PowerPC RoadMap from Motorola

[zync]

The ibook will stay a G4 intill G6 comes out. They will make the powerbook a 2.5 Ghz+ G5. I am only taking the G4 intill G6 perdiction because when the G5 came out ibook G4's came out. With the powerbook G5's we will see a 20" screen.

Where are you coming up with this? Tell me you're joking. I hope you're at least being sarcastic. The iBook may stay a G4 if this FreeScale deal comes about, however it will most likely move to the upper end G4's and then transition into older G5's. The PowerBook may get a FreeScale G4 but I'd bet they're going to put next gen G5's in it. A 20" screen? NO ONE want's to carry something that huge around. The 17" is big enough as it is...adding three more inches (even though it's measured diagonally) would make it far to big for many bags and everything. Unless however you suppose the OLED research Apple put money into will come to fruition and they'll put some of them into the PowerBook's and have it expand off a roller or something. I'm not exactly sure why they haven't bothered to put in OLED displays into their laptops. They're cheaper, require less power, and can have a much higher resolution due to the fact that they can be layered instead of having to have transistors for sub-pixels.

 

[sjk]

Where are you coming up with this? Tell me you're joking. I hope you're at least being sarcastic.

A "perdiction" like quagmire's surely can't be taken seriously "intill" there's more evidence.

 

[thatwendigo]

I've got to admit that I love ideas circulating around concerning a modular design that would allow a new Mac to be AIO - but would also allow it to be a stand alone unit. I agree that the iMac has reached the end of the line. The original G3 iMac was a brilliant design and necessary to the Mac's rejuvenation. The FP iMac was even more brilliant, but I really think the AIO has it the wall (although there may be a market for another LCD AIO to replace the eMac to the education market).

I have to confess that you've got me on terminology, and I hate to do that.

What do you mean by AIO? Is it anything like the idea I floated a while back, by any chance?

I hadn't been aware of that before now, but it looks an awful lot like something my dad and I used to talk about. Eventually, we think that home users will all be using a sort of modular system for their needs. It could even work pretty well in certain kinds of businesses.

IBM and a few others are working on designs that are pretty close to what we envisioned a few years ago. Basically, you have a central unit with your main drive, processor, RAM, and so on, where your work and personal stuff would stay. Then, there are form-factor units that you'd slot the module into - desktops, laptops, palmtops... It'd only be limited by what the engineers could squeeze into the space. Taking a lesson from the Sun server idea, though, you'd also have auxilliary modules. Slottable drives, extra RAM, and so on in high-badnwidth external units.

So, say that you had a single processor personal module, with 1 GB of RAM, a 250GB drive, and a low-end graphics card. It serves pretty well at home, and runs your laptop shell, too. When you're at work, though, you can drop it into your eight-processor, 20 GB RAM, 2 TB disk array system, so that your workflow is defined by your already-established preferences, and a hard-coded data lock for business users keeps you from taking any of it home.

Far fetched?

IBM's got working prototypes as we speak, and Sun does the drive/RAM/processor module in servers. It's just a matter of time before someone shrinks it.

As I like to keep reminding people: Think Different.

I'm optimistic for the future, though I feel that Apple needs to be able to offer better options on their low-end. And there's a need for better video cards across the lineup. I realize this is not Apple's fault, but they should be more proactive in getting essential hardware developed for the platform.

They're working on it, and I think we might have some pleasant surprises in the near future. The eMac is pretty competitive for the price, though it's no performance hog, and the new PowerBooks have top-of-the-line GPUs with the option to go 128MB on the VRAM. That's definitely an improvement over previous generations.

I still have my fingers crossed in hope that we'll see either the NV6800 or Wildcats and FireGLs demoed at WWDC.

 

[Phinius]

Well they could do it, but I'm just thinking that the incentive for them to do it is small. They want to turn a profit. To me it seems that they would profit more by working on the 970 family, and in my opinion the fact they stuck to 512k L2 at 90nm shows that they want to make it attractive to lower-end machines.

Your probably right that IBM was aiming for lower-end computers when it left the L2 cache at 512Kb. There is also the possbility that IBM is concentrating on shrinking the size of the processor in order to move it to a dual or triple core in the near future.

