G5's In January

applemacdude

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 26, 2001
3,246
1
Over The Rainbow
There will be a G5 announced in MWSF. I got this information from a very important person at Apple. He's my friend and I can't risk his job and won't say anything else.
 

Nipsy

macrumors 65816
Jan 19, 2002
1,009
0
Knowing Apple, if this is true, a G5 may be shipping by November 2003!
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
If there's a G5 in January

It's not coming from Motorola. The new Motorola plant in Grenoble won't be producing chips by then.

This would also break with the recent tradition of trying to announce the big things between, not at, Macworlds. But a G5 could certainly warrant its own Macworld, I think.

All in all, not that terribly unrealistic of a rumor. It explains the wicked ventilation system of the new case. But we'll all be waiting for Oct. 15 to see what kind of timetable IBM provides us with.

Alex
 

King Cobra

macrumors 603
Mar 2, 2002
5,403
0
>(Nipsy) Knowing Apple,

Apple IMO only receives the chips, and Motorola should be most responsible for making the chips for Apple.

>if this is true, a G5 may be shipping by November 2003!

This reminds me to back last year with the flamepissed "Upcoming G5, G6, G7" thread, which had information about the G5 going up to 1.6GHz, along with the G6, and the G7. Yet, the G4 Apollo was mentioned to still be supplied by Motorola. So far, we haven't gotten G5s, but we do have a conference this year, to deal out all these issues. From there, more reasonable assumptions should be able to be made, and such sarcasm may not become necessary.

Guys, for those doubting applemacdude, remember what happened with APPLEP58? Almost no one thought he was telling the honest to John truth. And he was. I think certain "newbies" these days with insider information should be trusted until the point they are wrong/right. Then, IF they are wrong, belittle them! :D

applemacdude, do you have any more info?

BTW, if you (to non-contributors) think this is news, check out the Private Stuff. :eek: :p
 

Nipsy

macrumors 65816
Jan 19, 2002
1,009
0
Originally posted by King Cobra
>(Nipsy) Knowing Apple,

Apple IMO only receives the chips, and Motorola should be most responsible for making the chips for Apple.

>if this is true, a G5 may be shipping by November 2003!

This reminds me to back last year with the flamepissed "Upcoming G5, G6, G7" thread, which had information about the G5 going up to 1.6GHz, along with the G6, and the G7. Yet, the G4 Apollo was mentioned to still be supplied by Motorola. So far, we haven't gotten G5s, but we do have a conference this year, to deal out all these issues. From there, more reasonable assumptions should be able to be made, and such sarcasm may not become necessary.
While there is an outside chance that there is truth in this, look at what Apple has been doing lately.

Announce, wait, wait some more, wait some more, receive product.

My 20GB iPod took 6 weeks from announcement to my pocket. The 1.25GHz G4s have been announced for about a month, and will ship in about a month.

Many people waited a long time to get 17" iMacs, some are still waiting. And we all remember the original LCD iMac shipping fiasco.

Apple has started a bad trend of announcing products which are not ramp ready (G4 rev 1!!!!!). It is my hope that a G5/Power4 Lite/whatever announced in January will not be delivered in April...May...June, who knows, but wil actually ship within 7-10 days of the Expo.

Addressing your second point, I don't put much faith in the no Power4 Lite for Apple theory put forth by someone whose friend left their dog in a kennel where the manicurist of an IBM exec's wife once used the restroom.

The massive heatsink is just unreasonable for a G4/5, and it is my sincere hope that the future is with IBM, and reasonable ramp & delivery times.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Originally posted by King Cobra

Guys, for those doubting applemacdude, remember what happened with APPLEP58? Almost no one thought he was telling the honest to John truth. And he was. I think certain "newbies" these days with insider information should be trusted until the point they are wrong/right. Then, IF they are wrong, belittle them! :D
Groove and I were just talking about that. I still say doubt the guy until we can see some more evidence or something else than "you don't know me, but I just heard..." BS. Hate to be so cynical, but I try not to blindly put faith in every thing I hear.

If he's wrong, you'll all get your hopes up over nothing and be disappointed (this sux, I was promised a G5 :mad: !!!). If he turns out to be right, then I'll be glad I'm wrong (and I hope I am). But I still have my doubts. They haven't even released the 1.25s yet for petesake.

So I say press the guy, doubt the "rumor" (it is a rumor BTW, just don't be a jerk about it), and if he can't take the heat, he should stay the heck out of the kitchen.

Flame Away :D .
 

scem0

macrumors 604
Jul 16, 2002
7,028
1
back in NYC!
Re: iBooks & New powerbooks and other things

Originally posted by applemacdude
updated ibooks newly desined tibooks a pda codenames n2 (newton 2) atv and thats i konw

I am begging you to elaborate, you have to know more then that. :D:D:DEveryone here will gobble up anything you say....
 
I agree with solvs...

...completely. He echoed my words from previous posts. This is a rumor, and already some are getting their hopes up. I remark that people in these fora do that, and then I'm told, "I don't get worked up! It's just a rumor." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

This is BS until we get something a whole helluva lot more substantial. And like solvs, I hope my cynicism is misplaced.
 

RBMaraman

macrumors 65816
Jul 25, 2002
1,210
13
Louisville, KY
Apple needs the G5 badly!!! These dual processors are the most retarted things I have ever heard of. They are a complete ripoff! Even with the architecture of OSX, the duals don't do anything. You are essentialy paying for another processor that just sits there and does nothing. If dual processors really worked, you would have seen them in windows machines years ago.

