Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Happy 20th Birthday!

Re: Lameness!!!!

Originally posted by splashman
Sorry, bub -- you can't change your argument mid-stream, and the drumrolls don't help a bit. You originally said "[Jobs] mentioned July, if memory serves." I argued that "Jobs didn't specify July or any other month," which is true. (What do you think "specify" means, anyway?) And you've just confirmed that your memory didn't serve. It's June, not July.
Click to expand...
Lets just agree that we are both right.

Regardless of the wording, the timescale is still about the same - end of June according to Jobs (as if they could release earlier I'm sure they would.)

I would dearly love to see 3Ghz machines this soon, but looks like we are going to wait and see as Apple ain't telling. Let's hope he was lying when he said what he said.
 
From what I've been reading around the net lately, there seems to be a consensus that Apple have traditionally released speed bumps on Tuesdays.

Can anyone corroborate this? (I'm relatively new to being a Mac rumour watcher).
 
Yep. Speed bumps and minor product changes are nearly always (or is it literally always?) released on Tuesdays with no fanfare except for changes at the website. I believe the change usually happens first at the US site, around 9 or 10 Pacific time. Then, either simultaneously or throughout the day afterward, other countries' Apple websites also reflect the change.
 
Originally posted by Awimoway
Yep. Speed bumps and minor product changes are nearly always (or is it literally always?) released on Tuesdays with no fanfare except for changes at the website. I believe the change usually happens first at the US site, around 9 or 10 Pacific time. Then, either simultaneously or throughout the day afterward, other countries' Apple websites also reflect the change.
Click to expand...

I wonder, though -- if they are going to jump right to 3ghz, will that change Apple's rollout marketing? If I were running the show, I might want to trumpet the fact that the 3ghz model beat Jobs' deadline by 5 months or so.

If it's 2.6 instead, I agree -- no fanfare necessary or expected.
 
3ghz rollout

Originally posted by Skiniftz
I would dearly love to see 3Ghz machines this soon, but looks like we are going to wait and see as Apple ain't telling. Let's hope he was lying when he said what he said.
Click to expand...

Okay, I don't want to start another semantics war, but Jobs said "within 12 months", not "in 12 months". So the 3ghz machines could be released any time before June 23 and he would not have "lied".

My guess is that Apple and IBM established and publicized a conservative deadline (12 months), but plan on beating that deadline handily. January seems a bit early to me, especially since they only started shipping the 2ghz in September; I wouldn't be surprised if it's March, though.
 
OK, now you've pissed them off.

Apple was going to announce today the 3.0 G5, G5 iMacs, G5 Powerbooks, Aluminum displays, a high-quality-low price projector, a new Cube, the end of world hunger, and peace on earth . . . but you negative posters pissed them off. So, they will announce all this . . .

tomorrow.
 
If you want, you can take these missed "speed bump" dates as a good thing! Here's how I see it. IBM has been doing a stellar job in ramping up the G5's. Rumors have indicated that 3GHz chips have already been delivered to Cupertino for testing. Apple was all set to bump the Powerbooks, Macs, etc. in Jan-Feb to 2.2-2.6 GHz (or thereabouts). IBM gave Apple such a great showing in the 3GHz chips and told them the chips were being mass-produced (or nearing mass-production) "as we speak".

Apple had a choice to make. They could either speed bump as planned and sit on the stockpile of 3GHz chips until summer, or they could delay the bump a month or two and wow us (and get a major PR hit) with the target chips 3-4 months earlier than promised!

The longer we go without seeing speed bumps, the more likely they are to be very big speed bumps!:D
 
Re: 3ghz rollout

Originally posted by splashman
My guess is that Apple and IBM established and publicized a conservative deadline (12 months), but plan on beating that deadline handily. January seems a bit early to me, especially since they only started shipping the 2ghz in September; I wouldn't be surprised if it's March, though.
Click to expand...
That would be great if they do, however thinking about the available data, mainly being that there is strong evidence that Apple have 2.2, 2.4 and perhaps 2.6 and maybe even 3Ghz chips available, and a suggestion from a reliable source that the new line will consist of a 4 machine lineup, then perhaps that could be the four machines?

Would be nice if they did. I think anyone who just bought new dual 2Ghz will be a bit upset, but then the 2Ghz have been out for around 5 months now and Apple do like to stay ahead of the competition when they can...
 
Knowing Apple, though, they would hold back the 3GHz chips and "cripple" the new line-up to just 2.4/2.6GHz... :D. Besides, if we saw 3GHz soon, when would we expect 4GHz? End of summer? :p. They have to be able to deliver beyond their top target.

