 700 Combo 20 GB 256 RAM 1,500
2 iPod 5 GB 800
Airport All around 600
Applecare 1,000
Family Pack Setup Kit 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 16,500
Special Family Price 10,000
PowerMac 1.4Ghz DP 4 MB L3 512 k L2 2x 120 GB 2 GB DDR RAM 4,200
22 LCD 2,500
PowerBook 1 Ghz 1 MB L3 256 k L2 60 GB 1 GB RAM 3,800
Two Total of the following:
iMac G4 800 Combo 60 GB 512 RAM 1,500
iBook 12.1 700 Combo 20 GB 256 RAM 1,500
2 iPod 5 GB 800
Airport All around 600
Applecare 1,000
Family Pack Setup Kit 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 16,500
Special Family Price 10,000
Dav, why the he!! are you responding to yourself like that? Furthermore, who do you think is going to purchase all 4 lines of products like that (PowerMac/Book, iMac/Book)? I think most people want one computer from just want one, maybe two, lines of Apple products.
I know it may be a fun prediction, but at least contradict yourself if you are going to double post like that!
I know it may be a fun prediction, but at least contradict yourself if you are going to double post like that!
Personaly, I'd like to see integrated Bluetooth on all new macs. However it proably won't happen because
a) Bluetooth has not been adopted in the USA as much as it has been in Europe (It was developed by Ericsson)
b) For the same reason there are virtually no devices that use B.T in the USA
a) Bluetooth has not been adopted in the USA as much as it has been in Europe (It was developed by Ericsson)
b) For the same reason there are virtually no devices that use B.T in the USA
I doubt that the G4 will go to 1.5GHz...even 1.4 is optimistic...because that is a large leap considering all the previous updates..and with the rest of the rumored advancements, it will already be much better without the massive speed increase...Apple probably wants to keep a gap open that they can gradually close until the final release of the G5 so I think they won't go and max out the processor in case they can't come up with anything else before the G5 appears...IMHO..
I agree that APPLE may want to stream out the speed bumps till the uhh g5.
But i dont think that looking at the past is totally indicative of what will happen.
Remember MAc's were stuck a 500 for a long while, I think that they even went back 50 once!
But i dont think that looking at the past is totally indicative of what will happen.
Remember MAc's were stuck a 500 for a long while, I think that they even went back 50 once!
topicolo:
Hey, I haven't gone Mac... yet (I'm mainly at sites like this so that I can get myself acclimated). However, we do indeed have Mac users in the area. Probably the most well-known is Patrick Gant, also known as one of the "switchers" in Apple's TV ads. I know at least one other Mac user myself.
By the way, if you ever want to "geek out" and check out some Macs but don't want to head to that B.Mac store on the West end, the University of Ottawa campus bookstore currently has an iBook, Powerbook, PowerMac G4 and (of course) the new iMac on display. I know that they used to have an eMac on display but it's presumably been sold.
Hey, I haven't gone Mac... yet (I'm mainly at sites like this so that I can get myself acclimated). However, we do indeed have Mac users in the area. Probably the most well-known is Patrick Gant, also known as one of the "switchers" in Apple's TV ads.
I know at least one other Mac user myself.By the way, if you ever want to "geek out" and check out some Macs but don't want to head to that B.Mac store on the West end, the University of Ottawa campus bookstore currently has an iBook, Powerbook, PowerMac G4 and (of course) the new iMac on display. I know that they used to have an eMac on display but it's presumably been sold.
What's wrong is your assumption that familys can afford to drop $10,000+ on computers at a shot. While they MIGHT purchase one computer every year or four, not enough of them have the financial ability to drop that kind of green at one shot.
The average household cannot, and will not, purchase more then one computer a year (except in a few rare cases). Even family with children, have more pressing needs then computers for their kids.
Think about it for a few, how many middle classed families either have that kind of money, or are willing to spend all of it on computers? Answer: Not enough to warrant that kind of package.
I see your point. I'm an upper-middle kid, and my family could do this if they wanted to. My mom said that families should get a discount if they get more than one computer, like %10 off the second %20 off all computers after 2! I think that would give families a big incentive to buy more than one.Originally posted by AlphaTech
What's wrong is your assumption that familys can afford to drop $10,000+ on computers at a shot. While they MIGHT purchase one computer every year or four, not enough of them have the financial ability to drop that kind of green at one shot.
The average household cannot, and will not, purchase more then one computer a year (except in a few rare cases). Even family with children, have more pressing needs then computers for their kids.
Think about it for a few, how many middle classed families either have that kind of money, or are willing to spend all of it on computers? Answer: Not enough to warrant that kind of package.
