No G5's until (late) 2003

[SheepAnonymous]

dark news

i've been a mac user since 1994 and have owned 6 macs in that time. however, i am looking to get a new computer for the upcoming college year and this news isn't helping much. the current cheapest g4 on the market is $1100, which sports an exciting 133 mhz bus, while on the other hand you can get a 1.5 ghz pc with a 400 mhz bus for $500 (throw in a monitor and a copy of windows and you're up to $800)... i remember when a friend bought a dual-processor g4/500 and how nice it was 2 years ago, and now i think about how it can still run fairly well compared to current versions of the chip...
yeah... i'm gonna repeat a few people from earlier for emphasis. either there needs to be some serious price drops or there needs to be some serious speed increases because i can't handle spending twice as much for something equally fast (if that). what worries me is that lots of other dedicated mac users can't either... i'm ready to wait until MWNY to see if anything spectacular comes out, but otherwise the current iBoob for $1500 is just too overpriced for me...
if anyone wants to know where i got that figure, it was just from searching price.com (http://www.price.com/computing/jump...-2147483199&epg=3112&sitecode=price.computing)

 

[Cappy]

Originally posted by dantec
He has a point though. Alvitec is not the solution. It's the reason we are here in the first place.

Apple originally thought, developers would use the alvitec extensions and therefore moving the highspeed barrier even higher. The shamefull thing, is many Apple things that you do 'not' buy (like FCP) aren't Alvitec enabled.

Hell, I don't even thing QT is alvitec enabled.

Think of it this way: If Apple hadn't switched to G4's with Moto's 'alvitec promise', IBM could have scaled G3's farther, and would have scaled a proper G4, without cache issues which kept it at 500mhz so long.

At this point, since moto is sooo interested in the 'embedded' market, why doesn't Apple contract out AMD to build PPC processors? From what I can put together, they both use the same raw materials, and AMD has more plants that Moto and would have more dedication to Apple. Would AMD have to build new wafers for PPC chips?

You must be talking to Miss Cleo because that's one of the biggest load of crap I've seen in this thread. You're flat out making stuff up to attempt to rationalize your opinion.

On altivec Apple felt that was the best decision for their platform to take. Don't even think for a second that Apple felt that altivec would be the be all, end all. They knew there was only so many things it could do so only a limited number of developers could or rather would even bother to support it. Despite what some may think Apple does know a thing or two about cpu's.

Very little of what Apple does affects how IBM scales the G3. Face it folks IBM is just as guilty at clockspeeds stagnating with the PPC chips as Moto. They're not really all that far ahead if at all. Don't get caught up in the religious battles that folks seems to be creating over this.

As for AMD well...why? IBM is a more likely candidate with better, more available resources. Besides consider that AMD has their hands full already and then some. Much of the media and the tech enthusiast places them on a pedastal since they've been making Intel chips look bad but they're hurting financially. They're literally fighting for their life especially now and wouldn't want those distractions.

Frankly there isn't a real strong cpu manufacturer out there when you start digging into things. Intel is the evil empire yet constantly is shooting itself in the foot so often that nothing seems to be a sure bet unless they throw their money around(which they have). AMD is struggling with even the 64 bit stuff as well as the clockspeed and performance issues when compared to Intel. Moto and IBM always seem to have something cool waiting in the wings but by the time they're here and the hype is over, we wonder what happened. Moto's G4 took forever and no matter how elegant of a chip can be considered a flop in many people's eyes. IBM still hasn't delivered their promised multi-cpu on a chip. We've heard about that for years and still nothing. Moto is said to be working on one as well but they keep pushing it back also. Going to multi-cpu on a chip is likely Apple's best chance to get back in the performance race again besides making heavy improvements to their motherboards.

Actually I feel that if Apple can do well(great would be better of course) performancewise in the laptop field that they're marketshare can grow more overall than if they just focused on their desktop market. Most Windows folks interested in the Mac are mostly talking about the laptops where they know they won't be playing the latest games that Macs won't always have or need to crunch out tons of rendering, etc.

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by King Cobra


I am now getting concerned about what will happen w/the G4. What if there were 1.2GHz G4s for New York, 1.4GHz for SF2003, and more slower increments to follow?

