No G5's until (late) 2003

[alex_ant]

There were a lot of people reckoning that the G5 would be out before the last MWSF, and it didn't happen of course. Then they expected it at the last MWSF, five months ago. When there was no sign of it, they thought MWNY for sure, and now it looks like it won't happen at MWNY, either.

Personally I think we should be very disappointed. Weren't there rumors of 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6GHz sample chips earlier this year? Even if the G5 had hit the scene last January at 1.4GHz, it still would have been behind the x86 competition performance-wise. I hope Motorola manages to triple those speeds by late 2003, because that's what it will take to match x86 by that time. Kethoticus made a very valid point about feeling the urge to switch to a faster platform, and I'm sure he's not the only one out there feeling that way. I want a fast G5, and I want it TODAY. Yes, I am aware that today is a Saturday. I don't care! TODAY!! Take yer RapidIO and HyperTransport and shove it - even a 100% speed boost on the current G4s will not be nearly enough.

Alex

 

[sluthy]

Uh oh

Alex_ant is going to get flamed any time now...

 

[b8rtm8nn]

These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.

Nothing to do with the desktop.

 

[robguz]

No 9?

Apple would have to be nuts not to make any new mac bootable in 9. I love OSX but still find myself booting into 9 all the time to do simple things such as transferring files between drives, running games that refuse to work in classic, using disk repair utilities. I wouldn't use a machine that can't give me the functionality that 9 gives me that OSX won't let me do. Of course the real answer is to have X address these bizarre problems. for example, just trying to drag my documents folder to an external drive just doesn't work for some stupid reason, and I am the only user on my mac. I've had times where big movie trailer files begin to be copied, and I can hear the drives working, it shows up for a split second on an external drive, and then disappears. There are so many little quirks that 9 didn't have that X does, and until every single one of these is fixed in X, there is no way Apple can eliminate 9 totally. I wouldn't buy a new mac that doesn't do what I need it too. Even if it had quad G5s and cost $1500. I really hope Apple doesn't do this.

 

[dantec]

I just reinstalled my Powermac 5 days ago. Only OS X, NO CLASSIC!

I've only used Classic once, and that was when I needed to install the Sims. Instead of installing classic, I mounted my iBook's firewire disk and used classic over firewire. Everything worked!

Some Apple technology is amazing, some is truely not (G4 processor & moto)!

Living in Switzerland I understand French (I live in the french part of Switzerland, don't speak a word of German). It definatively means replacement or spare parts.

If the G5 doesn't come at Macworld San Francisco next year, it will be a joke. Then the Apple platform will really fall behind. Do any of you think that a G4 will make it to 3ghz by MWSF (about the mhz rating the P4 will get at that time)? We need a fast G5 which starts at 3 ghz or at least 2.5.

Sometimes I wonder why apple doesn't go all the way. Since we are sooo behind in terms of mhz, why not give us 8 G4's in one Powermac and make the ultimate 8ghz machine, and sell that to the public (as the high end). Why doesn't Apple add 2 processors to the iMac (makes it a 2ghz machine, so the public thinks it's as fast as the others)?

The thing I'm getting at is : In the PC world you can build almost anything, without restraints from one company controlling the whole show. Now don't get me wrong, clones of the Macintosh would be even worse, but Apple needs to give us more freedom.

They choose the design of the product, and we should have the benefit of choosing EXACTLY what goes inside!!!

 

[gopher]

Altivec will keep Apple ahead

Don't believe those Mhz ratings. It is a myth. Why a Pentium IV is actually slower at RC5 than a Pentium III, and 5 times slower than a G4. Check the ratings at

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/dual_1ghz_performance_test.html
Another place where the G4 is 5 times faster then the Pentium IV:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/feb/07blast.html

Now this just means you need to demand that more of your Macintosh apps became Altivec native, and tell the developers of those programs how to make their applications Altivec native:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2002/04/05/altivec.html

The secret is Altivec. At 128 bit processing any program enhanced for Altivec will just scream past the Pentium IV. It is time to get more developers to join the bandwagon

Originally posted by Kethoticus
...I may give up on the Mac platform. Unless the mobo improvements (hypertransport, DDR-RAM, etc.) make up for the lack of processor evolution, I can see no reason to stick with the platform.

