i really hope that apple just tosses motorola at MWSF and gets with the program. moto isnt cutting it. plain and simple. and as for everyone that buys mac's for software well yes, and its good enough for video editing and artwork and all. But i cant afford having a apple for doing all that suff and being on most of the time and then a pc just for gaming. If apple were to adopt AMD or IBM's new chip macintosh gaming may be more competitive then there would be no need for me to want a pc. Pretty much i can live with apples speed in internet browsing, photoshop, and generaly launching applications ect but when it comes to gaming apple isnt good, and it may be a little software on the part but mostly i think its the processor speed and the bus speed. I love OS X and hate windows but i do want the speed and it may not be essential for everyone. I have 896 ram and a GF4TI added onto my G4 533mhz DP. The gaming still isnt very good. I guess im just praying for the AMD chip and if that fails im hoping for the IBM chip. If apple has the speed advantage there should be more people switching to mac's and then that would lead to more hardware for macs, more software, and apple would then profit and the prices would drop. Apple and os x could beat pc's and windows by using a 64bit chip and taking the lead.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PowerMac RoadMap Past and Future
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Rumor Vs. Fact
Actually, I believe you're wrong. The chart from moto detailing the "Generations" of their processors has been shown on various mac sites over the last two years. G1-G2 were the 601-604 series processors shown in the original "Power Macintosh" beige boxes. G3s - as defined by moto - were the PPC 750, PPC 740, PPC 745, and PPC 755 processors in PowerMac G3s, iMacs, etc (although IBM also makes G3s for these machines. I am unsure of which manufacturer's G3s were in which machines). G4s are the 7xxx series of processors by Moto, and G5s are the 8xxx processors. I often talk to people using Moto PowerPC chips in their embedded markets - for instance, engine controllers - who refer to specific processors as G3 series chips.
"G-X" is not an apple classificiation, it is a classification for PPC processor families. Look at the chart here. It is dated Nov 11, 2002 and is therefore a bit dated, but it does plainly display Motorola's naming structure.
Actually, I believe you're wrong. The chart from moto detailing the "Generations" of their processors has been shown on various mac sites over the last two years. G1-G2 were the 601-604 series processors shown in the original "Power Macintosh" beige boxes. G3s - as defined by moto - were the PPC 750, PPC 740, PPC 745, and PPC 755 processors in PowerMac G3s, iMacs, etc (although IBM also makes G3s for these machines. I am unsure of which manufacturer's G3s were in which machines). G4s are the 7xxx series of processors by Moto, and G5s are the 8xxx processors. I often talk to people using Moto PowerPC chips in their embedded markets - for instance, engine controllers - who refer to specific processors as G3 series chips.
"G-X" is not an apple classificiation, it is a classification for PPC processor families. Look at the chart here. It is dated Nov 11, 2002 and is therefore a bit dated, but it does plainly display Motorola's naming structure.
lmalave
macrumors 68000
Re: Re: Re: speed isn't everything
Umm...do you have any data to back up your figures at all? Any at all? From the Yahoo! Finance page for Apple:
"For the fiscal year ended 09/28/02, revenues rose 7% to $5.74 billion. Net income before acct. change totaled $65 million vs. a loss of $37 million. Revenues reflect an increase in shipments of Macintosh units. Net income also reflects higher gross margins."
Those are the fiscal year totals, and here's the breakdown by quarter:
Jun 29, 2002: $1,429,000,000
Mar 30, 2002: $1,495,000,000
Dec 29, 2001: $1,375,000,000
Sep 29, 2001: $1,450,000,000
Lets see, Mac sales are flat or slightly up for the past year...PC sales are flat or slightly down...therefore the Mac's overall share of computers sold should be flat or slightly up! These are HARD numbers. In the current post-Worldcom, post-Enron environment, I would say Apple wouldn't be messing around with revenue numbers, so it's pretty reliable data. So don't go throwing around your ridiculous 2% number with absolutely no basis for backing it up. Apple is doing just fine considering the global PC sales slowdown, thank you.
Umm...do you have any data to back up your figures at all? Any at all? From the Yahoo! Finance page for Apple:
"For the fiscal year ended 09/28/02, revenues rose 7% to $5.74 billion. Net income before acct. change totaled $65 million vs. a loss of $37 million. Revenues reflect an increase in shipments of Macintosh units. Net income also reflects higher gross margins."