The size of the 750FX chip being 62mm2, and the rumor of 3 processors in the Xbox2, led me to calculate the possibity of another substantial shrink at 65-nm, with a triple-core chip using only 1MB of shared L2 cache. That would make a chip that is about the same size and power use as the 970 at 130-nm. Whether that would even be intended for Apple's market is another matter. Yet, consider the possiblities for Apple if they would use two of these chips in a computer box. That would be six processors and a whole lot of performance for servers or PowerMacs, which would certainly help justify the higher prices that Apple charges. Plus, it's overall processor power use would probably not be any higher than what the dual 2GHz PowerMacs are right now. Could it be that Apple was anticipating something like that when it made a bigger PowerMac box with 9 fans in it?

Yeah the way its looking, Intel is gona be hard pressed to do anything useful with P4's. I'm thinking that you'll be seeing Intel chips that look something like A64, in the future.

In the near future Intel intends to only use 64-bit Xeon or Itanium processors in servers, the desktop will remain 32-bit. Intel seems to have plans to use the Pentium 4 at least through 2005 and it should be into the 5 Ghz range by early 2005.

Sure it'll be faster than a current G4, but this appears to be the same core as we've had for the past couple years, so lets not expect miracles. Its not exactly advanced, practically an in-order processor, sporting just a single unit capable of doing double-precision floating point math. If I were to characterize the estimated performance boost of this e600, I'd say "from 0% to 50%". I couldn't see much a boost in, for example, code that was mostly bottlenecked on double-precision float math. That sort of thing will definately continue to be the G5's stomping grounds.

A dual-core e600 (G4) would have two double-precision floating point units, one on each processor. The 970FX would definitely be faster on single threaded apps clock-per-clock. But, with dual threaded applications the G5 would probably have to be at a higher frequency than the e600's topend 2GHz. The higher costs associated with the G5s memory subsystem is another drawback compared to the e600. Then there is the problem of higher power use for the G5 compared to a dual-core e600. The greater watt use should make it tougher to get the higher performing G5s into a small box than it would for a dual-core e600 chip.

Having a less advanced processor has advantages. The G4 uses less watts per Mhz on the same process size compared to the G5 and due to that it's much easier to put two of them on one chip and still maintain a reasonable watt usage. A dual-core e600 chip running at a top speed of 2GHz would probably only use about 35 watts. Compare that to the 25 watts that a single 2GHz 970FX uses.

Intel plans on putting more than two Itanium cores on one chip and they are evidently going to use a less advanced Itanium core to keep the power use down. Sun also plans to do something similar and the company terms it throughput computing. Rather than a high performance uni-processor using a high amount of watts, put several less advanced processors together on one chip. IBM's Blue Gene project to create a supercomputer in a small box uses the less advanced PowerPC SOC processor that runs at 500MHz. They were able to cram lots of processors in a very small space with a much smaller power use per performance. Less advanced processors are slower for use as a uniprocessor, but they are also much more efficient for power use/performance.

 

[thatwendigo]

Ah yes, but as you recall my point was that simply adding cache to an existing design does not make it high-performance, which was what "Mr. MacPhisto" claimed about the Pentium M some posts ago. So we are agreeing, it seems.

No, I don't think he did, though he did say that the added cache would certainly help the design. Basically, the VX and the e600 look like different takes on making a new version of the older processors. One uses the 750 core, the other the 74xx core, and both increase the cache in order to work around lower FSBs.

However, I will readily agree that merely adding cache will not fix the performance problems. The P4EE is not all that much faster than the regular P4, just to name the most obvious example.

Well they could do it, but I'm just thinking that the incentive for them to do it is small. They want to turn a profit. To me it seems that they would profit more by working on the 970 family, and in my opinion the fact they stuck to 512k L2 at 90nm shows that they want to make it attractive to lower-end machines.

The 970 is a poor choice for lower-end, at least at this stage in its development. I don't think it's really meant as more than a stopgap measure that will become the low end within a year, as the new Power5 and PPC 980 chips are rolled out. When the bigger boys are out to play, then it might see a drop in price that would make it more appealing farther down.

