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

Poll:MWSF

joey, good points and i hope you are right

...but what are you talking about with the 2 times 2 matrix?

...this ain't 1997, let me explain...

the cube did not fit that, the digital hub does not fit that, and now where do you put the ipod?

the 2 times 2 matrix was great for the time when jobs needed to simplify a company bleeding to death

but now that imminent death is out of the picture, apple cannot simply have 4 products and hope that carries them through this intensely complex field of IT right in the heart of silicon valley where inoovation is a way of life

the matrix could be said to be 2 times 2, but in reality apple is expanding its horizons and needs to in this digital devices revolution because the "IBM beige desktop wintel revolution" that has 95 percent of the market right now is saturated and apple is going to be one of the early adopters of the hub and devices...they do not want to miss out on this one

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-17-2001 at 01:41 PM]
 
Servers

Apple have got good servers (At work we have 4 G4 DP800s) but they need BETTER ones, maybe rack mount.

I think we will see 1ghz iMacs
G5 PowerMacs
G4 Cube come back
New Servers
**Possibly a new Digital Device**

What about the London Expo?? May we see things there, its only 1 week away!

Guy
 
Back to the G4 vs G3 thing...

Sorry to reply so far down the thread but I've been busy,
The one thing that I think keeps the G4 alive is the altivec. Sure the clock speeds are lower, but I can't do serious video editing on a G3 because it can't render fast enough. I think that any sort of software based DVD encoding is also going to be completely out of the question for a G3 imac, unless it's done with a new hardware encoder built in to the future ones.
I just had to make a TV commercial on my G4 that had up to nine layers of video, and the render times were not even long enough to get up and stretch.
The G4 has definitely been lacking in scalability, but at this point that may be moot if the G5 is what people are saying it wil be.
The new iMac? iDVD will probably be a part of the high end machine so that means one of two things, either a G4 or a hardware encoder.
The desktops? G5's.
iBook? who knows.
tiBook? hmmm, G5 laptop with a CDR/DVD player? probably not, but it would be nice.
 
Yeah true it would all be irrelevent if the G5 is what it is meant to be.
the interesting thing now is what will happen to the G4.
The G4 cant go in an imac because:


If you think about it an average consumer doesnt need altivec.
An average consumer looks at Ghz.
The G4 doesnt scale well.
IBM G3 looks very promising scalability wise.

At the end of the day, whether the G4 is better at graphics or not it is just not what the consumer needs or looks for.
 
spikey>The G4 cant go in an imac because:

>If you think about it an average consumer doesnt need altivec.

*ahem*

Apple is targeting data-heavy stuff like video editing (iMovie, iDVD) and
audio (e.g. mp3 rippage in iTunes) at `average consumer'. Yes, these
consumers do indeed need altivec.


>An average consumer looks at Ghz.

... the average consumer is a tightass and won't pay the premium to fund
Apple's R&D of cool products anyway. So pandering to consumers by
sacrificing some important things for clockspeed is errant nonsense. It
will result in poorer performance for everyone and will make no difference
to the only lamers who give a toss about clockspeed anyway (the same
lamers who buy PCs based on how many dollars they pinch/dpi of
printer|scanner/how much (as opposed to `quality of' software is bundled
etc). A gigahertz iMac is fine at the top end, 600 mhz is fine for any
normal mortal.


>The G4 doesnt scale well.

The reports trickling in over the past few months sound okay as to the
7460's ceiling. I'd wager that moto's got it right with the 7460.


>IBM G3 looks very promising scalability wise.

so does the 7460.


>At the end of the day, whether the G4 is better at graphics or not

i'd have thought graphic performance was a video card thing. silly me.


> it is
just not what the consumer needs or looks for.

You need to think before you open your virtual mouth. Given that the G3
is very similar to the G4 (the G4 is nothing more than a G3 with Altivec
and beefier float) it's impossible to assert, as you do, that one is
indeed `what the consumer needs' and that the other isn't. And as I
pointed out above, the consumer indeed needs Altivec for Apple's media
convergence apps. So conceivably Apple could ship G3s w/Altivec, but extra
float is a bonus still (think: iPhoto, 3D gaming <-- real consumer
stuff). There's not much of a pricing delta between the two (and the delta
would be adequately compensated by the pros mentioned) so the only benefit
of G3 usage which emerges is its higher clockspeeds, only to be shot down
by the 7460's yields which are reportedly very strong at 1.33 ghz, well
beyond IBM's vaporware 750FX and with the float+altivec benefits mentioned
above.
 
this is interesting

joey,

spikey has comments i agree and disagree with and so do you (but both of you are very knowledgeable and sound like you are techs or at least techs in training) but we need to discuss the possibilities, sometimes without "thinking" because many of the most "outrageous" suggestions and comments on macrumors since its inception have come true

ipod predictions were shot down as ridiculous as well as cube predictions here and on other sites related to mac and IT...and those naysayers who predicted "slow movement" in the G4 were ostracized but they too ended up right

when it comes to guessing what apple, ibm, or motorola will do, the newbie's guess is just as valid as the guess of the IC engineer in san jose

either way, i like the G3, G4, and the "idea" of a G5 and 1GHz on one or more of these processors is important "sales-wise"
 
Originally posted by joey j
sweetaction> I doubt the G5s. They aren't far enough along yet.