Those are the fiscal year totals, and here's the breakdown by quarter:
Jun 29, 2002: $1,429,000,000
Mar 30, 2002: $1,495,000,000
Dec 29, 2001: $1,375,000,000
Sep 29, 2001: $1,450,000,000
Lets see, Mac sales are flat or slightly up for the past year...PC sales are flat or slightly down...therefore the Mac's overall share of computers sold should be flat or slightly up! These are HARD numbers. In the current post-Worldcom, post-Enron environment, I would say Apple wouldn't be messing around with revenue numbers, so it's pretty reliable data. So don't go throwing around your ridiculous 2% number with absolutely no basis for backing it up. Apple is doing just fine considering the global PC sales slowdown, thank you.
Keep in mind that iMacs, PBs and eMacs still use G4s and soon the iBook should. So while moto won't be top dog they still have product for Apple unless IBM can give the G3 altivec or scale down the 970.
MacCoaster
macrumors 6502a
"A lot" of BSD stuff under-the-hood? Not that much as some people make it out to be.
Why is XP designed for idiotic consumers? Explain. Could one say the same for Mac OS X? [voice of john doe]Well geee, the aqua is cool, and uh... it's "pretty," and so "easy to use."[/voice] Isn't ease of use designed to accomodate the "idiots" you mention who can't get his way around in MOTIF on a Linux box?
XP has been much more stable than 2000 for me and way faster, even with the Luna theme.
Microsoft uses the BSD networking stack (which any true network hardware/OS should have). Yep, they did this legally, just like Mac OS X "stole" the BSD subsystem.
That's the only thing I know that they use from BSD. It remains in Windows XP and Longhorn. It's a part of the NT kernel series (since NT first came on the market).
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Re: speed isn't everything
There is also much more of a compelling speed gap for PC users to upgrade their 2-3 year old boxes. Their processors Mhz leap in the past year is bigger than the G4's actual speed.
I'm not buying a new mac until my beige G3 dies. There are no compelling reasons for me to. Certainly I'd like a new machine, but mine's tricked out enough (and hidden from view), so much that I never notice how "slow" it is. Shame on me. Attitudes like mine will be the downfall of Apple.... - j
There is also much more of a compelling speed gap for PC users to upgrade their 2-3 year old boxes. Their processors Mhz leap in the past year is bigger than the G4's actual speed.
I'm not buying a new mac until my beige G3 dies. There are no compelling reasons for me to. Certainly I'd like a new machine, but mine's tricked out enough (and hidden from view), so much that I never notice how "slow" it is. Shame on me. Attitudes like mine will be the downfall of Apple.... - j
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Re: Re: Re: Quicksilver G4 DP 1 GHz
... and dual 1.25 gHz g4's don't handle this stuff well enough?
... and dual 1.25 gHz g4's don't handle this stuff well enough?
MacCoaster
macrumors 6502a
Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicksilver G4 DP 1 GHz
Edit: notice, that's a dual 1.25 GHz against a single Pentium 4 3.06 GHz.
Not as well as many Pentium 4s and Athlons. In fact, in some cases, twice as slow (Mac Slaughtered Again...).
Edit: notice, that's a dual 1.25 GHz against a single Pentium 4 3.06 GHz.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
New stuff for a new generation of processors
I think one poster made a lot of sense when he quoted an article explaining the market dynamics in place now. Let's face it: _most_ of the stuff a person does on their computer is easily handled by 75% or more computers out there-- Apple included. In fact, it's never been better to own a Mac than right now.
The personal computer needs to evolve, and it will. The things people are going to use their computers for in the near future is dynamic data manipulation and display. In other words, we will be streaming music, video, and other data all over the world. We'll need pipelines for that to happen, but we'll also need computers to keep up with that. In the mean time, the average computer's computational speed will increase to a point where they can crunch the data being dynamically streamed and do things with it. Think of this like the days of "Doom", the game. No hardware accelerated graphics. New uses for computers will drive sales, as 3D did for graphics boards and faster CPU's.