Hmmm well I guess its not impossible that the processor could support two different FSB modes. That would be a clever trick.

I wouldn't put it past IBM to be capable of doing it, either.

I'd put a lot of emphasis on some there. If there's one thing time has shown me, its that people always overestimate the performance of the "next big thing". Sure it'll be faster than a current G4, but this appears to be the same core as we've had for the past couple years, so lets not expect miracles. Its not exactly advanced, practically an in-order processor, sporting just a single unit capable of doing double-precision floating point math. If I were to characterize the estimated performance boost of this e600, I'd say "from 0% to 50%". I couldn't see much a boost in, for example, code that was mostly bottlenecked on double-precision float math. That sort of thing will definately continue to be the G5's stomping grounds.

The e700, though...

As with the 970, I think that the e600 is the stopgap to hold people until the bigger, badder chips (or is that smaller?) show up and start kicking ass. The e600 strikes me as an embedded solution that is supposed to appeal to people who already use the G4, while the e700 will be working towards new applications of the technology.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

AIO = All-in-One like the iMacs, eMacs, and Mac Classics, etc.

I've seen a couple concepts designed by Macheads that were pretty cool. Essentially, the new cinema displays would be able to attach directly to the iMac replacement so they would act like an AIO. You'd only need to push one button to power it on - basically attaching to the back of the machine with an ADC connector.

 

[thatwendigo]

AIO = All-in-One like the iMacs, eMacs, and Mac Classics, etc.

I've seen a couple concepts designed by Macheads that were pretty cool. Essentially, the new cinema displays would be able to attach directly to the iMac replacement so they would act like an AIO. You'd only need to push one button to power it on - basically attaching to the back of the machine with an ADC connector.

Actually... Yeah.

That does sound pretty interesting, though I'm not sure what you'd use the detachable screen for without there being something like 802.11z (with 10GB/s bandwidth) and and embedded graphics chip to speed handling of the data and/or cache the reusable elements. What's the point of a detachable screen?

Let me guess... It's the headless iMac crowd again.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Actually... Yeah.

That does sound pretty interesting, though I'm not sure what you'd use the detachable screen for without there being something like 802.11z (with 10GB/s bandwidth) and and embedded graphics chip to speed handling of the data and/or cache the reusable elements. What's the point of a detachable screen?

Let me guess... It's the headless iMac crowd again.

Yes and no. The LCD display would be the new Apple Cinema display - but it could attach to these modular Macs. They'd be more than just a headless iMac; they'd be able to be upgraded fairly easily and would function with another display as well. The attachable display would serve those who want to save space and have everything in one package - but that would be only one option.

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy with a redesigned version of the G4 Tower (MDD) that's smaller but has an AGP 8x slot, PCI slots, etc. I wouldn't push for PCI-X or PCI Express on the low-end. A minitower G5. The problem is it would require extra slots on the new PowerMacs to give them much more versatility and expandability.

If I were head of design of Apple, here's what I'd do:

1. Offer the PowerMacs with only dual processors. If the chips arrive on schedule, I'd offer dual 2.5 and 3 GHZ G5 machines with PCI-Express, etc. These machine would also run quietly and have all the heat monitors, etc like the present PowerMacs. I'd hope to find a way to increase the amount of expansion slots as well. I think a tower should have 5 slots + the AGP slot. I'd also hope for high-end memory (dual channel DDR533 is available, I believe. haven't kept up with memory). Maybe the possibility of putting another optical drive in the case or up to 4 internal hard drives.

2. Offer a single chip G5 machine in a stylistic, though less sophisticated case (like the G4 casing - or a small aluminum case). If this machine had high speed expansion slots, it would have to be limited. It'd have an AGP slot and 3 expansion slots. It'd also feature slower memory (DDR400). May also not be Serial ATA hard drives. With those limitations, I could see offering single 2GHZ and 2.5GHZ G5s. Maybe it's not all that realistic. If a Moto option becomes availabe, maybe a new G4 also is available on the low-end (with a different logic board, etc of course).