I think Apple needs to take much bigger jumps than 200MHz every six months, since it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Think about it: If in early 2003 the fastest we have will be 1.4GHz, then that means Apple needs to catch up IMO.

.

1. The G5 when finally released will go to Xserve first.

2. The bottleneck on a consumer/desktop mac right now is bandwidth or motherboard speed. There are several ways to address this.

a. Up the processor speeds to multi- Ghz ranges.
b. Cripple the application sufficiently to run on one or more slower systems.
c. Employ supplemental or clustered processing.

Now that Xserve is here, it is not far behind for home servers or SOHO servers to become widespread. Airport was an element of tis evolution and OSX on a consumer mac was the keystone. Not long from now Congress will mandate bandwidth everywhere and all that unused fiber will have a new life.

The Macs of today cannnot easily handle 4 TV resolution Quicktime channels operating in the background almost constantly. The home server wll. It has been known in the past as a "set-top box". I assume it will TiVo and more.

Satellite internet arrived.

G4 has life since it was only this month introduced into low-end products. I assume 3-4 years. This is post war, post tech bust, post market crash times.

Apple will solve for highest profit timeline, not most tech advancing (in numerical terms) hardware. This is too bad and a fact of life at the bleeding edge.

BUT you will soon have Bluetooth, Firewire2, USB2 and 802.11b, which has already arrived and keeps up with gigawire if multiplexed.

We still have no capability to make a computer use some revolutionare GUI to get rid og the keyboard. Star Trek is not here yet. BUT more and more people will switch to the server client model and therefore be fully compute mobile ala cell phones.

Rocketman

 

[Cappy]

Re: dark news

Originally posted by SheepAnonymous
i'm ready to wait until MWNY to see if anything spectacular comes out, but otherwise the current iBoob for $1500 is just too overpriced for me...

I might tend to agree with the current features. If they upped the memory limitations to at least 1 GB then I would revisit my opinion. If I could play Steve at Apple, I'd be pushing those current ibooks down in price as quick as possible and slide something else with higher memory limitations and slimmer form factor into it's current slot. Those ibooks are nice for lowend but they're really not priced well for lowend now like they once were. The market has passed them by in the eyes of the consumer.

 

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by King Cobra


I am now getting concerned about what will happen w/the G4. What if there were 1.2GHz G4s for New York, 1.4GHz for SF2003, and more slower increments to follow?

I think Apple needs to take much bigger jumps than 200MHz every six months, since it doesn't seem to be very impressive. Think about it: If in early 2003 the fastest we have will be 1.4GHz, then that means Apple needs to catch up IMO.

.

1. The G5 when finally released will go to Xserve first.

2. The bottleneck on a consumer/desktop mac right now is bandwidth or motherboard speed. There are several ways to address this.

a. Up the processor speeds to multi- Ghz ranges.
b. Cripple the application sufficiently to run on one or more slower systems.
c. Employ supplemental or clustered processing.

Now that Xserve is here, it is not far behind for home servers or SOHO servers to become widespread. Airport was an element of tis evolution and OSX on a consumer mac was the keystone. Not long from now Congress will mandate bandwidth everywhere and all that unused fiber will have a new life.

The Macs of today cannnot easily handle 4 TV resolution Quicktime channels operating in the background almost constantly. The home server wll. It has been known in the past as a "set-top box". I assume it will TiVo and more.

Satellite internet arrived.

G4 has life since it was only this month introduced into low-end products. I assume 3-4 years. This is post war, post tech bust, post market crash times.

Apple will solve for highest profit timeline, not most tech advancing (in numerical terms) hardware. This is too bad and a fact of life at the bleeding edge.

BUT you will soon have Bluetooth, Firewire2, USB2 and 802.11b, which has already arrived and keeps up with gigawire if multiplexed.

We still have no capability to make a computer use some revolutionare GUI to get rid og the keyboard. Star Trek is not here yet. BUT more and more people will switch to the server client model and therefore be fully compute mobile ala cell phones.

Rocketman

 

[Grokgod]

ok, I am gonna speak in a quiet way.

This thread is making me very unhappy.

Someone said that the iBook beat the 800 Ti without pointing to the specs or tests. I refuse to believe that without some very hardcore information and testing!

