Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Something no one may be thinking of.

How will this affect the DIY system builders? If IBM releases mobos, procs, and memory for this setup running Linux. Why couldn't someone install OS X 10.3???

Apple is looking more like Sun. Two companies in a 1980s management model. I guess we just need to hope for the best.

And for the love of god release the 15" Aluminum Powerbook.
 
could be mainly compiler

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
If you optimize code for a P4, it may not run on a Pentium III or below.

This is not really true. As far as the publicly accessible instructions, only the SSE2 extensions are unique to the P4. (Trying to do SSE2 on a PIII is the same as trying to do AltiVec on a G3). There are privileged instructions, but only the kernel needs those.

The kinds of optimizations being discussed here are code scheduling optimizations. If the compiler knows that a chip has 2 integer units, it can spit out the instructions in an order to exploit that. For a chip with only 1 integer unit, a slightly different sequence of the same instructions might be slightly faster.

If the compiler knows that there are a certain number of rename registers, or if cache and memory reads are a certain size and alignment - it can generate code to take advantage of those resources.

Sometimes minor changes to the source program can help, but often it's just a new compiler and new optimization switches.

For the most part here I think people are talking about changes where a 32-bit program will run correctly on G3/G4 and PPC970, but where the PPC970 speed is improved a bit even at the cost of slightly lower performance on the G3/G4.
 
Originally posted by benoda
If the 970 does come to Apple, how is Apple going to deal with creating an optimized version of OS X along with pushing software creators to optimize for 64-bits etc. while still having G4's and G3's in the lower end? Seems like a bad idea to say "program XYZ is made for a powermac 970, but you other mac users are SOL."

Apple's packaging approach in OS X supports multiple binaries. A developer could include both a G4 optimized binary and a 970 optimized binary (albeit with the tradeoff of a larger distributable). Other options include installing only the proper binary (selected automatically during the installation process) or only optimizing particularly important bits of code and using a run-time switch to choose between the two code-sections (this is generally how AltiVec is supported in apps).
 
My Anecdotal story of the day.

I was a Salesman selling Apple the first time that Memory bottomed out. I used to think like alot of you. I said "now that people can buy twice the memory for the same cost they'll all do it" and sure enough many did. But, many did not. I would probably say it varied 60/40 either way. Many chose to simply pocket the money they would have spent. Others took advantage and bought more memory. They reason why I say this is because those who have seen scenarios like this will concur. Lower prices are NOT guaranteed to raise marketshare. Some people will buy more...some buy less. In the end it is simply margin that makes the difference
 
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Lower prices are NOT guaranteed to raise marketshare. Some people will buy more...some buy less. In the end it is simply margin that makes the difference

My $1000 budget does not allow for even Apple's bottom of the line tower. I'm holding my troubled beige G3 together with prayers and duck-tape. When it dies, I'll only be able to afford a used Mac, a CoreCrib or a PC. I know that the repurchasing software is an issue for the PC, but I primarily use this machine for managing music and accessing the web, so software's not a biggie.

I don't know what I'll do when the time comes. My heart says Mac and my wallet's saying PC. I'm hesitant to buy a used machine, especially since I don't believe anything but the most powerful Macs run OSX smoothly (snappy!). The CoreCribs look like a good deal, but I'm counting on the 970s to make OSX feel as responsive as OS9 and thereby tempting me to sink into unjustifiable debt!

Perhaps the beige box will hang on for eternity (or until it isn't supported at all). Even then, all its current software will work fine and only my desire to upgrade will make it obsolete... - j
 
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
My $1000 budget does not allow for even Apple's bottom of the line tower. I'm holding my troubled beige G3 together with prayers and duck-tape. When it dies, I'll only be able to afford a used Mac, a CoreCrib or a PC. I know that the repurchasing software is an issue for the PC, but I primarily use this machine for managing music and accessing the web, so software's not a biggie.

I don't know what I'll do when the time comes. My heart says Mac and my wallet's saying PC. I'm hesitant to buy a used machine, especially since I don't believe anything but the most powerful Macs run OSX smoothly (snappy!). The CoreCribs look like a good deal, but I'm counting on the 970s to make OSX feel as responsive as OS9 and thereby tempting me to sink into unjustifiable debt!

What's wrong with a 1Ghz eMac? You'd want to add some RAM to it, but either way it would be loads faster than your Beige G3 and just as fast as the top of the line PowerBook.