The 8500 has been taped out for months now.


> They will need to have
those G5s be such a large step above the G4 to help push the sales.

I fail to see what relevance this point has with your previous point. The
only interpretation which constructs any sort of relevance is that you are
asserting that the G5 requires more development time. This makes no sense
given that the G5 is already taped out.


> Heck,
these G4s weren't as big of a jump as they should have been.

The G5's quota of technological advancement is independent of the G4's,
unless you can enlighten me further upon this.


> They jsut
look cooler.

(*rolls eyes*) Now you're becoming really abstract. You're either jumping
from processors in the past few paragraphs to commenting on Apple's
current case design, or you're admiring the actual G4 processor's
appearance (`look cooler') as opposed to the 7xx series (how all this
relates to the G5 is beyond me.)


>G4 = getting your feet wet in graphics, film, audio

>G5 = professionals

This is precisely the sort of fragmentation Jobs reduced straight off the
bat in 97, by reducing the profusion of product lines and eventually
forming the 2 x 2 matrix with which we are all by now comfortably
acquainted.

Second, your dividing `professionals' and amateurs (to me) counts as an
unnecessary division. Precisely how would the two sets of systems differ?
Surely the role to which you have ascribed the G4 could be shoehorned in
to either the `consumer' or `professional' side of the equation.
Click to expand...


Ahahaehhehe. Easy brotha. Whoever started this asked for ideas. I was rambling. Computers are not the biggest deal in the world. Heck, we may as well be talking about chicks or cars. This is all chit chat.
 
uuuh... and the point of this post was (notice the past tense)...MWSF. Create another post for these other rants.

I hope they will have Halo ready for SF.

 
jeez louise

lighten up, we try to post on topic but forums on the internet never stay directly on topic

...for exact topic related issues, buy scott mueller's 1500 page book, "Upgrading and Reparing PCs" and read it at least ten times (and yes, there is good stuff for mac techs...and this way, when you go to MWSF, you can cut through the ******** when non-techies state tech stats on performance!!!)
 
shut the f*ck up joey.

Firstly, the consumer doesnt need altivec if it means compromising speed in non-altivec appz. In altivec enabled appz then yes its fine, but in normal appz you might aswell have a G3.
and if you put a G4 instead of a G3 you will indeed be compromising performance. Aslong as you consider that IBMs G3 is at 1Ghz and has a 400Mhz bus, and going by the record of what the latest G4s are like the 7460 will be a weak excuse for upping the clock speed.


You are right the average consumer is a tight ass, so putting a G3 in an imac will cut on costs as opposed to putting a G4 in.
aswell as the fact that the G3 if anything else will sound faster to the average consumer.


From what you "hear" of the 7460???
From what i know of the past G4s/ the current G4 design, i can tell you that the G4 does not scale well. So what the hell makes you think the 7460 will???
because its at 1.33 Ghz???
that isnt an indication of scalability joey.


you know aswell as i do i meant Graphics appz not graphics, Stop trying to act like a smug little f*ckhead.

me stop opening my virtual mouth? then you stop talking out your virtual ass, f*ckhead.

what is the relevance of the similarity of the G3 & G4 compared to what the consumer needs???
Your talking ****
It doesnt matter how similar a chip is you can still make conclusions at what each chip is good at.

And as for IBMs vapourware???
tell me the G4 has a 400mhz bus and i will accept your statement.

And after all that tell me joey, who has a better track record over recent years. IBM or motorola?

Sure apples media appz are nice with a G4, but are the majority of consumer based appz altivec friendly??? no they are not you blind sh*t.
Is it easy to create an altivec enabled app???
no it is not D*ckhead.

So sh*thead, go and f*ck yourself over this when you read it. You will see that the majority of my statements are right, and your last post belongs in a cyber-bin.
If you dont see that then you are either stupid or blind, or probably both from what i can tell of your last post.
just be quiet.
 
Thats an interesting analysis jef.