I wouldn't waste my money on a dual machine, that's why I'm waiting for the G5 before I buy my next Mac. Even if I have to wait another 2 years.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Originally posted by RBMaraman
These dual processors are the most retarted things I have ever heard of. They are a complete ripoff! Even with the architecture of OSX, the duals don't do anything. You are essentialy paying for another processor that just sits there and does nothing. If dual processors really worked, you would have seen them in windows machines years ago.
erm...yeah...right...oooooook :confused:
You seem so well informed. :p ;) :rolleyes:
 

Haberdasher

macrumors regular
Jul 24, 2002
142
0
Los Angeles, CA
Whether any of the things on these boards are true (which most AREN'T), I still like getting my hopes up and having them hopelessly crushed when Apple delivers the product a year later than thought, or fails to deliver completely.

It's my favorite part of being a Mac addict! :rolleyes:

You know, I wouldn't mind Apple giving us their product plans before they release processors, maybe like 1/2-1 year early. Just keep the products and features that will house them secret. Isn't that what Intel does, announce a product waayyyy before it comes out?

Someone please tell me why Apple isn't already doing this. (Remember, just processor announcements, not new cases and things like the iPod)
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Think Hypertransport...

Sounds like AMD just announced the slip in it's timetable, so Hypertransport equiped PCs will be shipping Q1 2003.

I fully expect Apple to ship Hypertransport (or RapidI/O) systems at the same time (or before) as the rest of the market.

Apple's ability to ship standardized PC items 12-18 months (seems much later lately) after adoption by PC manufacturers proves my point.

Thus Apple should announce the machines in January with a 6-8 week ship time, usual snafus and delays should get the G5 machines into peoples hands on April 1, 2003.
 

dongmin

macrumors 68000
Jan 3, 2002
1,709
0
At least AppleP58 had some details and a schematic drawing. This guy is not offering much to bite on.

Maybe the G5 is coming but it could just be a newer variant of the G4, the 7470 or 7500, with some new technolgoies like RapidI/O and/or Hypertransport. Throw in FW2 and some other new stuff, and Apple might feel justified in calling it a G5.
 

e-coli

macrumors 68000
Jul 27, 2002
1,836
776
there's absolutely no evidence that a desktop implemented G5 even exists. heck, they don't even have a manufacturer nailed down as far as we know. I'm betting no true G5 until MWNY (or Boston, or whatever) 2003 at the absolute earliest. But more like MWSF 2004. I hope I'm wrong, but it isn't looking like it from over here.

A 7xxx chip labeled as G5 would be a tragic mistake.
 

void

macrumors 6502
Apr 27, 2002
288
0
Not here
Re: G5's In January

Originally posted by applemacdude
There will be a G5 announced in MWSF. I got this information from a very important person at Apple. He's my friend and I can't risk his job and won't say anything else.
Do you have any interesting rumors. Both of your threads, this one and the PDA ones are the most commonly said rumors on all of the message boards. They have been regurgitated so many times that theres nothing left. Come up with something that is actually believable.
 

chmorley

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2002
602
2
Denver, CO
Originally posted by RBMaraman
Apple needs the G5 badly!!! These dual processors are the most retarted things I have ever heard of. They are a complete ripoff! Even with the architecture of OSX, the duals don't do anything. You are essentialy paying for another processor that just sits there and does nothing. If dual processors really worked, you would have seen them in windows machines years ago.

I wouldn't waste my money on a dual machine, that's why I'm waiting for the G5 before I buy my next Mac. Even if I have to wait another 2 years.
1. Hasn't read a damn thing ever.

2. Hasn't tried a dual processor machine.

3. Hasn't thought through where innovation comes from.

4. Has strong (uninformed) opinions.

A Republican!

Rush, is that you?

Chris

p.s., I always think it's so funny when people spell "retarded" wrong. Ironic, eh?
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Originally posted by applemacdude
Hey im just 13. My friend works an apple and i dont to see him that much like once every 2 months. so shut up already
No offense to you guy, but if you put yourself out there like that, but have nothing to back it up with, you're gonna get a little cynism. Believe me, it could be much worse. Just look at what happened with Apple58. And he had pics.

That being said, we all hope you're right.

Edit: To the guy above, actually Rush is a huge Mac fan (no pun intended).
 

chmorley

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2002
602
2
Denver, CO
Originally posted by solvs
Edit: To the guy above, actually Rush is a huge Mac fan (no pun intended).
Good to know. I wasn't really commenting on Rush's computing habits, rather on his propensity to misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent facts, while still having strong opinions on topics. Hell, it keeps him employed, though. I wonder if our uninformed friend (above) has the same luck.

Chris
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,146
1,165
East Coast
Originally posted by chmorley
Good to know. I wasn't really commenting on Rush's computing habits, rather on his propensity to misunderstand, misstate, and misrepresent facts, while still having strong opinions on topics. Hell, it keeps him employed, though. I wonder if our uninformed friend (above) has the same luck.

Chris
chmorley,

It's not just Republicans that have strong opinions about stuff they know very little about. Democrats fall into that description as well. There are bull-headed know-nothings in just about every group that you can think of.
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,146
1,165
East Coast
Originally posted by e-coli
there's absolutely no evidence that a desktop implemented G5 even exists. heck, they don't even have a manufacturer nailed down as far as we know. I'm betting no true G5 until MWNY (or Boston, or whatever) 2003 at the absolute earliest. But more like MWSF 2004. I hope I'm wrong, but it isn't looking like it from over here.

A 7xxx chip labeled as G5 would be a tragic mistake.
And what constitutes a "true G5"? 64-bit? HyperTransport? What?

The truth is, the G5 is whatever Apple (or Moto) calls it.

BTW, if Apple does use a G5 from Moto, it would be a 7xxx chip. You see, Motorola's naming convention dictates that the 2nd number is the "G" number. Therefore, a G5 would be 75xx. Take a look at the roadmap.