I said this on another thread, but I'll say it again. Speed isn't about how fast a window pops up for you. Remember in MacOS before 8.5 (9.0?) when you would get info on a folder - the entire machine stopped waiting for the Finder to finish that counting. Then the Finder started doing it in another thread. Someone timed it once and found that when the Finder did the count in a thread it took 10% longer (or something like that) - But when it didn't hog your entire system it felt faster - you could get more work done. MacOS X is exactly that taken to the entire system. Sure, the little things are a little slower, it may take a tenth of a second longer to open a Finder window, but when you do it doesn't focus your entire computer on that one silly little task. If all your doing is web surfing and managing (not making) music, then you could even get away with the 800 Mhz eMac.

Not everyone needs a Dual 970 Tower. And you certainly don't need one to get good performance out of MacOS X. Heck, I was getting decent performance from a 400 Mhz TiBook up until November - the only thing that convinced me to upgrade was Warcraft III =).
 
Jay save that $1k. In a few months you're going to be the beneficiary of Mac users looking to get ANYTHING for you to take their Powermac so they can grab a 970 system. I think your option are going to multiply rapidly.

I have a Pentium III 450 and 700 which I homebuilt. While the experience has been great my $2000 investment paid a little over 2 years ago is worth practically nothing. PC's are fun for the cheap thrill but they don't hold their value well...never have really. If you are able to score a sweet deal on a Mac this summer from an Offloader" it will be worth the wait. If you could score a Dual 867 for under a $1000 you'll be sitting pretty.

Honestly my next computer is a Mac. When I built these computers PC Websurfing was way faster than Macs. Not so. I have so much damn spyware and crap I have to root out(Serves me right for using P2P I suppose) that I can't use Internet Explorer anymore(I use Phoenix/Firebird) because Spyware companies have links to IE which severly hamper speed and useability.

You do have options..and those options will increase. My PC's have been fun...but they definitely haven't quench my thirst for a new Mac. BTW my Macs are 7200 and 7500 so I'm not even G3<sniffle>
 
Originally posted by Tim Flynn
An interesting point on teh Ars article was that to fully get the benefit of the 970, the code needs to be recompiled for the 970. I am assuming 32 bit only code.
Since the ISA is the same between a G4 and the 970 for 32 bit code, the G4 or G3 should be able to run 970 optimized code.
This is perhaps false, due to its POWER4 roots the PowerPC 970 will probably implement some optional PowerPC instructions like fpsqrt (Floating point square root), this is not a 64 bits instruction (FPU infact) it could be called in 32 bits mode.
 
Originally posted by mathiasr
This is perhaps false, due to its POWER4 roots the PowerPC 970 will probably implement some optional PowerPC instructions like fpsqrt (Floating point square root), this is not a 64 bits instruction (FPU infact) it could be called in 32 bits mode.

True, but this doesn't mean that any Mac compilers will start emmiting these instructions either. Too bad there isn't more information about this chip out there, or we could answer all these silly little questions ourselves =).
 
Take a look at the iBook

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
My $1000 budget does not allow for even Apple's bottom of the line tower. I'm holding my troubled beige G3 together with prayers and duck-tape. When it dies, I'll only be able to afford a used Mac, a CoreCrib or a PC. I know that the repurchasing software is an issue for the PC, but I primarily use this machine for managing music and accessing the web, so software's not a biggie.

Perhaps the beige box will hang on for eternity (or until it isn't supported at all). Even then, all its current software will work fine and only my desire to upgrade will make it obsolete... - j

Perhaps you should look at an iBook. I used to have a 600MHz late-2001 dual-USB model and I absolutely loved it. Aside from some problems with high-end games (it had an anemic 16mb GPU), it ran everything as well as my G4/733 (save some high-end Photoshop filters). The only reason I replaced it with a TiBook was for the larger screen (and a freak mobo-capacitor fire), and now part of me wishes that I would have kept with the smaller form factor, cooler temperatures and better Airport reception.

The iBook will run everything that your Beige G3 will and will do it faster. And best of all, you can pick one up for $999, or $1250 with a 900MHz G3 and a combo-drive.
 
Originally posted by Rincewind42
Speed isn't about how fast a window pops up for you...Someone timed it once and found that when the Finder did the count in a thread it took 10% longer (or something like that) - But when it didn't hog your entire system it felt faster - you could get more work done. MacOS X is exactly that taken to the entire system. Sure, the little things are a little slower, it may take a tenth of a second longer to open a Finder window, but when you do it doesn't focus your entire computer on that one silly little task. If all your doing is web surfing and managing (not making) music, then you could even get away with the 800 Mhz eMac.