It is true.
but alot of the wild predictions that have come true are really just pot luck guesses.
and just to go by pot luck is quite stupid.

sometimes though i think you have to accept that there are more than one way of looking at things. And the way to realsie this is to keep your own ideals whilst looking at the other opinion.
that way it is easy to analyse: why the other person thinks that way,
more interestingly it allows you to find out what the variable is in the debate ,that creates 2 opinions.

and what opinion the average person would take.




[Edited by spikey on 11-19-2001 at 12:38 PM]
 
i know we are not some rich pc comapny but

...both your idea spikey (fast regualr apps imac with 1+ GHz G3/400 MHz bus) and joey (G4 graphics apps imac) are both good ideas

...if apple had the money and time, which i don't know if they do,

then why not an entry imac at 1 GHz G3, second level imac with G4, and imac special edition with dual G4s...in the event that we don't get that LCD in MWSF

sure those numbers and ideas i post sound crazy but remember those pc guys are going to be at 2.5 GHz by january ans some speculate 3.7 GHz by the end of 2002 so my ideas are more suggestions to apple
 
re: pot luck guesses

i know there are guesses in things like the G4 following the G3 and 600 MHz imac following the 500 MHz imac...i will accept those as pot luck guesses and i agree with you there

but how did mac sites like ours and others guess the cube? there had to be a leak on that one

and how did those same sites on the internet come up with the exact name ipod...i would have accepted imp3, ipad, and even ipda or ipalm...but ipod...it sounds like a plant to me
 
True
but then there would be trouble if one processor doesnt scale fast enough.

but it would open up more options for the imac. Which is very useful seeing as the mac market is expanding and people want moer options.
 
oh yeah without doubt there were leaks.
But its what people assume from those leaks that really sounds like pot luck guesses.
 
dont know about keeping me coming back.
but it makes me get slightly p*ssed off.
 
that's the difference between you and me

i don't get pissed off now that i have this great heart medication for my old age...premature old age

and even if i desperately try to get the last word, being 6000 miles away, you always seem to have more posts than me!!!

[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-19-2001 at 12:53 PM]
 
hehe

I wont have more posts for much long

You are about to become the most prolific poster.
 
>Firstly, the consumer doesnt need altivec if it means compromising speed
in non-altivec appz.

So you'd advocate a 5% gain in performance in integer apps (say) so the
consumer has a 50% longer wait in iMovie? In any case you seem to pull
this from nowhere. Where is a G3 faster than a G4 of equal clockspeed?


> In altivec enabled appz then yes its fine, but in
normal appz you might aswell have a G3.

... so the question posed is `is there a significant enough mass of
altivec-enabled apps now/in the near future'. As I pointed out already,
yes there is.


> and if you put a G4 instead of a G3 you will indeed be compromising
performance.

Where?


> Aslong as you consider that IBMs G3 is at 1Ghz and has a 400Mhz bus, and
going by the record of what the latest G4s are like the 7460 will be a
weak excuse for upping the clock speed.

Pfffht. A 2.5x multiplier? The CPU would be the bottleneck. 266 would do
just fine.


>You are right the average consumer is a tight ass, so putting a G3 in an
imac will cut on costs as opposed to putting a G4 in.

Apple saves what, $20 bucks per unit? I've already pointed out the
benefits of stronger float and altivec. Don't tell me that's not worth the
extra ~$20.


> aswell as the fact that the G3 if anything else will sound faster to the
average consumer.

... assuming the G3 can ramp up to higher clockspeeds than the G4.


>From what you "hear" of the 7460??? From what i know of the past G4s/

Which apple no longer uses.


>the current G4 design, i can tell you that the G4 does not scale well.

... which is why Apple is looking at the 7460 for low power and high
clockspeeds.


> So what the hell makes you think the 7460 will???

... because if the 7460 _didn't_ scale upward well, Apple wouldn't be
interested in it, would they?


> because its at 1.33 Ghz??? that isnt an indication of scalability joey.

True, the _yields_ Moto is getting at 1.33 ghz is the indication of
scalability. Moto's minting 7460s now. I'd be greatly surprised if they
weren't.


>you know aswell as i do i meant Graphics appz not graphics,

1) no, i didn't.

2) graphics apps would be greatly accelerated with altivec and multiple
execution units due to the parallelism of the apps in question.


>what is the relevance of the similarity of the G3 & G4 compared to what
the consumer needs???

Your argument centers around Apple 1) saving a few bucks per unit so they
can forgo beefier float and altivec, both of which they need, as i've
pointed out repeatedly and 2) gaining higher clockspeeds which the 7460
can do anyway.


>It doesnt matter how similar a chip is you can still make conclusions at
what each chip is good at.

