More to Come for Towers?

[keithcobbett]

Re: Roadmap

Originally posted by whatever
Don't quote me on this, but here's what's coming:

1. Final speed bump in G4 Powerbooks (2002)
2. G5 Towers (2002)
3. G4 chips in iBooks (2002)
4. dual processor G5 Towers (2003)
5. G5 Powerbooks/ faster iMac w/17" LCD (2003)

I'll let you fight over the dates.

The plan is to phase out the G3 as soon as possible, but without confusing the consumer and professional laptop lines.

Definately agree. Powerbooks Update in July and G5 Towers in July. I would say not till 2003 for G4 chips in iBooks. Too soon to do it now. G5 Powerbooks will come in July 2003 also. iMac with a 17" LCD? Hopefully. It could definately use it. Very nice machine and would be complimented with a bigger screen.

 

[Unregistered]

It all makes sense

Think about it, Apple launches G4 with GF4MX....

Suggests to me that this is not meant to be top of the line. Real GF4 is being saved for something better.

I think we are going to see $10,000 Macs again real soon.

Three grades:

iMac

G4 Towers

G5 Towers and Servers - perfect machines for the Maya, Digidesign set and will kill SGIs and Suns.

In otherwords, don't wait unless you have lots of $$$$$

 

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by Ouroboros
Here's something to mull on a bit. Let's assume that Apple isn't planning on releasing a G5 this year.

If this is so, then they would have to release updates tot he Powermac line similar to what just happened. Of all the mhz upgrades, this was THE first milestone for apple. So they just did a small press release on this one. After this way of introduction for the Powermac, how is Steve going to get up on stage and say, "well here we are, with a nifty new speedbump. Today we have a dual 1.2ghz machine! The low end is 1ghz, and the top is 1.4ghz. So now all the Powermacs are at 1ghz or greater. Now let's see the photoshop bake-off...."

There are a number of people posting here that seem to think that Apple can put any hardware out at anytime that they want, and/or that Apple has to get new hardware out now, and/or that the only reason they don't is because of marketing.

These people are missing the boat. If new processor are unavailable, Apple simply can't put them in systems, no matter how much they want to, or you want them to. New processors are not currently available. There are big differences between designing, taping out, testing, and production. Just as a reality check, compare the predictions for the next MW compared to the previous, and the previous before that, and etc. IOW, according to the latest reports, there may be no truth to the previous reports... think about it.

 

[germanknee]

by the end of this year, AMD should be releasing their new 64-bit chips (clawhammer for desktops and sledgehammer for server). Intel will also be releasing a newer version of its 64-bit Itanium. This will be the McKinley. Most software is currently 32-bit. I think that by the end of 2003, much of the major software titles will be compiled to 64-bit to take advantage of the new processors.

This is why I believe gbojim. I think that the G5's will be released roughly the same time as the peecee processors. Mainstream users don't use 64-bit applications, but I think they will begin to phase in towards the end of this year and beginning of next year. So, the 64-bit G5 will be in sync with the rest of the world.

I won't really be dissastisfied if they just keep boosting the apollos clock until then. It would be sweet if it got to 1.6 (if that's even possible on the apollo) by the before they release the G5.

Anyway, that's just a little bit of my logic.

 

[Ouroboros]

To the poster that responded to an earlier post of mine: I think that you miss the point of the way of interpretation with Apple. I think it is clear that Apple can't hurry technology or crack the whip at Motorola and release whatever they want, when they want. That wasn't the point of my post, and I'm fully aware that Apple can't suddenly produce a G5 because its needed for marketing purposes.

But if we look at how Apple has released things in the past, and we see what they are doing now, it still gives us hints and some interesting things. Why does this mean that Apple is controlling everything?? ON the contrary, since Apple is tied down to Motorola at the moment for its top of the line chips, their actions will in some ways give clues towards their further intentions. These intentions would obviously have the Motorola roadmap in mind. Since people can't find much on the G5 release on the Motorola site, we look to Apple. One of the suits for Motorola has stated anyway that they won't steal Apple's fire in some cases, meaning they aren't going to suddenly say, "well here's the G5" -- at least not in the next processor's case. I distinctly remember reading something that mentioned that with respect to the G5, Apple and Motorola have an interesting contract in the way that the public is given the information about the release.

I don't think we all live in some fairy world. Look at the majority of the posts here, looking at what is released now, we are trying to second guess the marketing team and the knowledge of what the hardware team knows.

Let me ask those of you who do supposedly know about the G5, can you give any urls where it says things like, "the g5 is at least a year off, etc." -- I don't think that just because the Apollo is out now, means that Motorola is stacked up with that as being all that they are capable of now. It doesn't make business sense, and it doesn't jive with something like 18 or 19 things I've read recently.

Anyway, I hope to the unregistered that you know where my "theories" come from now.

 

[Kid Red]

Re: Ummm

Originally posted by Mac_User
Has anyone read the articles about the new G4? This is an extremely slow speed! These are the new apollo G4's. I bet if they stuck a 1.6 GHz Apollo G4 in a new case, and called it a G5, nobody would know. This new chip has POTENTIAL for faster processor speeds, and faster buses.

Uh, I have one and they are not slow, much less "extremely slow"

 

[TMay]

The speculation that Apple NEEDS to deliver a G5 to maintain market share with pro's seems to be a bit misguided. If the roadmap for the Apollo holds true and tops out at around 2Ghz, with dual/quad/multi capabilities of the OS, it would seem that processor performance for the applications that require it could be implemented with the Apollo, albeit the motherboard architecture would constrain those performance increases significantly.

That being said, it would be in Apple's best interest to seed proto G5 hardware to a few select companies, even in an early state, so that the process of transitioning the software to 64 bit can begin. The companies that would most benefit from this would be Alias, Maxon, Adobe, Wolfram Research, Metroworks, etc.

Note that even with the performance of the current Athlon's and Pentiums, not to mention Itanium, the software and applications are the drivers to the new technologies, and consumers have become reluctant to upgrades without some noticeable performance benefits. I believe that this would be true for Apple as well.

Apple drew a line in the sand back with the dual G4's and the introduction of OSX. From that day forward, application developers need to incorporate multithreading, and are strongly advised to support Altivec as well

One should also note, that while OSX in certainly not finished, it will soon be to the point in time where holdouts will start transitioning. Apple can start to devote more resources to hardware and applications development, with the sure knowledge that a significant number of current users will upgrade, driving revenues.

My speculation is that the G5 will appear at MacWorld SF and Apple will also annouce a "blade" server, and that 64 bit software will be immediately available from some of the companies noted above.

tom

 

[StealthRider]

?

I know this is kind of off topic, but does anyone here think it's about time to get rid of the G3? Apple's almost out with the G5 processer, or are they just keeping it out to be the equivilent of Intel's Celeron processers or AMD's Durons?

 

[StealthRider]

?????

why would Apple not put DDR-SDRAM in the G5? It would be kind of a dumb thing to do, with PCs having it- even some CELERONS I've seen have DDR...