Aaaaargh!!! I'm so sick and tired of people mentioning the eMac!! It's a swell machine if you don't mind having a 50 lb. box on your table, but my machine's hidden in a closet (it's a beige G3, wouldn't you hide it? ;) ) with the keyboard and Sony lcd (black) monitor cables snaking through a wall. The keyboard's hidden on a pull-out drawer and the mouse is wireless. It's the most inobtrusive system I could imagine. Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

Actually, speed IS about how fast a window pops up for me, how quickly I can click on a file and rename it or switch between open apps. Sometimes, silly as it may be, I want to focus on one little task and I want it done quickly. My beige box is fine for my tasks right now & I'd rather not have to replace it. These elements of slowness of which I complain are visible in every machine now running OSX. Whether you see them or not is more a matter of tolerance than performance and the combination of 10.3 and the 970 had better put this issue to rest for even those of us who are accused of imagining the slowness (even at the Apple Store!).

The eMac is like a turbo-charged minivan. Everyone wants to push them as being such a great practical bargain, but nobody wants to own one.

Really, this can't be this difficult... - j
 
Re: Take a look at the iBook

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Perhaps you should look at an iBook. I used to have a 600MHz late-2001 dual-USB model and I absolutely loved it. Aside from some problems with high-end games (it had an anemic 16mb GPU), it ran everything as well as my G4/733 (save some high-end Photoshop filters). The only reason I replaced it with a TiBook was for the larger screen (and a freak mobo-capacitor fire), and now part of me wishes that I would have kept with the smaller form factor, cooler temperatures and better Airport reception.

The iBook will run everything that your Beige G3 will and will do it faster. And best of all, you can pick one up for $999, or $1250 with a 900MHz G3 and a combo-drive.

I do love the iBooks and have recommended them to friends, but it isn't a substitute for a sturdy tower. Speed isn't an issue, but the need to have multiple drives (redundant backup for 30 gigs of mp3s- 95% ripped from my CDs) and two optical drives (for straight CD copies) and a Zip are important to me.
 
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

Well, there was the Cube. But that tanked because regardless of the rave reviews, no one wanted one when they could have a more expandable Tower instead (regardless of if it was percieved need or actual need). Somehow I think that if the Cube had survived to a second generation it's price would have naturally come down to something that would have been very affordable =).

Actually, speed IS about how fast a window pops up for me, how quickly I can click on a file and rename it or switch between open apps. Sometimes, silly as it may be, I want to focus on one little task and I want it done quickly. My beige box is fine for my tasks right now & I'd rather not have to replace it. These elements of slowness of which I complain are visible in every machine now running OSX. Whether you see them or not is more a matter of tolerance than performance and the combination of 10.3 and the 970 had better put this issue to rest for even those of us who are accused of imagining the slowness (even at the Apple Store!).

I guess I will just have to agree to disagree here :). All I know is that the last time I was in OS 9 I found myself waiting for all the big things to complete because all the little things were slowing them down. To each their own I guess...
 
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Aaaaargh!!! I'm so sick and tired of people mentioning the eMac!! It's a swell machine if you don't mind having a 50 lb. box on your table, but my machine's hidden in a closet (it's a beige G3, wouldn't you hide it? ;) ) with the keyboard and Sony lcd (black) monitor cables snaking through a wall. The keyboard's hidden on a pull-out drawer and the mouse is wireless. It's the most inobtrusive system I could imagine. Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

Actually, speed IS about how fast a window pops up for me, how quickly I can click on a file and rename it or switch between open apps. Sometimes, silly as it may be, I want to focus on one little task and I want it done quickly. My beige box is fine for my tasks right now & I'd rather not have to replace it. These elements of slowness of which I complain are visible in every machine now running OSX. Whether you see them or not is more a matter of tolerance than performance and the combination of 10.3 and the 970 had better put this issue to rest for even those of us who are accused of imagining the slowness (even at the Apple Store!).

The eMac is like a turbo-charged minivan. Everyone wants to push them as being such a great practical bargain, but nobody wants to own one.

Really, this can't be this difficult... - j

This is a cynical viewpoint, but hear me out. Apple has provided a machine for your needs and your pricerange. IF you want the luxury of a less obtrusive system (it is a luxury, really, as it has nohing to do with how well it works) you have to pay more. Apple wants to make money. Not just for R&D for better products and not just for advertising for biger marketshare. This is a business.

It is a profitable business (very rare right now), it has a big stack of cash in the bank. Share price has gone up 30% in the last two weeks! (good for me and my stock). That's the key. It ain't marketshare, its shareprice. Admittedly Apple loves its users more than most companies, but it loves its shareholders more.