I have no desire to leave the Mac experience. I have no desire to drop OS X or any of my favorite Mac apps & applets. I sincerely hope this rumor is bull. But coming out with hardware that is increasingly behind, not coming out with a revolutionary new chip for another 2 years, and even then one that will probably be a year or so behind the competition STILL, I just do not see the reason anymore for calling myself a Mac fan (well, I'll always be a Mac fan, just no longer a Mac user... *sigh*).

I consider myself a power user. I edit video, study 3D apps at home, on rare occasions take 3D work home, etc. I need more than a machine that's half as fast for 50% more money than its x86 competition, especially when the 3D apps I use run better (or even exclusively) on that x86 hardware.

Apple, do something about this. Stop farting around and do something. Start a line with AMD processors. Buy out Motorola's semiconductor unit (you're buying everyone else out). But do something. You know, that bugs me now that I think about it. Apple's concerned more about locking up the video market by shear default rather than providing machines that in real-world tests kick the crap out of (or at least keep pace with) their competition.

I hope I'm getting upset over nothing and that this rumor is just that.

Okay, my rant's over. Flame me. Tell me that I'm really a PC user in disguise or that I should just buy a PC and get out of these fora. But at least make the flames fresh & entertaining. I'm tired of the same old nonsense.

 

[thopter]

Pro-tower sales are down because those 'handful of print shops' aren't buying. Without those customers Apple would be a memory already.

 

[kansaigaijin]

server rumours

if you buy the top end Xserve and the service pack you get some spare parts, including a motherboard!

Not surprising new machines won't boot into 9, supporting 9 maybe part of whats holding things up.

You can still use 9 on your old machines, does everyone need to cash in your old machines to get new ones? Even small enterprises? What will you get for them when you are all basically saying they are useless now, you want a new one so bad?

How long did Apple support the Apple II after the hardware was discontinued?

G5s manufactured in Grenoble? Motorola got a chip plant there? Or are they going to build one from sctratch just to make the G5? in France?

 

[Kid Red]

Re: Continued slow sales

Originally posted by thopter
No OS9 on new machines + No Quark for OSX = No new sales to printers until 2003?! Seems for every step forward, Apple takes another towards oblivion.

Well, I guess I can't be too harsh on you, OS9 will not be BOOTABLE but will still run as classic mode for awhile according to a AI thread. So not sure where the step towrds oblivion would be especially since no one needs to upgrade their hardware to run Quark and inDesign is gaining marketshare.

 

[sparkleytone]

Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.

Nothing to do with the desktop.

exactly. don't worry about your desktops. u can still run os9. they are just going to advance the server hardware to a point where os9 would be too costly to update.

 

[Foocha]

I suspect that Quark are having a devils own job in carbonizing QuarkXPress - it is such an out of date app, it was hardly even an OS 8 app - the last time I used it (QuarkXPress 5) it did not have platinum menus, and it didn't use navigation services. It was done the wrong way in the first place, and as any software developer will tell you, cutting corners in this way may save you a few bucks in the short term but will cost you dear in the long term.

It makes perfect sense for XServe to not support OS 9 - who needs a rackmounted OS 9 "server" any way - you could hardly describe OS 9 as a server OS. Ending desktop OS 9 support is a bigger risk, but would probably enable a more modern hardware design - the big question is, would this move break the Classic environment in OS X?

The processor issue is a big, big issue - I agree with all of the posters expressing their concern about this. Let's just hope that Apple pulls something out of the bag.

 

[Titian]

No G5 until end of 2003? 1.2 Mhz for MWNY?

if this will be the truth then Apple hasn't learnt the lesson of the last quarter, where the sales went down drastically (with the shares!).
If Apple wants to really gain customers, as they are telling everybody now, then they should find out how potential new customer think and what they want.
If most of them don't know anything about computers except for their processor speed and the cost, then Apple should do something in that direction.
This shouldn't be done by "educating" everybody telling them that the processor speed is not everything and so on. That is a waist of money: people will still look at the processor speed as they did 10 years ago. You can say that they are stupid but it won't change anything: they won't by Macs. Most of these guys don't care if they see people telling why they switched from PC to Mac (waist of money, these adds).
To gain customers, the Macs must be MUCH better than PC's in all sectors. And if Intel brings out a 3 MHz then Apple has to bring out a unit with the same processor speed for less money. Then you will see how many people will by Macs...

