Motorola fails to deliver the chips...

theparallaxview

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 14, 2001
1
0
This Macworld will be remembered for the insane Hype and the cool new form-factor for the Imac. But the lack of new towers suggests long-term trouble for Cupertino. After six months, Motorola still can't deliver faster chips (not even a bump!).

Heck, the fact that they promised the low-end iMac for March (MARCH! What are the folks who can't afford an $1800 computer supposed to do in the meantime?) does not bode well for the new towers. Are we going to have to wait for July for Apollo G4's, and for another year before we see G5s?

That's the real message I got from these announcements -- No New Chips. Given that, Apple did the best they could, adding some much-needed new style, a smidgen of functionality with iPhoto, and much larger, flat screens for the iMac and upper deck iBook.

The only products Apple appears to be missing are: The super-low end (how about a $599 500 Mhz G3 iMac Classic?) and the super-high end (Quad 2+ Ghz G5 server wanted, please -- We'll pay the extra for 10 GHZ of processing power!)

By the way, where the hell is Gigawire?
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,796
8,005
CT
dont hold your breath

You might see a G5 but it wont be with quads that would be way to expensive
 

amichalo

macrumors regular
Dec 19, 2001
124
0
what's with the drama?

Everything started off great in your plea to Apple until you entered the drama with the quad 2GHz action. What gives with everyone needs all this power. Are you trying to become the top dog over at the SETI@home project or something?

Anyway, I would love to see a G5 which I have ZERO DOUBT will be release sooner that MWNY and probably early next quarter is a latest date.

Why people are so pissed the low end came out first is beyond me. Wait your turn in line, everyone will have clock cycles spilling out their ears by the time they are requesting Summer vacation at work.
 

blackpeter

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2001
919
0
What's the point?

The question being raised my the iMac is:

"What can your computer do?"

Who cares about speed, as much as what the machine can do?
 

Lightningwolf

macrumors newbie
Oct 22, 2000
8
0
Missing the point

Two points. 1) The fact that Motorola can't even ship a bumped up G4 is appaling, when is Apple going to get smart and dump them (or even better, buy their chip making division)? And B) Apple NEEDS to show a G5 (or at the very least the 1GHz+ G4 Apollo that's been talked about) at MW Toyko if they want to have any hope for the Power Mac line. At the Apple Store I just configured an iMac and a Power Mac to be nearly identical (only difference is 867MHz Tower to 800MHz iMac) and with the display for the Tower it comes to $3207 to the iMac's $1799. This will cannibalize Power Mac sales big time.
 

Obsidian

macrumors member
Oct 10, 2001
66
0
Victoria, BC, Canada
low end blbble imac still there

Incase you did not notice, the low $799 iMac is still available on the apple online store. It is still needed for a low end computer for consumers, and as a low end for education. I would DEFINETLY expect the speed bump or G5's for MWTKY.
I do agree that apple should do somthing about motorola. They have been slowing apple down for too long. Weather or not the CPU division should be purchassed is another story. Nobody can tell how things will turn out in this economic recession.
 

abe

macrumors member
Jan 8, 2002
60
0
I really expected to see some "updated" pro models, at least with G4 Apollo chips (if Motorola didn't make it to produce enought G5s). Some really needed new hardware would have been: 266MHz bus, DDR-Ram and 1,2 - 1,6 GHz G4 processors. This would have matched to the new iMac line...

I actually don't care about a hype design with the pro models, this one will be placed under my desk anyway.

But after all: Motorola didn't make it. Apple has seriously to think about changing to another processor manufacturer. And don't talk about the MP capabilities of the G4 and G5 processors, if that would be this great, Apple would only sell pro models with 2 and more processors ...

About the shipping date of the new iMac: this is a joke! It's similar to last year's announcement of the GeForce3: "First in a Mac" ... yes, yes
 

F/reW/re

macrumors 6502
Dec 30, 2001
306
0
Norway
Originally posted by abe
About the shipping date of the new iMac: this is a joke! It's similar to last year's announcement of the GeForce3: "First in a Mac" ... yes, yes
Agree, great a new machine that I have to wait 2 months to get, whats the point?

At this time Apple`s SoftWare is why I choose Apple instead of Win. But they better make Motorola get their ass moving, or else . . .
 

abe

macrumors member
Jan 8, 2002
60
0
The point about the release date is that the iMac is a consumer product and Apple starts selling the most expensive one first and this is definitly not consumer friendly ...
 