Mercedes will charge you a hundred grand for a car. IF you want a still good car with less bells and wistles, they'll charge you thirty grand for a car. They won't charge you sicteen grand for either of those cars and if you don't have the money, they don't want your business. Sad but true, luxury good are luxury goods. If you can afford the ground floor, be happy with that, most can't.

From a shareholders perspective, the company is running just fine. Apple is not going to bak away from its pricing scheme as long as the market yeilds it.

All of that said, the prices have actually been comming down. As these lower prices and some performance increases with the 970 become more visible, they will probably lower there margin some more. Jsut keep in mind, as long as the copmpnay is profitable and selling systems at a premium, they will keep doing it. ITs what the market will bare.

So, no, it isn't hard to deliver an $800 tower with what you want in it, its just a silly thing to do right now.
 
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
My $1000 budget does not allow for even Apple's bottom of the line tower. I'm holding my troubled beige G3 together with prayers and duck-tape. When it dies, I'll only be able to afford a used Mac, a CoreCrib or a PC. I know that the repurchasing software is an issue for the PC, but I primarily use this machine for managing music and accessing the web, so software's not a biggie.

I don't know what I'll do when the time comes. My heart says Mac and my wallet's saying PC. I'm hesitant to buy a used machine, especially since I don't believe anything but the most powerful Macs run OSX smoothly (snappy!). The CoreCribs look like a good deal, but I'm counting on the 970s to make OSX feel as responsive as OS9 and thereby tempting me to sink into unjustifiable debt!

Perhaps the beige box will hang on for eternity (or until it isn't supported at all). Even then, all its current software will work fine and only my desire to upgrade will make it obsolete... - j

I've got an iBook 700 Combo, and the G3 runs X quickly, even when it only had 256MB of RAM. Now with 640 it snaps.
 
Originally posted by Rincewind42
I guess I will just have to agree to disagree here :). All I know is that the last time I was in OS 9 I found myself waiting for all the big things to complete because all the little things were slowing them down. To each their own I guess...

Don't get me wrong. I really don't like going back to OS9 for all the typically listed reasons. I get much more done in OSX and I do like it. I've been using it since the useless beta, but it just doesn't have that snappy feel that 9 had (has?). Perhaps there are technical reasons why it can't, but it interrupts my creative flow...

Of course, this may be primarily because Adobe's applications are all slugs in OSX, but that's another discussion! :)
 
I have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and it runs OS X pretty well on 512 megs of RAM. No complaints.

On the 970 article, I'm with Neo here. It seems that the 970 will be good, but improvements in rev 2 will take out a lot of the performance issues such as with Altivec that have resulted from (necessary) haste.

I do like the sound of dual and quad 970s. The top of the line 970-based macs will be super-fast.

I just hope they're willing to take losses for a while to sell the freakin things. They've only got 4 billion dollars to play with. At $1000 loss a piece, they would have to sell 4,000,000 units to go broke. And I imagine with their current profit margins, they wouldn't have to sell at a $1000 loss to bring the price down $1500 on some models.
 
Originally posted by drastik
Apple is not going to bak away from its pricing scheme as long as the market yeilds it.

All of that said, the prices have actually been comming down. As these lower prices and some performance increases with the 970 become more visible, they will probably lower there margin some more. Jsut keep in mind, as long as the copmpnay is profitable and selling systems at a premium, they will keep doing it. ITs what the market will bare.

So, no, it isn't hard to deliver an $800 tower with what you want in it, its just a silly thing to do right now.

Of course, Apple's not making much money selling towers these days are they? The music business is doing great (hence the stock jump) and the iBooks are wonderful, but everything else is not humming along.

I would guess that for every switcher that jumped to Apple from the Wintel world for the "it just works" aspect, there's an anti-switcher who jumped to Wintel because they're more affordable.

Might be a bad guess... hope so...:cool:
 
Originally posted by BaghdadBob
I have a 400 MHz G3 iMac, and it runs OS X pretty well on 512 megs of RAM. No complaints.

On the 970 article, I'm with Neo here. It seems that the 970 will be good, but improvements in rev 2 will take out a lot of the performance issues such as with Altivec that have resulted from (necessary) haste.

I do like the sound of dual and quad 970s. The top of the line 970-based macs will be super-fast.

I just hope they're willing to take losses for a while to sell the freakin things. They've only got 4 billion dollars to play with. At $1000 loss a piece, they would have to sell 4,000,000 units to go broke. And I imagine with their current profit margins, they wouldn't have to sell at a $1000 loss to bring the price down $1500 on some models.

man, I feel like the old crumudgeon today, but I have to say it.

This is terrible business.