Anyway Apple, it's 4pm UK time, that's, what, about 11am EST or 8am PST. Are you thinking about updating anything today? It was the Mac's 20th birthday on Saturday afterall, and it's Tuesday! :D :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
Knowing Apple, though, they would hold back the 3GHz chips and "cripple" the new line-up to just 2.4/2.6GHz... :D.
Click to expand...

huh? and when did Apple ever "cripple" or hold back faster chips? I think the lack of faster chips in the past can always be redirected to Motorola. Apple always got the fastest chips Motorola could produce. This is best shown by the 1.42 dual G4. This speed was officially never available from Motorola. Only Apple could get them.

It’s really too soon for 3 Ghz. Maybe the next revision will get us up to 2.6 Ghz if we’re lucky, but I would not be too disappointed if we will see 2.4 Ghz as the top speed.
 
Well whatever they release, I am going to be buying the fastest G5 I can get my hands on.

I don't mind if they update in a few months, but if I bought one today and a faster one came out tomorrow, I would be a bit upset. A dual 2.4 would be acceptable.

Apple did cripple a machine in the past if I recall - one of the old Macs I think - they nobbled them to sell them as a mid price machine.

Anyone else fill in the blanks?
 
Originally posted by Skiniftz
Apple did cripple a machine in the past if I recall - one of the old Macs I think - they nobbled them to sell them as a mid price machine.

Anyone else fill in the blanks?
Click to expand...

Are you talking pre-PowerPC?. I would like to know which one that might have been.

In any case I'm sure that they wouldn't do this for a High-end machine anyway.
 
Originally posted by Mac-Xpert
Are you talking pre-PowerPC?. I would like to know which one that might have been.

In any case I'm sure that they wouldn't do this for a High-end machine anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah - pretty sure it was pre-PowerPC.


... UK Store is down...
 
Originally posted by Mac-Xpert
huh? and when did Apple ever "cripple" or hold back faster chips? I think the lack of faster chips in the past can always be redirected to Motorola. Apple always got the fastest chips Motorola could produce. This is best shown by the 1.42 dual G4. This speed was officially never available from Motorola. Only Apple could get them.
Click to expand...
My post was not designed to be terribly serious (hence the smilies indicating that) so it was more of a "what if Apple did this" kind of arguement.

That said, Apple does cripple machines - the iBook (due to the PowerBook), the iMac, eMac, not to mention the low end models of everything. They don't give the iMac the absolute fastest chip because that would eat into PowerMac sales, etc. I was making reference to the fact that Apple doesn't need PowerMacs to be at 3GHz (if they did have such chips) as people would be happy with a 2.6. They could conceivably hold them back until later on in the year in case IBM has some unexpected problems with getting faster chips out. The 1.42GHz G4 was produced because Apple *needed* those - PowerMac sales were losing steam and they needed a speed bump.
 
The only thing I know is that Apple never used the Motorola 68060, which was faster than the 68040. But that was because they were already working on the PowerMac. (PowerPC 601) with Motorola and IBM.
 
I think it was around the LC (68020? 68030?) era.

Definitely read about it some years ago - I'm seeing what I can find on the net and will post it here for you.
 
Slower Processing

Originally posted by Skiniftz
Yeah - pretty sure it was pre-PowerPC.


... UK Store is down...
Click to expand...

The MacIIsi was supposed to be shipped as a 25 mhz 68030, but was slowed down to 20 mhz so as to not compete with the MacIIci.

Correct me if I'm wrong: 20 mhz is equal to 0.02 ghz.

I gave away my MacIIsi last week. Original cost in 1989 USD: $3800.

It was faster than the MacPlus. :D
=-=
JJ
 
Re: Slower Processing

Originally posted by JJTiger1

I gave away my MacIIsi last week. Original cost in 1989 USD: $3800.
Click to expand...
Goog god - $3800 in 1989 - back then that was a LOT of money!
(Still is!)
 
Logic is crippled

Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
That said, Apple does cripple machines - the iBook (due to the PowerBook), the iMac, eMac, not to mention the low end models of everything. They don't give the iMac the absolute fastest chip because that would eat into PowerMac sales, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm getting really tired of these kinds of posts. I swear, you'd only be happy if Apple sold one model: the iKitchenSink. And then you'd complain it was too expensive.

If the "low end models of everything" meets your definition of "crippled", then every for-profit company in existence is guilty of this horrendous crime.

Grow up.
 
Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
My post was not designed to be terribly serious (hence the smilies indicating that) so it was more of a "what if Apple did this" kind of arguement.
Click to expand...

Well, I did get that ;), but I thought it was interesting to get into that anyway, since this is said by other people at certain times as well without clarifying that statement.

Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
That said, Apple does cripple machines - the iBook (due to the PowerBook), the iMac, eMac, not to mention the low end models of everything. They don't give the iMac the absolute fastest chip because that would eat into PowerMac sales, etc.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call that "crippeling" chips or Macs. I think It's more like a car manufacturer that would’nt put it's biggest or fastest engine in every car, because people that are interested in the cheaper models wouldn’t need it, and it should be cheaper for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back