On the other side if Apple does that, it will have another problem: what shall it bring out next, that the customers would buy.

So here is the dilemma:
1) make the speed go up very slowly so that the Mac community would buy constantly new models. In this case not many PC or any other potential users will buy a Mac. Actually I would think that some Mac users will get pissed off and buy PCs.

2) Give the potential customers today what they want so they would buy a Mac. I am sure that also very many mac users would buy a new mac but the problem for Apple would come later. Who would buy new computers if their old ones are fast enough? If you would buy a G5 with let say 2 MHz (may be dual), would you buy in the next 5 years another faster computer?

It isn't easy for Apple... and for us..

 

[kevinibook]

Originally posted by alex_ant
I hope Motorola manages to triple those speeds by late 2003
Alex [/B]

We would be lucky if Motorola doubled those speeds by that date. They don't invest that much in R&D of their semiconductor division, and quite frankly they don't care that much about. Thery care more about their telecomunications divisions.
Never expect too much from Motorola

 

[Catfish]

Theories theories everywhere...

Originally posted by b8rtm8nn
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.
These are server rumors.

Nothing to do with the desktop.

True. Here's a thought or two.

1. Is it possible there is a 64 bit G5 and a 32 bit G5 indevelopment? 64 bit for Server, 32 bit for desktop? This could mean although the 64 bit server chip won't be available until late 2003, the desktop chip might be ready earlier. This is like the way AMD is introducing their desktop 'Clawhammer' before their server chip 'Sledgehammer'.

2. As far as the spare parts controversy goes, perhaps what it means is that this is the first Apple you can buy spare parts for, i.e. you could buy just a motherboard, or just a CPU, and upgrade what you want and keep the same case. Like an option for power users.

 

[ktlx]

Motorola focuses on the embedded market

We would be lucky if Motorola doubled those speeds by that date. They don't invest that much in R&D of their semiconductor division, and quite frankly they don't care that much about. Thery care more about their telecomunications divisions.

Motorola focuses on their embedded processor sales. There is no way Motorola can compete head to head on R&D for desktop sales. Their only customer is part of Apple's product line which is not enough to justify the expense.

Motorola's engineering choices are more catered to the embedded market where power consumption and heat are typically more important than raw power. Very few embedded systems could use processors like the Athlon XP, Pentium III and Pentium 4 because of heat and power.

As long as Apple sticks with the PowerPC line, that is going to be a fact of life. They will always be behind AMD and Intel. The only reason the G4 even is in the ballgame is the Altivec unit and that only helps certain types of applications. Of course Steve is going to use Photoshop as the benchmark! It is an example of an application that can take advantage of AltiVec.

Now that IBM is scaling down their Power line of chips, that is probably the better long term processor for Apple. It is 64-bit, IBM is pouring tons of money into it and it scales to multiprocessor systems very nicely. Imagine a PowerMac with four 64-bit cores, 3MB of L3 cache per core and AltiVec.

 

[Ouroboros]

So everybody is believing this French rumor which states that Motorola can't make the G5 unless they build a plant in France???

Come on, Apple isn't THAT stupid. Think about it! They can't just release new mhz upgrades to their AMAZING towers unless they can do the tiresome Photoshop bake-offs. They can't win the bake-offs now, so they have to put something out to win a bake-off. So I think they've got things worked out. Steve Jobs likes to be on top, he even had a meeting with top 3D people and point blank asked them what the hardware needed for them to switch to Mac.

Do you think that they are going to wait until the END of 2003?! That's foolhardy, if we are all concerned about this like we are, imagine what it would be like on the Apple campus. I'm sorry, it is easy to be pessimistic sometimes when a tradeshow comes around, but this is silly to think that apple is going to wait almost two years FURTHER.

I don't think it is going to happen like this...

 

[DarkNovaMatter]

I think this might lead to something....

I went through a nice little searching at motorola's website and came up with this
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,1958,1519_1169_23,00.html (hopefully the link works). Either it confirms the rumors (something about the french nuclear corporation, since they have these people there they are making it) or else dissproves it by making the article look like Grenoble was just something on here.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Motorola focuses on the embedded market

Originally posted by ktlx
Imagine a PowerMac with four 64-bit cores, 3MB of L3 cache per core and AltiVec.

One problem with that scenario is that IBM doesn't do altivec although they are said to be working on their own unit with some similar functions. Who knows how long that will take? It took Moto seemingly forever to bring altivec to market.