Fiend

macrumors newbie
Jan 8, 2002
4
0
Time to use new chips

Yup, for Apple's machine speeds to get in gear they need to look at changing from the PowerPC.

Ok, great technology, a 1GHz intel = prob something like a 600MHz G3/4. However, you'd have thought at this stage that Apple would have learned the folly of being the only one to use a particular technology.

Looking at Citroen in France, dunno if you guys in the states are familar with them but for years they were *the* innovating car manufactures, their designs & technology they used in their cars were far far ahead of anyone else, but in the end the company nearly went under because of the cost. They were the only ones doing this amount of R&D, only ones taking that cost, and the parts/etc. were all proprietary and so expensive to maintain.

A couple of years back they actually called their new cars 'bland' because 'thats what the consumer wants'. Blasphemy for Citroen fans, but reality bites! They're now selling more cars than they did for a long time and are starting to have another go at the innovation thing to try to regain their identity.

Looking at other computer companies, HP are abandoning their PA_RISC chips in favour of the Itanium they developed with Intel, because its been too expensive to develop the chips at the rate they want to. In fact Sun are about the only major player not to be adopting the Itanium chip.

I've been a fan of Apple because the OS was the best I saw, and the cool technology they invented (Newton's hand writing recognition). They can keep the OS and run it on a different chip and not lose anything, even gain speed & momentum!

Dump Motorola & PowerPC, it just isn't working anymore.
 

yanny

macrumors newbie
Dec 20, 2001
17
0
no way

I am afraid Apple is stuck with the PowerPC, at least for the time being. Yes, the Darwin core might have been ported to Intel hardware, but many part of the OS is written for PowerPC hardware.

f Apple switch to Intel now, all the developer will have to go through another transition again, and many of those are still going/gone with the transition, they will probably abandon the Mac all together. The Be OS died because of lack of apps->lack of user.

So to remedy the situation, I think the best bet is for Apple take control of all the PPC asset and kick Motorolla out of the development of PPC. They want to sell their semi-conductor dividsion anyway.

Anyone has any info on how much they are asking? Can Apple afford to buy it. Forgive my ignorance, I know Motorolla is a much bigger Corp than Apple, will Apple be able to buy the asset for Motorolla?
 

Fiend

macrumors newbie
Jan 8, 2002
4
0
Apple buying Motorola division

I wonder how IBM would react to Motorola pulling out of PowerPC? I could see them pulling out of that too leaving Apple with a very expensive chip development division, can't see it being feasible.
 
Why we need more speed

The x86 world has it. When platform-agnostic people want to buy a workstation-class machine, they're going to go after the best bang-for-buck box they can find. That ain't a Mac, ease-of-use or not. As Apple's market share continues to dwindle, so will developers. As developers dwindle, so will the Mac. Speed is equivalent to survival.

When you have to render animations or compile video sequences, you're talking hours or days of rendering time. My B&W 350MHz G3 took somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 days to render 6 AE projects this past week. Imagine how much sooner I would have had those files rendered if they'd been on a 1.4GHz G4.

If speed for some is not a priority, more power to ya. But don't bitch because the rest of us are upset because we saw zero speed increases / spec upgrades for the MT line--and AFTER Apple made those ridiculously hyped-up pre-show announcements. If Apple wants to create products on which we can "pro create", then they need to do something about the clock speed nonsense going on over at Motorola. If they want to take back some of that video and graphics market share MS has been vacuuming up over the past 10 years, then they need to put out much faster machines and at a significantly lower price.

The computer world does not survive on stagnation. For some of you, your machines are fine, doing everything you require of them in timeframe that does not inconvenience you. But let's face it: if your favorite platform had the bragging rights the x86 platform has right now, you'd be touting how much faster the Mac is. As I read somewhere recently, computers are just big number crunchers. The more numbers they crunch, the better the computer they are. A bit simplistic, but I think with respect to workstations, this puts the nail right on the head.

Sorry, but as much as I love the Mac, I'm seriously--and reluctantly--considering what my options are with respect to getting a Windows 2000 system. I really don't wanna go there, but Apple needs to put some Viagra into their systems and worry less about the fancy clothes and cologne.

If Steve does not come out with a hi-powered upgrade to his MT systems very, very soon, I'm going to nominate him for the Ed Wood Award--given to anyone who feels he's a misunderstood genius but in actuality doesn't have a clue.

Okay. Flame me.
 

yanny

macrumors newbie
Dec 20, 2001
17
0
Re:Why we need more speed

I couldn't agree more.

