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

Originally posted by akushlan
People are wondering about the 3 USB ports, well there are also 3 firewire ports, and 3 PCI slots, not so uncommon a number for this computer😎

P.S.😉 Maybe the old G4 will become the new low-end box now that we will have the 970???!?!?!?!?
Food for thought🙄
I hope there are more than 3 PCI slots on the computer. Why would they have one PCI slot less than current Power Macs?
 
Originally posted by retaks
yes, optical in and out is an awesome feature. Just like my playstation 2 there is an optical out port that i can hook to my surround sound and its amazing. This is definately a cool feature for gamers.
It would be nice if Apple also added RCA and S-Video in/out ports like they did on some older Macs (some Beige G3's, Power Mac 8600's, etc.).
 
2.5 970

There is *no* way the 970 can even go 2.5ghz until it gets down to .09

What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM WHAT I HAVE READ IN THIS AND OTHER AGES IAND THE IBM SITE IS THAT THE 970S COULD GO TO 2.5 AND WE MAY ALREADY BE THERE ANOTHER POST MENTIONED THAT ONE SITE SAID THAT A FEW 2.5 WERE ALREADY SHIPPED TO APPLE
 
Originally posted by unSane
If you want to use multiple macs as audio workstations running software synths and samplers and feeding the audio back to a central mac which is running, say, cubase SX, then you need optical in/out.

i didn't even think of that. kickass. great way to scale processing power.
 
Re: Re: Re: What if...

Originally posted by porovaara
... What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.

Your point? The 1.42 GHz G4s are sucking tons of power and requiring a lot of cooling today. I recall people expressing disbelief at the size of that monster heat sink (two pounds of solid copper!) and all those fans. But they did it, and that was Apple's top of the line ... until Monday.

Credit card in hand, buddy.
 
I'm a little surprised no one's brought up this argument:

What about Ockham's Razor? Basically, it means all things being equal, the simplest explaination is generally the right one. So in this case, what sounds more plausible. Some tech screwed up and posted the wrong graphic, or some cracker, who derives some kind of sadistic glee from tormenting Mac fans or hurting Apple stock, decides that it's worth a possible ass pounding from the Feds to hack into Apple's website (nearly impossible from what I gather, though I suppose someone from the inside could do it) for 3 days of satisfaction...

Or perhaps even more applicable Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Personally, I'll be at CambridgeSide Galleria waiting to be wowed (Apple seems to have been holding some punches the last couple years, and I'm waiting for those great "Holy *****" moments of old). My prediction: The actual stats will be even more impressive, or at least the case will be extrodinarily drool-worthy. Not necessarily because I think that's what will happen, more because I'll look so cool if I turn out to be right ;-). I won't be buying a PowerMac though. I need a 15.4" PB... *Crosses fingers for a 970 PB*
 
Originally posted by voicegy
Steve didn't mention a word...
Sure he did.

Near the end of the keynote, he said something along the lines of "if you haven't already seen it, the latest Time magazine features the iMac and there's a copy for each of you to pick up on your way out."

Originally posted by voicegy
probably because most of the audience was not up at midnight scanning the web looking for clues.
Eh? Just as with any "winter holiday" eve, I'm sure you see that it's considerably difficult to sleep on the eve of a MacWorld keynote. Since we all have a voracity for fresh speculation at that point, naturally I was "up at midnight scanning the web looking for clues".

Let's not forget about The Incredible Keynote Waiting Line. Anyone who wasn't aware of the leak beforehand was sure to find out from the rest of the crowd that morning.

This mishap won't be news to many folks come Monday. And I'm sure Steve could find a way to slip in a quick reference to it that'd pass right by anyone who was already left out. Acknowledging it keeps him looking sharp. Otherwise he'd seem slightly ignorant or oblivious.
 
Re: A definite mistake

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
And to those people blabbering on about the font size and the colour being wrong and the bullet points and whatever else, get a life. Whose to say that the entire site isn't going to be completed updated, its been a while since the site had a redesign.

I think probably "get a life" is a little uncalled for, especially considering the extent to which all of us are choosing to indulge in speculation and debate over something that simple patience will resolve in three days time.

And to be completely fair and sober, the inconsistency of style in the leaked graphic must be accounted for. Despite what you imply, it doesn't take a nitpicking, socially stunted obsessive with a microscope to see the glaring stylistic differences between the leaked graphic and every other graphic on the site. It's immediately obvious in a side-by-side comparison.

And although it is, after all, just one piece of the overall puzzle, it is a relevant piece nonetheless. Whether you believe it was a hacker perpetrating a hoax, a negligent web designer being sloppy, or a precursor to a complete site redesign (which, for the record, I think is the most unlikely possibility), the observations should be noted and ultimately accounted for in your personal point of view on what happened (just as we must all take into consideration Apple's silence thus far and the fact that MacRumors was silenced whereas other rumor sites and legitimate media outlets have been allowed to publish the same facts and screenshots).

Obviously, all of us want the specs to be true and accurate. But that doesn't mean we should take complete leave of our senses and capability for rational, civil speculation and debate. Anyway, at the moment, I am liking the Occam's Razor approach. Simple is better. And we can also always rely on the lapses of judgment and sheer stupidity of others, however uncharacteristic it might be for such a tight ship as Apple's.

Anyway, I just think you discount too rashly the contributions of others in our mutual endeavor towards reaching some sort of common understanding regarding this unusual turn of events, that's all.
 