Pretty soon, our computers will probably be composed of a combination of advanced parallel RISC processors and a Quantum/organic CPU. Both will handle what they are each good at, with the use of a good traffic cop chip.
I don't mean to get too philosophical, but Apple is not hurting. They need to speed up the GUI, for sure, but it isn't that bad. They will sell more computers by enabling new types of uses and practices on their computers. In the mean time, Microsoft will be elmintaing them. It's a good time to learn some new skills, cause in 10 years the computing landscape is really going to change.
Let's face it. I spend more time waiting for my Hard Drives or myself than I do on my CPU's.
I think one poster made a lot of sense when he quoted an article explaining the market dynamics in place now. Let's face it: _most_ of the stuff a person does on their computer is easily handled by 75% or more computers out there-- Apple included. In fact, it's never been better to own a Mac than right now.
The personal computer needs to evolve, and it will. The things people are going to use their computers for in the near future is dynamic data manipulation and display. In other words, we will be streaming music, video, and other data all over the world. We'll need pipelines for that to happen, but we'll also need computers to keep up with that. In the mean time, the average computer's computational speed will increase to a point where they can crunch the data being dynamically streamed and do things with it. Think of this like the days of "Doom", the game. No hardware accelerated graphics. New uses for computers will drive sales, as 3D did for graphics boards and faster CPU's.
Pretty soon, our computers will probably be composed of a combination of advanced parallel RISC processors and a Quantum/organic CPU. Both will handle what they are each good at, with the use of a good traffic cop chip.
I don't mean to get too philosophical, but Apple is not hurting. They need to speed up the GUI, for sure, but it isn't that bad. They will sell more computers by enabling new types of uses and practices on their computers. In the mean time, Microsoft will be elmintaing them. It's a good time to learn some new skills, cause in 10 years the computing landscape is really going to change.
Let's face it. I spend more time waiting for my Hard Drives or myself than I do on my CPU's.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quicksilver G4 DP 1 GHz
To be more specific on that: It's a combination of several computer components that adds up to the speed. I need to be able to manipulate high density NURB or 100K+ Polygon based models in real time with 32 bit textures, composited. Now, a high end work station will do this with the use of a graphics card, but I'm asking for everything on my mac, selfishly.
I have a Quicksilver DP 1 Ghz, and not many complaints. My whole thread on the subject was to point out that it would take a lot of extra horsepower to get me to upgrade (and that it won't be here for a LONG time.)
To be more specific on that: It's a combination of several computer components that adds up to the speed. I need to be able to manipulate high density NURB or 100K+ Polygon based models in real time with 32 bit textures, composited. Now, a high end work station will do this with the use of a graphics card, but I'm asking for everything on my mac, selfishly.
I have a Quicksilver DP 1 Ghz, and not many complaints. My whole thread on the subject was to point out that it would take a lot of extra horsepower to get me to upgrade (and that it won't be here for a LONG time.)
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Everyone who wants to buy a Mac keeps saying, "I need more speed!" And all the Mac loyalists reply, "You don't really need more speed, do you?"
I have to say, both sides have a point. So I have a compromise: Until Apple has a respectable CPU inside its Power Macs, it should cut the prices of the Power Macs in half. $1699 for an entry-level dual-867MHz machine is just crrrrazy.
I have to say, both sides have a point. So I have a compromise: Until Apple has a respectable CPU inside its Power Macs, it should cut the prices of the Power Macs in half. $1699 for an entry-level dual-867MHz machine is just crrrrazy.
damnit that 3 ghz machine's buss speed and memory speed is 533mhz, my processor is 533mhz, ouch! =[
Re: speed isn't everything
Actually, the 2% number is not that ridiculous. According the Apple's fourth quarter results, Apple shipped 734,000 macs worldwide, down 14% from the year ago quarter.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021016/sfw121_1.html
For the same quarter, about 30 million PC's were shipped worldwide, according to Gartner Dataquest's.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-962423.html
That makes Apples worldwide marketshare 2.44%, in the last quarter. The CNET article later mentions that Apple's US marketshare dropped from 4.3% to 3.8%.
But amazingly the company makes money.