All these guys with Pcheeses posting and talking crap about Mac's whats up with that. I understand that you can't afford a New MAC and will once again buy Gates pet. But why are we hearing about it.

I just find it strange, there have been a lot of threads about people needing to be convinced to NOT buy a Dell or a whatever Pcheese.

I can understand that people waver tween the current choices.

Still it seems that there is something in the air! I think that there is alot of frustration with ApPLE, I think that it is growing. Perhaps it is growing to an uncontrollable level in people heads, maybe people are thinking that its better to deal with the monolithic demon of M$ than with the frustraion of having a 3000 dollar that cant run its own OS properly in the year 2002.

Yet, I have both computers, a P4 and an APPLE Ti 800.
The P4 is very fast has all the best specs, its black box of pure speed.

Strangely since I got my Ti, I havent booted the P4 yet!

Yea, I get the beachball, and it makes me wince but I still havent moved to the Wintel machine. Its been a few weeks.

Wonder what will happen when I have to render some 3d files?

Hopefully it won't be before july 19 and I can order a New PowerMac which will hopefully be much faster.

Or maybe all this frustration will create the final song of doom for APPLE.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Cappy

Very little of what Apple does affects how IBM scales the G3. Face it folks IBM is just as guilty at clockspeeds stagnating with the PPC chips as Moto. They're not really all that far ahead if at all. Don't get caught up in the religious battles that folks seems to be creating over this.

...

IBM still hasn't delivered their promised multi-cpu on a chip. We've heard about that for years and still nothing.

I agree that IBM has allowed the PPC to stagnate, but you're forgetting PPC's big brother, the POWER series. POWER4 is currently whipping pretty much everyone else's butt at the moment, and I do mean everyone, including Itanium and Alpha and all the rest. And it does qualify as a "multi-CPU on a chip," with 2-4 cores per die. IBM is ahead of its competition at the moment, nevermind the fact that the least expensive machine available with a POWER4 (pSeries?) costs around $40k...

Alex

 

[s10]

hahahaha

It's sooo funny to read all these comments just because of some rumors from who knows who based on what.
I mean even if they were real, you still can't comment as they are so fragmentated and uncomplete.

 

[iwantanewmac]

Re: OS sucX

Originally posted by mymemory
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?

yeah. I know a lot of people who ant to switch, but they don't because those towers are too expensive. Most of them only play games, and an Imac is not n option because it is not upgradable and too slow.

 

[ktlx]

Please bother to look at IBM's product line

Originally posted by Cappy

IBM still hasn't delivered their promised multi-cpu on a chip. We've heard about that for years and still nothing.

What do you think is running in IBM's top of the line servers? What do you call the Power4 line? They have two cores per chip and are moving toward four cores per chip. If you do not believe me, look at IBM's site under the pSeries 670 and pSeries 690 high end servers.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Please bother to look at IBM's product line

Originally posted by ktlx


What do you think is running in IBM's top of the line servers? What do you call the Power4 line? They have two cores per chip and are moving toward four cores per chip. If you do not believe me, look at IBM's site under the pSeries 670 and pSeries 690 high end servers.

<sigh>

We're talking about PPC desktops here, are we not? Something that fits with Apple's motherboard architecture. I haven't forgotten about the Power4 line. It really doesn't apply except for some of the ideas that trickle down.

 

[ktlx]

Re: Re: Please bother to look at IBM's product line

Originally posted by Cappy


<sigh>

We're talking about PPC desktops here, are we not? Something that fits with Apple's motherboard architecture. I haven't forgotten about the Power4 line. It really doesn't apply except for some of the ideas that trickle down.

Well then stick to the point if you want to talk about PPC desktops. Point to some place where IBM ever said that it would bring multi-core PowerPC architecture chips to the desktop. Otherwise don't go bouncing around criticizing companies for not meeting promises they never made.

So far as I can determine, IBM has never claimed it would bring multi-core chips to the desktop in any architecture in the foreseeable future. IBM does not claim to even be considering bringing multi-core chips to the low end server lines. The only thing I have ever heard them say is they would like to disable some of the functionality so they could use the same architecture across their server lines.