... the G4 is a G3 w/altivec and better float. So they're ~equal in
integer apps, the G4 wins in simd and float. (of course there's
caveats, the processor with more execution units might win parallel
computation, cache sizes, pipeline design etc.)


>And as for IBMs vapourware???

Erm, i don't see any reports of IBM minting the 750FX. Remember Moto
announced their high-clockspeed G4s long before Apple started using them.


>tell me the G4 has a 400mhz bus and i will accept your statement.

"An incarnation of the G4 architecture could conceivably run on a FSB
clocked at 400 MHz".

erm, i hate to tell you this, the `bus' is on the logic board, genius.
`400 MHz' is only one of the FSB speeds the processor can accept, and it's
probably the highest (marketeering goes here).


>And after all that tell me joey, who has a better track record over
recent years. IBM or motorola?

You're only as good as your last game so their `track records' are
irrelevant -- IBM hasn't produced any FXs for Apple and the 7460/8500
rumors are too conservative to be false, Apple wants them ASAP.


>Sure apples media appz are nice with a G4,

... and many of them are intended at consumers, so it follows that Altivec
is a desired feature.


> but are the majority of consumer based appz altivec friendly???

Should they be? iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, anything that involves the same
operation repeated ad infinitum. So Apple has an interest in SIMD units.


> no they are not you blind sh*t.

Pfffht, Apple NEEDS altivec in the consumer machines if their consumer
apps (theirs and third-party) _can_ be vector-optimized. As I've already
pointed out repeatedly, YES, there is plenty of scope for altivec
enhancement (re examples above).


>Is it easy to create an altivec enabled app??? no it is not D*ckhead.

Altivec enabled apps can be developed in C. Lots of developers use CW for
example, its compiler works fine w/altivec.

Or you could try a vectorizing compiler. I don't know if one exists
though.

In any case it's easier than SSE/SSE-2.


>that the majority of my statements are right,

And precisely which statements of yours would they be?
 
What I think SHOULD be at MWSF2002...

...not what I think will be, since there is NO way to know that. (And expecting wonderful things at a MWExpo can be hazardous to one's emotional health.)

a) Redesigned iMac. Really should include a larger monitor of at least 17", LCD or CRT. It is loooooong overdue to bury this 15" crap.

b) More X-compatible apps, like FCP and Photoshop.

c) At least 7460s, if not 8500s, in all new "professional" boxes. It is time we broke the GHz clock speed barrier, whether or not it makes a significant, real-world difference.

d) DDR-RAM mobos.

e) 1394b.

f) ATA-100 in iMacs, ATA-133 in higher-end models.

g) Geforce3 standard in all higher-end Macs, Geforce2 or Radeon in iMacs.

h) Audio-in (again).

i) Minor revisions to the laptop line, including:
1- speed-bumps (yes, again);
2- better graphics acceleration options;
3- fix that keyboard problem in the iBooks;

I believe all of the above are overdue, and none should fail to make their debut this upcoming January. Of course, I felt that way about many of these things this past July, and look where that got me.

Oh... one more thing, and not from Apple: trans-500MHz G4 upgrades for older Macs. I think it is long past the time for 700 and 800MHz G4 upgrades to be made available.
 
Joey...

...let me commend you on your patience with Spikey. You didn't lower yourself once to respond with the same crudeness he used in his posts. I'm not sure I agree (or understand) with everything you posted, but nothing of yours that I read deserved that kind of a response.

Now if you were in here laying out flame bait because you had nothing else more interesting going on in your life, then I could understand his anger (altho a post laden with profanity is STILL the wrong way to go because it gives the flame-baiter exactly what he wants).

Let's stick to informative, constructive discussion folks. If someone's wrong or you think they are, gently state your case to them and ask them why they feel the way they do. But unless they're barbarians, no one deserves to be verbally raped.
 
For all the G3 vs G4 talk in here...

....let's not forget one thing: whether or not the consumer "needs" altivec to accelerate their most-used apps is irrelevant. They need it to accelerate OS X's quartz drawing engine. That OS is drenched with eye candy and needs all the help it can get to run well.

I say at least 7410s for the consumer boxes, as soon as higher-end G4s (or G5s) are available for the professional/server markets.
 
G4 in iMac = fan?

Hi all,

I'm not sure you could run a G4 in an iMac without a fan. Does anybody know how warm the iMac case gets with a G3? Yes, I realize that more heat comes from the CRT, but the airflow is caused by the temp differential between the motherboard and the tube.

I really don't think the economy is ready for an LCD iMac. I would hope more for a 17" iMac. Or, though I doubt it would happen, a smaller, G3-based cube at $600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back