3. iBooks and PowerBooks stay basically the same. If the dual-core G4s become available sooner rather than later (if at all) I could see those in the PowerBooks at higher speeds with single-core G4s in the iBooks. Faster memory and video cards in the PowerBooks.

4. A new version of the eMac with an LCD screen - but without an arm. These would have G4s. My guess would be single-core, though it'd be awesome to see dual core G4s in a desktop solution. USB and Firewire access on the front. I wish Apple would develop a way to save the LCD and move it to a new machine in the future though. That's what I hate about AIO; once the machine becomes obsolete you lose the screen with it.

I'd like to see more VRAM as an option across the lineups, like what they're doing on the 15 and 17 inch PBs.

 

[thatwendigo]

Yes and no. The LCD display would be the new Apple Cinema display - but it could attach to these modular Macs. They'd be more than just a headless iMac; they'd be able to be upgraded fairly easily and would function with another display as well. The attachable display would serve those who want to save space and have everything in one package - but that would be only one option.

Okay, so I think we have a different set of reference for "headless iMac," since the people who I repeatedly denegreate with the term are the ones who want some mini-tower mac. I'm against the idea for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being that it still won't be price-performance competitive with the PC world at the same form factor. Single G5s are nice, but they're going to get killed by cheap PC manufacturers packaging Athlon 64s and P4 3.4s.

In general, most of the people I refer to as the "headless iMac crowd" want a machine with a graphics card slot, PCI and/or PCI-X, and other aspects that are not traditional parts of the iMac line. It really does boil down to "I'm cheap and I want a G5, gimme," in most cases.

Of course, I'd be perfectly happy with a redesigned version of the G4 Tower (MDD) that's smaller but has an AGP 8x slot, PCI slots, etc. I wouldn't push for PCI-X or PCI Express on the low-end. A minitower G5. The problem is it would require extra slots on the new PowerMacs to give them much more versatility and expandability.

No... I think that you could make a pretty good case that, were Apple to go the way of he low-end G5 (and I hate the idea, unless it's done along certain lines), that the pro line could be pretty easily differentiated.

I want the iMac as it exists to be dead, anyways. But in it's place, if you really have to have this low-end G5, the desktop line ought to look like this:

eMac - 1.33/1.5ghz, 256/512MB PC2700 RAM, 60/80GB PATA 7200 RPM, Combo/Superdrive, Radeon 9200 64MB, $799/$999

cMac (3 PCI-X, 1 AGP 8x, 1 Optical, 2 HDs, i.e. Current Towers)
-- 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB, $1399
-- 2.5ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 120GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 XT 128MB, $1799
-- 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800XT 256MB, $2,199

PowerMac (3 PCI-X, 2 PCI Extreme, 1 AGP 8x, 4 HDs with SATA RAID or 2 Optical - Deepen the chasis, add four more fans midbay)
-- Dual 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 7200, SuperDrive, NV6800 128MB, $1,999
-- Dual 2.5ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, NV6800 128MB, $2,499
-- Dual 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 120GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, NV6800 256MB, $2,999

The downsides: Almost certainly a cut in margins.

The upsides: Holy ****! Who's going to top the pro line in performance-to-value? If this doesn't grow pro marketshare, then there's something wrong with the buyers.

1. Offer the PowerMacs with only dual processors. If the chips arrive on schedule, I'd offer dual 2.5 and 3 GHZ G5 machines with PCI-Express, etc. These machine would also run quietly and have all the heat monitors, etc like the present PowerMacs. I'd hope to find a way to increase the amount of expansion slots as well. I think a tower should have 5 slots + the AGP slot. I'd also hope for high-end memory (dual channel DDR533 is available, I believe. haven't kept up with memory). Maybe the possibility of putting another optical drive in the case or up to 4 internal hard drives.

I've long been a proponent of the all-dual pro line, so I'm fully with you on that. Also, looking into prices on dual-channel PC4200 RAM (DDR533), you can get a double-stick kit from major vendors for around $280 retail. Looks like that's going to be what comes next on the other side of the fence.

3. iBooks and PowerBooks stay basically the same. If the dual-core G4s become available sooner rather than later (if at all) I could see those in the PowerBooks at higher speeds with single-core G4s in the iBooks. Faster memory and video cards in the PowerBooks.