Re: Re: Re: What if...

Originally posted by porovaara
There is *no* way the 970 can even go 2.5ghz until it gets down to .09

What people seem to be missing/avoiding(?) is that at 2ghz these 970 are going to suck TONS of power and require a lot of cooling. Expect these machines to be louder than modern AMD boxen.

Let me back you up on this porovaara. This is a quote from http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6132089.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM also has plenty of opportunity to continue boosting the chip's performance,
Brookwood said, when it moves from a 130-nanometer production process
to a more advanced 90-nanometer.

``It would be pretty straightforward to move it to the advanced process,''
Brookwood said, ``which would typically boost performance about 50 percent.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


SO, IBM states it would be pretty straightforward to boost performace about 50%... just think about that. This is pretty much guaranteed that no matter what speeds are released this coming week.. that by Christmas we should see TWICE that.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...

Originally posted by crees!
Let me back you up on this porovaara. This is a quote from http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/6132089.htm

That would be 200%, not 50%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBM also has plenty of opportunity to continue boosting the chip's performance,
Brookwood said, when it moves from a 130-nanometer production process
to a more advanced 90-nanometer.

``It would be pretty straightforward to move it to the advanced process,''
Brookwood said, ``which would typically boost performance about 50 percent.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


SO, IBM states it would be pretty straightforward to boost performace about 50%... just think about that. This is pretty much guaranteed that no matter what speeds are released this coming week.. that by Christmas we should see TWICE that.
 
Every other site BUT MacRumors and AppleInsider seems to still have not only the specs, but the image too. Odd.
 
apple statement?

just out of curiosity, has Apple made any formal statement yet regarding the leak? I am not talking about apple retail employees saying "we do not know what you are talking about" but i mean any actual statement? i have not seen any.
 
Re: Re: Re: G5 mockup pictures FAKE!

Originally posted by mrjamin
oh yeah - well spotted. You should work for the FBI in their X-Files dept 😉
God, I'm so f*****g obsessed with the rumors that I was trying to figure out what kind of computer term "FBI" stands for. 😕 I guess I should get some sleep...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...

Originally posted by crees!
SO, IBM states it would be pretty straightforward to boost performace about 50%... just think about that. This is pretty much guaranteed that no matter what speeds are released this coming week.. that by Christmas we should see TWICE that.

50% increase = x + .5x, or 1.5 times the current performance.

A 100% increase would be twice the current performance (x + 1.0x).
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...

Originally posted by Brad Oliver
50% increase = x + .5x, or 1.5 times the current performance.

A 100% increase would be twice the current performance (x + 1.0x).

I think you mean 2.0x equalling double the speed or a 100% increase.
 
Curious - check this out.

If you go to the Apple site and enter a non existant URL, you end up at a "Page not Found" screen. At the bottom is a search box, enter "G5" and the result you get back is a shortcut link to te PM G4 Processors page. The interesting thing is that the string "G5" does not appear on the page, even in the source html.
 
Originally posted by PowerBook User
It would be nice if Apple also added RCA and S-Video in/out ports like they did on some older Macs (some Beige G3's, Power Mac 8600's, etc.).

The video on the new powermacs is not built-in on the mobo, and has not been for some time. So if you wanted composite/component video, you have to talk to ATI or Nvidia.
 
Concerning Macbidouille....

Originally posted by rice_web
Single 1.6GHz
Single 1.8GHz
Dual 2.0GHz

Wow. Who would have thought that 2GHz 970's would have been available.

Now we only have to hope that someone didn't hack Apple.com

If Apple wasn't hacked....

To all the people that cussed out / bad-mouthed Macbidouille ..... I believe you owe them a BIG apology .

They probably had everything RIGHT allllll along!
😱

Too bad I can't watch all the groveling, and a$$ kissing they'll be owed; In reality all those that made promises to appease all the bad-mouthing will forget they ever done anything wrong.

That's one of the bad things about the internet; you can cause loads of damage to others, and walk away scott-free 😡
 
Originally posted by Black Badger
Curious - check this out.

If you go to the Apple site and enter a non existant URL, you end up at a "Page not Found" screen. At the bottom is a search box, enter "G5" and the result you get back is a shortcut link to te PM G4 Processors page. The interesting thing is that the string "G5" does not appear on the page, even in the source html.

Hmm it knows what G5 is but not G6 since its not triggering off "G" in that case their is probably deliberate.
 
I think now everyone believes in the fact that G5's are going to be released in a matter of few days, but no one seems to be addressing the key issue of pricing, one of the major reasons of Apple desktop sales failing (or falling) is their high pricing of the PowerMac series (besides the mhz trailing). Now if they have comptetive prices, I mean pricing comparable to the exisiting G4 series they are a sure shot winner then. What Apple should realize is that by lowering down their profit margin ( not that they sell it lower than the cost price) they can boost up the sales and make much more money, and have more buyers and gain more market share. This is my advice to the guys at Apple. Just my 2 cents.
 
Originally posted by markiv810
no one seems to be addressing the key issue of pricing, one of the major reasons of Apple desktop sales failing (or falling) is their high pricing of the PowerMac series (besides the mhz trailing).
Nobody wants to buy something perceived to be so slow at ANY price. If the specs are right, the pricing is fine. Cheaper would help market share, of course, but the main thing is the performance.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.