A: People won't neccesarily buy more at this price. Apple will still have to deal with PC dominance. It won't happen overnight.


B: Why would anyone who bought one of these cutrate Macs ever upgrade once they restored real prices which they would have to do to make money.

Most Important:

B: If they start to sell at a loss, every shareholder will dump all of thier shares as quicjly as possible. The company would tank in a week.

[edit]first I fixed spelling, then I accidentaly quoted myself instead of editing, then I deleted and fixed it all. I think I need to give up coffee[/edit]
 
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Of course, Apple's not making much money selling towers these days are they? The music business is doing great (hence the stock jump) and the iBooks are wonderful, but everything else is not humming along.

I would guess that for every switcher that jumped to Apple from the Wintel world for the "it just works" aspect, there's an anti-switcher who jumped to Wintel because they're more affordable.

Might be a bad guess... hope so...:cool:

Your right, the PowerMac line is stagnant, but they are supposedly doing something about that (let us hope the 970) What I mean to say is that the eMac and iMac are created specifically for you, people wiht your needs. Apple considers expanability a premium and they price accordingly.
 
Looks like a $999 eMac to me. Unless you're in to games, the GeForce4 64MB DDR won't mean anything to you, and if you are that big into games, you can build that system for less.
You buy a Mac, you're buying quality. You think you can drop a $1000-$1800 PC w/ LCD off of a 3.5ft counter top, and have it keep running through the fall, and survive, minus a few plastic pieces breaking? NO. I've seen a 1Ghz iMac do this. (Not that I would RECOMMEND dropping a ~$2k computer, but stuff happens)

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Agreed. Apple's low-end towers have never been priced competitively. Many people take the elitest viewpoint that Apple shouldn't focus on the low end, shouldn't devote the R&D, which is absurd. A low-end tower would only cannibalize iMac sales if the iMacs were priced too high. There is no R&D if all you're doing is offering the lowest speed processor with a CD-ROM, 40 gig drive and a low-end graphics card. It's just a configuration, and a configuration that would give us a place to install all the CDRWs, DVDs, 120 gig drives and high-end graphics cards that are working perfectly well in our current machines.

When you can get a system like this for $998...

Pentium® 4 Processor at 2.66GHz w/533MHz front side bus/ 512K L2 Cache

256MB DDR SDRAM at 333MH

60GB2 Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive

64MB DDR NVIDIA_ GeForce4 MX? Graphics Card with TV-Out

48x CD-RW Drive with Roxio's Easy CD Creator®

Logitech® Optical USB Mouse

Harman Kardon HK-395 Speakers with Subwoofer

56K3 PCI Data/Fax Modem

... Now sorry, but that's no lame system, and you can bet their warranty is better than Apple's. Not everyone out there wants an all in one system and not everyone out there is running Final Cut Pro. Apple is alienating a huge segment of the population by not offering a competitive low-end system.

Bring 'em in, and bring 'em in on target. - j
 
Hi all!

Well - I for one have given in and just placed my order for a 17-inch PB to upgrade from my Beige G3!

Should arrive in a week or so and at the worst I will be very, very, ecstatically happy for at least five weeks! ;)
 
Actually, my girlfriend has an emac on a very nice wood and glass desk, and it looks fine. Just looks like a nice flat 17" monitor. You already have an LCD, so that hurts you (you don't need a display).
MOST consumers either do not have a monitor at all, or have one they want to upgrade anyways. The eMac is targeted at them, the normal home users. Home users do not need to upgrade video cards, hard drives, etc. By the time they get to that point, they're looking at half the price of a new machine, even in the PC world. Most home users will just replace the machine at that point.
People wanting upgradability at a low price usually either don't know what they need it for (they just WANT it), or they have a specific need. If it is the latter, build your own using something like the corecrib kit, or ebay parts and literally build your own. A good friend of mine just built an 500Mhz G4 for about $500, and used a PC case.
As far as owning an eMac, I would, except for the fact that I have half a TB in drives already, and really do need a tower.

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Aaaaargh!!! I'm so sick and tired of people mentioning the eMac!! It's a swell machine if you don't mind having a 50 lb. box on your table, but my machine's hidden in a closet (it's a beige G3, wouldn't you hide it? ;) ) with the keyboard and Sony lcd (black) monitor cables snaking through a wall. The keyboard's hidden on a pull-out drawer and the mouse is wireless. It's the most inobtrusive system I could imagine. Is making an affordable tower really so difficult?

The eMac is like a turbo-charged minivan. Everyone wants to push them as being such a great practical bargain, but nobody wants to own one.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.