Agreed on all points.

I wish Apple would develop a way to save the LCD and move it to a new machine in the future though. That's what I hate about AIO; once the machine becomes obsolete you lose the screen with it.

It's not really an all-in-one, at that point, though. It kind of defeats the purpose and you might as well buy a mini-ATX machine.

I'd like to see more VRAM as an option across the lineups, like what they're doing on the 15 and 17 inch PBs.

I think this is coming, actually, if the PowerBooks are at all an indication.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Okay, so I think we have a different set of reference for "headless iMac," since the people who I repeatedly denegreate with the term are the ones who want some mini-tower mac. I'm against the idea for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being that it still won't be price-performance competitive with the PC world at the same form factor. Single G5s are nice, but they're going to get killed by cheap PC manufacturers packaging Athlon 64s and P4 3.4s.

Apple could match them, I think, if they decided to go the way of using off-the-shelf cases, etc - though the motherboard is an issue because Apple has to design and have it built. The biggest question is can they get a minitower in the $800-$900 range? I think that's plausible. Cheap people aren't going to buy Macs anyways when they see Gateway is offering a P4 and 17" monitor for $499. For me, the biggest question is upgradeability outside of the pro lineup - but not necessarily across the entire line.

In general, most of the people I refer to as the "headless iMac crowd" want a machine with a graphics card slot, PCI and/or PCI-X, and other aspects that are not traditional parts of the iMac line. It really does boil down to "I'm cheap and I want a G5, gimme," in most cases.

I understand that. To be honest, I don't care if it's a decent G4 or a G5. I think a decent single G5 should be able to come in at $1200 with a nice graphics card (not top of the line) and some expandibility. A lot of people do want their cake and eat it too - they want it dirt cheap (I've seen $500 mentioned) and upgradeable. This is not going to happen in the Apple world, but I could see an entry level system starting at $800-900 and running up to around $1500.

No... I think that you could make a pretty good case that, were Apple to go the way of he low-end G5 (and I hate the idea, unless it's done along certain lines), that the pro line could be pretty easily differentiated.

It really all depends on what we've been talking about in this thread (and what a great thread it has been!) - can FreeScale deliver a viable G4 alternative for the low-end and the laptops - and can they make it inexpensive enough and fast enough for it to be used instead of the G5. The G5 is not a too terribly expensive chip. The Power5 derivaitives are supposed to cost approximately the same as the 970FX. I don't know the prices exactly, but I'm positive they run cheaper than the G4s have been. If they could have a decent chip manufactured for $100-150 then it'd be easier to do something. The SOC design would cut costs for desktops too because the logic board would cost less to design and manufacture. 2GHZ+ G4s on the lower end consumer line (not dirt cheap though)?

I want the iMac as it exists to be dead, anyways. But in it's place, if you really have to have this low-end G5, the desktop line ought to look like this:

eMac - 1.33/1.5ghz, 256/512MB PC2700 RAM, 60/80GB PATA 7200 RPM, Combo/Superdrive, Radeon 9200 64MB, $799/$999

cMac (3 PCI-X, 1 AGP 8x, 1 Optical, 2 HDs, i.e. Current Towers)
-- 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB, $1399
-- 2.5ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 120GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9600 XT 128MB, $1799
-- 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800XT 256MB, $2,199

PowerMac (3 PCI-X, 2 PCI Extreme, 1 AGP 8x, 4 HDs with SATA RAID or 2 Optical - Deepen the chasis, add four more fans midbay)
-- Dual 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 7200, SuperDrive, NV6800 128MB, $1,999
-- Dual 2.5ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, NV6800 128MB, $2,499
-- Dual 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 120GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, NV6800 256MB, $2,999

The downsides: Almost certainly a cut in margins.

The upsides: Holy ****! Who's going to top the pro line in performance-to-value? If this doesn't grow pro marketshare, then there's something wrong with the buyers.