 

[eunuchs]

Re: G5...Apple Thinking Different?

Originally posted by Ballresin
Okay...I have to say this, even if I get laughed at.

I heard (I don't know where) that the G5 would use a positive ground, rather than negative, and thus would apply a rule of physics in which the chip would actually run cold rather than hot.

Please...tell me either that I am wrong, or that we are in for a helluva ride.
(retarded) (super-fast hertz)

I doubt something this big could be overlooked, but is it possible?

This is bunk, plain and simple. Voltages are relative measures (another term for voltage is "potential difference"). Every chip has a "positive ground" and "negative ground". In modern CMOS, the positive rail is usually called VDD and the negative or ground rail is called VSS. What really matters is the difference in potential between the two (ie, 1.5V, 1.8V, whatever). Using VDD as your "ground" does nothing for you except reverse all your logic. The mechanism for heat dissipation hasn't gone anywhere.

What causes heating in chips is the flow of electric current through the resistive elements of transistors. Think of it like a light bulb being switched on and off really quickly. When it's off, there is no current flowing through the filament and thus it does not heat up. When it's on, the filament glows hot because there is current flowing through it and electrons are bumping against each other and the metal: friction.

CMOS gates (made up of transistors) are similar to this. With a standard inverter gate, in both the "on" AND "off" state, there is very little current flowing and the transistors stay cool. The problem is that when a gate is switched, there is a very brief instant where current does flow and heat is generated. The amount of energy dissipated is infinitesimal. But when you have a chip with 4 million transistors switching 1 billion times per second, you can see where the problems start. Making the transistors smaller (ie, CMOS 0.13 micron technology vs. CMOS 0.18 micron) helps to alleviate the problems associated with faster speeds.

There is no magic solution to the heat problem. Making chips smaller and reducing voltages are the obvious measures - but they introduce problems of their own.

 

[beatle888]

if this is true

I understand how some mac users would want
to switch platforms to gain speed. I feel that
way my self. But I do hope that Apple catches
up cause no UI is pretty enough if you can't
push your files around. And that's what's beginning
to happen.

Also, whats with the new Apple ads talking about
a CLUNKY (PC) user experience? Have you used OSX on
a tibook? Sorry but waiting 1 second after you click
on a menu is pretty CLUNKY to me (ok maybe 1/2 second).
There are other examples that escape me right now
but believe me, I use a ti every day and jeeze, OSX is
CLUNKY, powerful, and pretty.

 

[G4scott]

Originally posted by crassusad44
This rumor is silly. It's the only rumor that says the G4 will not evolve, when we know it will. And why the **** would a Power Mac come with spare parts??????? Changing the power supply would void warranty. This is something Apple does not want the regular Joe to do. Either this rumor applies to the XServe ONLY, or the author of this rumor is plain stupid....

Actually, If Apple makes the power supply easily accessible, changing out a faulty power supply would have less potential to do damage to your machine than installing RAM. Besides, these are future machines, and unless you are the lawyer writing up the warranty policy, then don't argue about voiding the warranty on a machine that doesn't exist.

As far as everyone complaining about the inability to run OS 9 on a machine that does not yet exist... THE RUMOR SAYS THAT IT WILL COME OUT LATE 2003!!! That's more than a year from now. In that time, Mac OS X will speed up, it will gain more features, and more apps will be released. As long as you support only OS 9, you will be hurting the progress of the Mac OS. OS X is a must. It is faster, more stable, more powerful, and more flexible than any classic Mac OS. We need Mac OS X for the future. Give Mac OS X a try, even if you don't use it for much. Try to find a way to use it productively. Give Apple feedback, and tell them what you think, so that Apple can improve on Mac OS X. Write to software companies stressing why support for OS X is important, so that they hurry up with the transition. The classic OS is a dying OS. It doesn't have much life left in it for the future. If Apple is going to make forward progress, they need to lay OS 9 to rest (to the public, since he already buried it for the developers )

Also... for those who complain that OS X takes too long to open menus and the such, you must realize that OS X is doing much more in the background than OS 9. Quartz Extreme will probably help with this, but OS X will still feel a little slow, until it's refined more, and we have faster machines. I do agree, though, that Apple should work on a tuned-down interface, for pros or people who just want a snappier system that doesn't always have to be working with translucency effects. Maybe have the 'aqua' theme, and a 'opaque aqua' theme. This way, the processor can do real work in applications, instead of drawing menus and UI elements. I'm sure that if OS X ran a classic UI natively, it would appear quite faster.