 

[topicolo]

All I have to say is: F*ck Motorola. They've screwed with Apple for TOO LONG. Apple needs to begin doing R&D to convert their OS to x86 processors. I mean, whether you admit it or not, the x86 world is advancing faster than the PPC world. AMD's gonna release their 64bit hammer chips by Q1 2k3, and Intel's gonna be at 3Ghz. If the G4s don't keep up (very likely considering Moto), they're gonna be left in the dust.

 

[Cappy]

Re: Re: Re: Please bother to look at IBM's product line

Originally posted by ktlx


Well then stick to the point if you want to talk about PPC desktops. Point to some place where IBM ever said that it would bring multi-core PowerPC architecture chips to the desktop. Otherwise don't go bouncing around criticizing companies for not meeting promises they never made.

So far as I can determine, IBM has never claimed it would bring multi-core chips to the desktop in any architecture in the foreseeable future. IBM does not claim to even be considering bringing multi-core chips to the low end server lines. The only thing I have ever heard them say is they would like to disable some of the functionality so they could use the same architecture across their server lines.

Listen. It was a simple statement based off what I have heard in the past. What you've heard does not necessarily give you're statement anymore credibility.

I will; however, check and see if I can find those statements that I had *heard* about long ago and am willing to admit if I'm wrong. Are you? You have stock in IBM or something?

 

[eunuchs]

Originally posted by topicolo
All I have to say is: F*ck Motorola. They've screwed with Apple for TOO LONG. Apple needs to begin doing R&D to convert their OS to x86 processors. I mean, whether you admit it or not, the x86 world is advancing faster than the PPC world. AMD's gonna release their 64bit hammer chips by Q1 2k3, and Intel's gonna be at 3Ghz. If the G4s don't keep up (very likely considering Moto), they're gonna be left in the dust.

Repeat after me, "Apple will not go to x86". It would be suicide for them. Their bread and butter is hardware sales with hefty margins. Going to x86 would at once force them to drop their margins to compete and increase support costs. It was bad enough with PPC clones, it would be orders of magnitude worse with x86.

Also, P4 will hit 3 GHz, sure. But Itanium is way back there in processor clock speed. There are reasons for this. Many of them are the same reasons the G4 is still hovering around 1 GHz. Clock speed is NOT everything. There are many factors that count toward performance. Bus speeds and bandwidth are arguably MORE important these days than raw MHz. It's like having a Ferrari with the governor kicking in at 50 mph. Granted, the G4 is no Ferrari. But even a Ford Focus can hit 100 mph.

What worries me is that at this stage, Apple doesn't have any of the factors in the performance equation going for them on the consumer end. I'm hoping XServe is merely the tip of the iceberg. We need DDR and HyperTransport in PowerMacs soon. Just these two technologies would make a world of difference in day-to-day computing on Macs.

 

[Cappy]

Without delving too deep into this mess here is the IBM roadmap that mentions multicore ppc cpu's beginning at 1 Ghz. Of course there is no time frame given but from what I recall that roadmap was changed long ago to keep them from being held more accountable.


http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/rdmap/roadmap_small.jpg

Now if I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me but it matches up with what has been said in articles dating back to 1999. Mackido was one such site that mentioned it at least once or twice that IBM and Moto were looking into multicore technology. Say what you will but I lend alot of credibility to many, if not all, of Mackido's articles.

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by Cappy
Now if I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me but it matches up with what has been said in articles dating back to 1999. Mackido was one such site that mentioned it at least once or twice that IBM and Moto were looking into multicore technology. Say what you will but I lend alot of credibility to many, if not all, of Mackido's articles.

Nope, you are right. IBM has talked about multi-core PowerPC chips in the past. I have only seen IBM talk about multi-core server chips until now. But if you look at the technology on their roadmap, it is still tough to take them to task for not delivering yet. They are talking about implementing multi-core with sub-0.13u processes. That is 2003-2004 kind of stuff. Hell, 0.13u processes will be 2003-2004 for some processor makers.

BTW, no, I don't have stock in IBM. I respond when I think someone has taken an unjustified shot at any manufacturer. I have defended Motorola against the clueless who think they should spend as much as Intel to create a 2+Ghz G5 when Apple's market share cannot justify the expense.