I could live with those prices, though I'd like to see the eMacs bumped up in speed a bit, if there is that possibility. It comes back to FreeScale again. If they have a 90nm 74xx available for the next eMac revision with improved chip architecture, greater bandwidth, etc. then I could see the eMac going up to 1.8 GHZ - which would be a pretty sweet deal at $999. It'd be nice to see a 17" 4:3 LCD replace the CRT, but I don't think it's possible to do that yet - not for that kind of money, though prices are still coming down. I haven't seen any numbers lately on how much is costs to manufacture LCDs (usually given out per inch). A quick search indicated that Samsung hoped to manufacture 17" screens for $10 an inch by 2005, but were running ahead of schedule (this was in 2002). If they've come down that far then it would cost $170 for a 17" screen to go in an eMac. It could all hinge on chip prices.

I've long been a proponent of the all-dual pro line, so I'm fully with you on that. Also, looking into prices on dual-channel PC4200 RAM (DDR533), you can get a double-stick kit from major vendors for around $280 retail. Looks like that's going to be what comes next on the other side of the fence.

I'm pretty sure that'll be the way to go. I'm sure my bank account will take a big hit when those get released. Dual 3GHZ with PC4200 starting at $2999 with a 256MB nVidia? Like you said earlier, the margins would shrink - but what a spectactular deal! Of course, increased sales would decrease the impact of the margin reduction. I must say that Apple has done pretty well in trying to get the prices down somewhat. To be honest, I think high G4 prices have prevented bigger drops. Once again, the big IF lies with FreeScale. IF they can get costs down we may see greater reductions in the future. The PowerMac prices will be fine as they are with a revision (and will be a steal). Of Apple could find a way to slice $100 off everything else they'd be in spectacular shape - but I won't hold my breath

It's not really an all-in-one, at that point, though. It kind of defeats the purpose and you might as well buy a mini-ATX machine.

This is true. Maybe a trade-in program so Apple will give you a certain amount off a future AIO Mac if you bring in your old eMac for "recycling". Probably too much to ask again.

I think this is coming, actually, if the PowerBooks are at all an indication.

I think and hope so. I'd love to see 64MB options on eMacs and iBooks. The iBooks have very good video cards for consumer end laptops (in fact, better than anything I've seen on high-end PC laptops I've looked at, though I haven't done an exhaustive search), but the PowerBooks have even better cards (except for the 12inch). This upgrade may be limited to the 14" iBook, unless they can find a way to cram 128MB into the 12" PB.

As you referenced in your prices - 256MB options on PowerMacs. I'd probably allow for 128MB cards on mid-level machines. However, if Apple does have more machines out there that have AGP slots I can see more interest and business in aftermarket Mac videocards. That'd be essential for future upgrades on those mid-market machines.

As for the eMacs, if they're given a good enough video card to start with (they should be equal to the iBook's). They did upgrade it to the 9200 finally, but it took a while before it equalled the iBook. I wonder if it would be more cost efficient for the eMac and iBook to share logic boards? Obviously the eMac could have a larger enclosure, but would an SOC design on the G4 make this a better alternative - and possibly help to cut costs?

 

[thatwendigo]

Apple could match them, I think, if they decided to go the way of using off-the-shelf cases, etc - though the motherboard is an issue because Apple has to design and have it built. The biggest question is can they get a minitower in the $800-$900 range? I think that's plausible. Cheap people aren't going to buy Macs anyways when they see Gateway is offering a P4 and 17" monitor for $499. For me, the biggest question is upgradeability outside of the pro lineup - but not necessarily across the entire line.

Nope. My reasoning?

Look here amd here

One of the only commodity-based attempts at a PowerPC motherboard is a measly 1ghz MPC7447, and while it's better than the older Apple G4 boards, it still costs $775!

I understand that. To be honest, I don't care if it's a decent G4 or a G5. I think a decent single G5 should be able to come in at $1200 with a nice graphics card (not top of the line) and some expandibility. A lot of people do want their cake and eat it too - they want it dirt cheap (I've seen $500 mentioned) and upgradeable. This is not going to happen in the Apple world, but I could see an entry level system starting at $800-900 and running up to around $1500.

I'm dead against that approach. The G5 needs to be a speed demon. The best price/performance mix possible needs to go into every machine that's sold with that name attached to it, just as a bulwark against the years upon years of FUD that macs are slower. Even with single processors, the machines need to scream as high as economically possible, even if that means not directly competing in the sub-$1,500 space.