I'm not sure what to say about processors, though. The G3 lasted in pro computers for just under 2 years. If you look at the past, The G3 was in pro and consumer computers for 1 year. January 2003 will be the 1 year mark for the G4 being in both the consumer iMac and PowerMac. Going by what Apple has done in the past, you would expect for them to release new processors, or some major feature in January 2003. It isn't good to be using the same processors in the consumer desktops as you do in the pro desktops. Bad marketing. It's good for consumers, but not for the pros, and with Apple focusing on the digital video market, and other pro markets, Apple need some good news before many people would consider going to Macs.

But, you never know... Steve may have something up his sleeve this July or January... We never saw the iMacs going G4 with super drives and LCD's...

Oh, and one more thing...

 

[jbouklas]

An 800 MHz mac is faster than any 800 MHz PC. That is a fact. The only problem is the price difference between the two. Apples are becoming cost ineffective unless Apple can put some fire under Motorola's ass. I am an Apple fan till the end, but I want to start seeing some real improvements soon. I've had my G4 for over two years now. My 7400 G4 is a great chip, but I want a good reason to upgrade. I want to see the next generation chip, AFTER OVER TWO AND A HALF YEARS! It is unheard of for any company to keep a chip in production for that long. Granted, it had that much life in it, but enough is enough. Apple needs to pump out their next generation chip sooner rather than later. The timing is right for MWNY, but it won't happen. That means for another year, the entire Apple line will be G4s, no high-end G5 (the iBooks will probably move over to G4s in the next 4 months). Apple is caught between a rock and a hard place. My friend has an $800 1.4 GHz Athlon PC system at home, and it is amazing. If Apple had something with a comparable speed at a comparable price, I'd own it right now. But, I doubt they ever will.

-Jim

 

[spuncan]

Forget Intel

Look almost everyone here and most the Mac comunity relates to Intel. At this point the dual 1ghz is about the same speed as a 2.1ghz Intel it's just that Moto and Intel chose two different things to focus on from the get go in they're chips. Think about AMD they're coming out w/ a true 64/32 bit processor in late september (ships in October) that will blow away Intel in everying same w/ mac. Already the Athlon XP kicks both processors ass in rendering so stop worrying bout intel. Intels true 64/32bit isn't coming out for a year now. As for these rumors they sound fine for me. Major Mobo updates and speed up to 1.5 by MWSF seems likely. The no 9 support sounds fine to me cept Poser isn't going to X completely for a few months. All this will do is force my dad to buy a new computer seeing that this 233 G3 can barely run X.
Oh yeah BTW Il'l be gone for the next day or 2 because Im switching to X

 

[numb_brain]

Everybody seems to be so upset because the G5 isn't coming. I admit I'm a bit dissappointed too, but that doesn't mean Apple is standing still. In a couple of weeks we'll be seeing the new version of G4. Because of the deeper pipeline-stages, getting higher clockspeeds should be easier, and that's why I'm convinced we'll see clockspeeds of 1.4 GHz. That alone would mean performance boost of at least 50%. And they wil boost up the bus speed to 266 MHz, which should ad another improvement of at least 50 %. Think about it: they are going to be doubling performance at MWNY!!!!

Then at the end of august, Jaguar will come out, which will improve the startup and general OS-speed with about 30 % by making much better use of the graphic card.

And in response of the people who say Apple's speed is way behind PC with Maya and other 3D rendering software: that's not Apple's fault. It's the software that needs to be updated drastically (Maya still has a lot of evolving to undergo on Mac OSX). But believe me, they will...

Just looking on the bright side of things of course...

 

[mymemory]

OS sucX

I'm running OS X for third time and I'm really glad I have a new WINDOW just like the PCs have, that wWINDOW that allows me to choose what aplication I want to FORCE QUIT. It is very usefull because I'm using it A LOT lately.

BTW, how come here in Venezuela I can get a 1Ghz PC for $400 while the same thing in Apple cost $3.000? I know about the differences but, don't you think we are falling in to a fanatic users market?

What is the price an Apple computer should have to make a PC a better deal? 10.000?