 

[ktlx]

Originally posted by eunuchs
Also, P4 will hit 3 GHz, sure. But Itanium is way back there in processor clock speed. There are reasons for this. Many of them are the same reasons the G4 is still hovering around 1 GHz.

On the other hand, Intel has tons more R&D money to make Itanium work quickly. And as Intel works the kinks out of the CPU, they will continue to shrink the process and boost the spped. Itanium is a much newer and more complicated processor than the PowerPC and Intel will blow past it by sheer force of dollars and numbers.

Clock speed is NOT everything. There are many factors that count toward performance. Bus speeds and bandwidth are arguably MORE important these days than raw MHz.

And bringing up bus speed and bandwidth issues works against the G4. It has lower bus speeds and memory bandwidth available to it compared to the AMD and Intel processors.

 

[Rocketman]

Re: ok, I am gonna speak in a quiet way.

Originally posted by Grokgod


Yet, I have both computers, a P4 and an APPLE Ti 800.
The P4 is very fast has all the best specs, its black box of pure speed.

Strangely since I got my Ti, I havent booted the P4 yet!

Need you say more? My experience with Macs since their own Day 1 is they have always been more expensive, a little slower, but capable of ALOT more tasks right out of the box and I have never had a PC useful for more than 4 years (my 10Mhz 286 AT clone), and most are unsuitable after 2 years.

I have not had a Mac yet that was not good for 6 years.

Getting stuck in the details of raw numbers is not indicitative of why you wand and need to own a Mac. It does more things, and it does them for a much longer lifespan prior to upgrading.

Not to say you should not upgrade your recent Mac, you should. But then give the "old" one to someone knowing it is still very useful for daily tasks and knowing you are not giving someone your $100 value trash with a STEEP learning curve.

Rocketman

 

[eunuchs]

Originally posted by ktlx
On the other hand, Intel has tons more R&D money to make Itanium work quickly. And as Intel works the kinks out of the CPU, they will continue to shrink the process and boost the spped. Itanium is a much newer and more complicated processor than the PowerPC and Intel will blow past it by sheer force of dollars and numbers.

Yes, Intel has more money and will undoubtedly improve Itanium. Please don't get me wrong here, I am by no means suggesting the G4 has any sort of claim for parity with the Itanium. I'm only trying to point out - once again - that clock speed is just one indication of performance. And no, I'm not just recycling the "MHz Myth". As hokey as that whole thing is, there are certain truths in it. Those truths do little to mask the PowerMac's poor performance though.

And bringing up bus speed and bandwidth issues works against the G4. It has lower bus speeds and memory bandwidth available to it compared to the AMD and Intel processors.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the present Apple motherboard+G4 combo is as maxed out performance-wise as it can get??? The lower bus speeds and memory bandwidth on Macs have a lot to do with less-than-stellar Mac motherboards. Call me crazy, but I think the addition of DDR RAM and advanced bus technology like HyperTransport could do wonders for improving performance of PowerMacs. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by topicolo
All I have to say is: F*ck Motorola. They've screwed with Apple for TOO LONG. Apple needs to begin doing R&D to convert their OS to x86 processors.

NO!!!!

Enough said.

 

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by eunuchs
Repeat after me, "Apple will not go to x86". It would be suicide for them. Their bread and butter is hardware sales with hefty margins. Going to x86 would at once force them to drop their margins to compete and increase support costs. It was bad enough with PPC clones, it would be orders of magnitude worse with x86.

Also, P4 will hit 3 GHz, sure. But Itanium is way back there in processor clock speed. There are reasons for this. Many of them are the same reasons the G4 is still hovering around 1 GHz. Clock speed is NOT everything. There are many factors that count toward performance. Bus speeds and bandwidth are arguably MORE important these days than raw MHz. It's like having a Ferrari with the governor kicking in at 50 mph. Granted, the G4 is no Ferrari. But even a Ford Focus can hit 100 mph.

What worries me is that at this stage, Apple doesn't have any of the factors in the performance equation going for them on the consumer end. I'm hoping XServe is merely the tip of the iceberg. We need DDR and HyperTransport in PowerMacs soon. Just these two technologies would make a world of difference in day-to-day computing on Macs.