Apple cannot, at the current market state, compete below a certain point. I think it's best that they just make the best computers possible and let others eat the cheapskates.

Blah, and it's late. I'll cover the rest tomorrow.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

Sorry this is just a small thing. You can't have anything beyond a 180º viewing angle because the other side would have to be pure LCD as well

Ummm... yeah, that was my point. Sorry, I have a tendency to be obtuse, or at least not very expansive.

The point is that Apple's screens used to have a better viewing angle than the competition. But as the competition's angle approaches 180 degrees Apple doens't have that competitive advantage. Ditto for brightness, contrast, resolution, and they still don't have foolproof color, which is about the only place they can go for cover. Once the competition has fool-proof color they're done. They have a frame, and that's it. Sure, the Mac has a nice frame, but it's much more than the competition on the inside.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

As much as I'm hoping we don't get burnt again, Freescale is already moving faster than Motorola was on the PowerPC arcitecture. Their new e500 core is on the line right now, runs ramping up for the embedded market.

I think lots of us here would like Freescale to succeed, but our thrice-bitten motto has become "show me the money" (Gooding Voice).

Maybe it should be "show me the flops", but there's no movie scene to think about.

 

[zync]

Ummm... yeah, that was my point. Sorry, I have a tendency to be obtuse, or at least not very expansive.

The point is that Apple's screens used to have a better viewing angle than the competition. But as the competition's angle approaches 180 degrees Apple doens't have that competitive advantage. Ditto for brightness, contrast, resolution, and they still don't have foolproof color, which is about the only place they can go for cover. Once the competition has fool-proof color they're done. They have a frame, and that's it. Sure, the Mac has a nice frame, but it's much more than the competition on the inside.

Sorry, I was hoping you were making light of things. I agree, the displays need a revamp and they need it badly. I'd like to see a resolution increase, with a possible switch to OLED as it'll make them cheaper and afford a much higher resolution. They do have a nice frame however it's kind of large for multi-panel setups. The 23" does have some real estate on it, I just wish it were able to be filled with more pixels

 

[thatwendigo]

Funny how I said it was too late, and that's why I wouldn't do my response until later. Here I am, at 6 AM...

It really all depends on what we've been talking about in this thread (and what a great thread it has been!) - can FreeScale deliver a viable G4 alternative for the low-end and the laptops - and can they make it inexpensive enough and fast enough for it to be used instead of the G5. The G5 is not a too terribly expensive chip. The Power5 derivaitives are supposed to cost approximately the same as the 970FX. I don't know the prices exactly, but I'm positive they run cheaper than the G4s have been. If they could have a decent chip manufactured for $100-150 then it'd be easier to do something. The SOC design would cut costs for desktops too because the logic board would cost less to design and manufacture. 2GHZ+ G4s on the lower end consumer line (not dirt cheap though)?

I agree that this has been an enlightening and vastly interesting thread. Thanks for the material you've brought to my attention, at the very least.

The question of whether Freescale can deliver a viable laptop processor is one that I think is almost moot. Of course they can. At issue is the timeframe, the competitive standing of the eventual core, and the cost per unit, since it could very well be that the allegations some have made (that clocking down the G5 and somehow fitting its subsystems in would be cheaper) are actually true. I find this not only unlikely, but ludicrous, without some kind of major revamp of the 970 line that yields even lower heat. Of course, we've been all over that issue already.

I could live with those prices, though I'd like to see the eMacs bumped up in speed a bit, if there is that possibility. It comes back to FreeScale again. If they have a 90nm 74xx available for the next eMac revision with improved chip architecture, greater bandwidth, etc. then I could see the eMac going up to 1.8 GHZ - which would be a pretty sweet deal at $999. It'd be nice to see a 17" 4:3 LCD replace the CRT, but I don't think it's possible to do that yet - not for that kind of money, though prices are still coming down.