For the pass two years the development speed of the PPC has been slow to say the least and once again Motorolla has failed again to deliver the G5 that should have been delivered last year.

The fact remains: to keep the Mac platform alive, we have to have G5 real soon.
 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
Citroen nearly went under, yes. But alot of other companies have had to merge or be taken over, citroens only link with another company is peugeot and their PSA group.
All in all citroen havent done badly.

even though it might not sell aswell, let the inovation go on.

 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
alot of the powerpc flaws are in altivec and also being overcomplicated (blame the G4).
You are right, the G4 has progressed too slowly. Hence why i back the G3. Shame the G3 didnt get the oppurtunity it deserved.
Motorola hasnt delivered. apple should buy em out, and use IBM to fab the chips. It would be the ideal solution.

but seeing as software is going altivecs way, you just have to hang on and wait for a G5 with altivec which should scale brilliantly.
Hang on till mid this year, and then see who will be laughing, you with your G5, or your mate with his athlonXP.

 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Wow

Multiple talking sphincters. It's amazing how much like English Rectumese is. Lemme translate (lotsa *******s in my area) :

They're all worried that if Apple doesn't play along with the Mhz myth, than Apple will go the way of the Amiga. They're confused and can't groc the whole Mhz vs Gflop thing. Many of them spent WAY too much money on Power PC's and hold grudges well beyond any reasonable timeframe. Many of them also don't appreciate that a machine depreciates to nearly zero in 3 years. There's also the assumption that a first generation blue and white is comparable to a fifth generation G4 tower.

Basically there's more fear than research. Call this a disclaimer on fear-driven, knee-jerk,Mhz-brainwashed, Cat-Vomit posts.
 

thedude

macrumors member
Sep 22, 2001
53
0
g5 stuff

Here it goes...
It's ture that apple needs to get with the program if they expect creative types to shell out the bucks for an antiquated g4 that isn't at 1ghz yet. And yes, I don't think that individuals let alone companies are going to buy g4's when they can get xeons cheeper. So here is an idea...

Apple should announce a buy out of SGI which includes...
-intellectual property of 3dlabs/intergraph (wildcat II)
-closer ties to alias/wavefront
-faster updates of maya, (4.5)

-dropping of "R" series procs and adoption of g5's
-adoption of osX 10.2 (pro?)

this would be a nice event. First it would increase apples line of pro video cards from none to a few, second it would give them an in to the pro DCC market, 3rd, osX would get a much larger audience without damaging their profits on the hardware side, and lastly, apple would be able to provide much greater speed (g5) than SGI (RxxK) for creative pros at a lower cost. Apple should take advantage of osX UNIX roots and provide IRIX users with a GUI that actually works.

so what do you think?


 

spikey

macrumors 6502a
Apr 26, 2001
658
0
Alot of people are confused about Mhz yeah, and alot do talk **** about apple improving clock speed.
Its not that apple has a problem with improving the clock of its G4, its that for the past 2 years the G4 has been stagnant speed-wise. And the clock speed is an indication of that. Blame moto.

 
F

ftaok

Guest
You can't put all the blame on MOT

The bottom line is that MOT is responsible for MOT and Apple is responsible for Apple. Why would MOT go to bat for Apple when Jobs and Co embarrassed them a couple of years ago?

If Apple wanted MOT to "get off their asses", then maybe they should sell more G4s. Right now, the Intel/AMD consortium has a 38:1 ratio over MOT. (NOTE: this ratio is based on the 95% to 5% and assuming that half of the Macs are G4s)

Apple is going in the right direction by offering G4s in the consumer models. This may help push Motorola a bit in the right direction. But until Motorola feels that they can make serious money by making G4s for computers, they're gonna focus on making them for Cisco's routers.

Apple doesn't want to be Motorola's #2 customer for G4s.
 

tmx590

macrumors newbie
Jan 7, 2002
21
0
PPC

I think that Jobs understands that there is no future in Motorola... but on the same coin, I certainly can see Jobs being conceited enough to honestly believe that clock speed doesn't really matter. Who knows? Part of the fun of Apple is the fact that they are always teetering on the brink of oblivion... you're never sure just how much longer they will be able to pull it off. Frankly, I would rather eat dirty socks than be forced to use a PC... but you never know what will happen. The long & short of it on which I think we can all agree: Motorola is SERIOUSLY hampering Apple's progress in the marketplace.