Actually, the 2% number is not that ridiculous. According the Apple's fourth quarter results, Apple shipped 734,000 macs worldwide, down 14% from the year ago quarter.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021016/sfw121_1.html
For the same quarter, about 30 million PC's were shipped worldwide, according to Gartner Dataquest's.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-962423.html
That makes Apples worldwide marketshare 2.44%, in the last quarter. The CNET article later mentions that Apple's US marketshare dropped from 4.3% to 3.8%.
But amazingly the company makes money.
Hey
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by arn
Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF
arn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some educated guessing...
AGP 8x
FireWire 2
...and some other stuff
@MWT
-J763
_________________________________________________________
well what i think arn meant here was that thier would be little or no CPU updates, but a few major iapp updates in place of them.
I could be wrong though 🙂
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by arn
Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF
arn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some educated guessing...
AGP 8x
FireWire 2
...and some other stuff
@MWT
-J763
_________________________________________________________
well what i think arn meant here was that thier would be little or no CPU updates, but a few major iapp updates in place of them.
I could be wrong though 🙂
Don't be disappointed, 1.3 ghz is not a likely outcome since the current 1.25 ghz Macs clock very successfully right now to a stable 1.33 ghz and will run (with very limited stability) at 1.5ghz.
I own a DP 1.25 ghz @ DP 1.33ghz and have been using it for many weeks now. A very nice Mac indeed.
My prediction/expectation is for Apple to release a DP 1.5ghz by end of Feb 2003.
Frobozz
macrumors demi-god
Re: Re: speed isn't everything
Well, units shipped and units in use is a different story. If you count units in use, the Macintosh accounts for closer to 10% of world-wide systems in use. I've seen this figure posted on various sites with data to back it up. While they only shipped 2.x% in a given quarter, people keep macs over twice as long as they keep a PC. This is mostly because PC's are made of cheap commodity hardware and not very upgradable.
Well, units shipped and units in use is a different story. If you count units in use, the Macintosh accounts for closer to 10% of world-wide systems in use. I've seen this figure posted on various sites with data to back it up. While they only shipped 2.x% in a given quarter, people keep macs over twice as long as they keep a PC. This is mostly because PC's are made of cheap commodity hardware and not very upgradable.
well
I personallty think PC's are quite upgradeable, but who cares if it's not a mac 🙂
PowerBook G4 1 GHZ
I personallty think PC's are quite upgradeable, but who cares if it's not a mac 🙂
PowerBook G4 1 GHZ
MacCoaster
macrumors 6502a
Upgradability
eMac, iMac, Cube = very un-upgradeable.
Besides, I just ordered a 1.73 GHz AMD Athlon XP to upgrade my aging 1.4 GHz Tbird--that's a 25% clock increase--for $79! All I have to do is pop it in and reboot. The G4? $699! Jesus. I could replace my graphics card to put in a GF4 Ti4600. I could replace every damn thing in my PC. And oh, my hardware ain't cheap. 1 GB worth of the best DDR RAM from Corsair, a nice processor, one of the best 3COM ethernet cards, one of the best ASUS motherboards ever, super-reliable and quiet Seagate harddrives, and so on.
WTF. Not very upgradeable?
eMac, iMac, Cube = very un-upgradeable.
Besides, I just ordered a 1.73 GHz AMD Athlon XP to upgrade my aging 1.4 GHz Tbird--that's a 25% clock increase--for $79! All I have to do is pop it in and reboot. The G4? $699! Jesus. I could replace my graphics card to put in a GF4 Ti4600. I could replace every damn thing in my PC. And oh, my hardware ain't cheap. 1 GB worth of the best DDR RAM from Corsair, a nice processor, one of the best 3COM ethernet cards, one of the best ASUS motherboards ever, super-reliable and quiet Seagate harddrives, and so on.
Re: Upgradability
Don't put the Cube in there with "un-upgradable".
My Cube is a DP 500mhz, 8MB cache HD, G Force 3 graphics with 1.5 GB RAM.
Eventually I'll go DP 1ghz when the CPU prices come down.
Don't put the Cube in there with "un-upgradable".
My Cube is a DP 500mhz, 8MB cache HD, G Force 3 graphics with 1.5 GB RAM.
Eventually I'll go DP 1ghz when the CPU prices come down.