Clockspeed is not everything. I agree.
Bus speeds and bandwith are important. sure
You've checked the latest G4's bus speed? it S*ucks

 

[SheepAnonymous]

Re: Re: ok, I am gonna speak in a quiet way.

Originally posted by Rocketman

I have not had a Mac yet that was not good for 6 years.

6 years is defintely stretching it, unless all you do is write papers on it... I bought my iBook two years ago and it barely ran things well last year... I bought a 256 meg ram chip (bringing it to 320) and got every bit of juice out of it, but it still doesn't perform very well with new software. Photoshop lags and takes a good chunk of time for filters, loading, and saving, Bryce 4 has always been slow, games run horribly (Diablo 2, Monkey Island 4, Baldur's Gate 2, etc) and don't even get me started on finalcut... The only good thing I see in it is when I turn off VM and crank up a ram disk I can get a good 6-8 hours of battery life. I don't see how the old iBooks have a good sell value, but it's still worth a good $400 or so and I'm definitely taking advantage of that...

It's not like I've seen a PC that can last a good chunk of time before going bad, but it's not like macs last much longer before going horribly obsolete. The only use I have for my old computers are to buy a huge hard drive and play music on them, store old files on them via ethernet, or set them up as webservers...

 

[UnknownPoster]

Apple CAN build serious Graphics Systems

All of this is a (highly educated) guess as to what Apple could release
if they wanted to. No Apple Confidential Internal information was used
in these proposed designs.


=======================================================================

Desktop Macintosh Tower for Pro Graphics/Pro Audio/Cad/Science/Software Development

4x Motorola PPC 7455 Apollo G4 CPUs @ 1Ghz
2x Tundra Tsi890: PowerPC Universal Interconnect Switch (Northbridge)
2x TI 1394b OHCI controllers (64bit 66mhz PCI)
2x Key Largo ASICs (Southbridge, USB, IDE, ATA/100)
1x PMU99 Power Management Controller

A system with the above chips would have:

9,000 MIPS for PPC Server Applications
14,000MegaFlops forAltivec Applications
2x PCIX - PCI64/66 Controllers (up to 8 PCI slots)
2x DDR 333 Memory Controllers (up to 5.3 GigaByte/sec I/O)
4xGigabit Ethernet Ports (Built-in Gigabit Hub/Router)
4xSerial Ports
8xDMA Controllers
4x USB 1.0 Ports
6x 1394b 800Mbps FireWire Ports (FireWire Raid 0/1/5/5+Hotswap)
2x IDE/ATAPA Ports
2x IDE/Ultra ATA 100 Ports (IDE Raid 0/1)

Price $3000-$4000

=======================================================================

Rackmount Macintosh Server for Render Farms, Graphics and Video

6x Motorola PPC 7455 Apollo G4 CPUs @ 1Ghz
1x Tundra Tsi500: RapidIO 6 Port Switch
6x Tundra Tsi890: PowerPC Universal Interconnect Switch (Northbridge)
6x TI 1394b OHCI controllers (64bit 66mhz PCI)
2x Key Largo ASICs (Southbridge, USB, IDE, ATA/100)
1x PMU99 Power Management Controller

A system with the above chips would have:

14,000 MIPS for Integer Applications 55,000 Megaflops for ALTIVEC
6x PCIX - PCI64/66 Controllers (up to 24 PCI slots)
6x DDR 333 Memory Controllers (up to 16 GigaByte/sec I/O)
12xGigabit Ethernet Ports (Built-in Gigabit Hub/Router)
12xSerial Ports
24xDMA Controllers
4x USB 1.0 Ports
36x1394b 800Mbps FireWire Ports (FireWire Raid 0/1/5/5+Hotswap)
2x IDE/ATAPA Ports
2x IDE/Ultra ATA 100 Ports (IDE Raid 0/1)

Price $5000-$7500

=======================================================================

 

[tweedy7736]

Translation

Oops, sorry guys. I didn't realize I wasn't clear there. I was definitely joking. I didn't realize that a wasn't enough.

For your CORRECT information, "est fournie en" means, "is furnished with."
Also, "rechanges" means, "replacements."

So, etoile is correct. By no means would Apple make a machine out of recyclable parts...Seriously.

Next time I'll be sure and make myself more clear