Actually, I could see a form-factor revision for the eMac if it were to move to LCD. It's for education, after all, so you want stability and solidity more than anything else, right? Take a page out of the 20th Anniversary Mac and the current PC all-in-one market... You could have the screen fronting a flat enclosure with some CHUNKY and rather solid adjustable legs, with a 1.8-2.0ghz e600 (what's that, like 25-20w?), a slot-loading combo drive, and the RAM and HD accessible from lockable panels in the back. Truly make it an education machine - sturdy, reasonably specced by not a bank breaker, and with a good screen (front the LCD in glass for protection and cleaning). Price it at $999 (generic LCDs are $350 retail for 17" now) and move those things off the shelf.

I haven't seen any numbers lately on how much is costs to manufacture LCDs (usually given out per inch). A quick search indicated that Samsung hoped to manufacture 17" screens for $10 an inch by 2005, but were running ahead of schedule (this was in 2002). If they've come down that far then it would cost $170 for a 17" screen to go in an eMac. It could all hinge on chip prices.

I think it's either not quite that far down, or that insane profits are being taken, even in the PC world.

I'm pretty sure that'll be the way to go. I'm sure my bank account will take a big hit when those get released. Dual 3GHZ with PC4200 starting at $2999 with a 256MB nVidia? Like you said earlier, the margins would shrink - but what a spectactular deal! Of course, increased sales would decrease the impact of the margin reduction.

If they do 256MB, I don't expect it to be standard, and while I think a margin reduction might be a good idea, I don't know what kind of impact it would have on the Apple warchest. I'm most interested in seeing them keep innovating and providing a good experience, not in growing marketshare.

That was my wishlist, not necessarily my "this is realistic" list.

I must say that Apple has done pretty well in trying to get the prices down somewhat. To be honest, I think high G4 prices have prevented bigger drops. Once again, the big IF lies with FreeScale. IF they can get costs down we may see greater reductions in the future. The PowerMac prices will be fine as they are with a revision (and will be a steal). Of Apple could find a way to slice $100 off everything else they'd be in spectacular shape - but I won't hold my breath

As you said, the key is in Freescale. The G4 is not cheap at the kinds of speeds that we're talking about, and I'm hoping that Crolles and the new direction will help fix that situation. If not an outright correction, it would be nice to see it at least swinging in the right direction. I could accept delivery of the chip at current prices or thereabouts, with revisions as the process and design matures.

This is true. Maybe a trade-in program so Apple will give you a certain amount off a future AIO Mac if you bring in your old eMac for "recycling". Probably too much to ask again.

It's the tradeoff of AIO. You get a cheaper machine, but less expandability and you're tied down. It's not like there's a huge market for returned AIO's that they could exploit.

I think and hope so. I'd love to see 64MB options on eMacs and iBooks. The iBooks have very good video cards for consumer end laptops (in fact, better than anything I've seen on high-end PC laptops I've looked at, though I haven't done an exhaustive search), but the PowerBooks have even better cards (except for the 12inch). This upgrade may be limited to the 14" iBook, unless they can find a way to cram 128MB into the 12" PB.

I think a move to at least 64 on the eMac (I'd even support 128 if it didn't hurt the price point too badly), and at least 64 on the iBooks would be a good idea. As ATI and nVidia progress with their cards, I think we might see some significant heat savings. The stats at this review of the new Radeon X800 show that it clocks higher than nVidia's offerings, performs better in nearly all tests, and has better power-saving features.

You might say GPUs are getting just as interesting as CPUs at the moment.

As you referenced in your prices - 256MB options on PowerMacs. I'd probably allow for 128MB cards on mid-level machines. However, if Apple does have more machines out there that have AGP slots I can see more interest and business in aftermarket Mac videocards. That'd be essential for future upgrades on those mid-market machines.

Rereading the latest reviews of graphics cards, here's my modified wish list for the machines:
eMac - 1.8ghz, 512MB PC3200 RAM, 80GB PATA 7200 RPM, Superdrive, Radeon 9600 64MB, 17" ActiveTFT LCD $999

cMac (3 PCI-X, 1 AGP 8x, 1 Optical, 2 HDs, i.e. Current Towers)
-- 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB, $1399
-- 2.5ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 120GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 XT 256MB, $1799
-- 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon X800 Pro 256MB or NV6800GT 256MB, $2,199

PowerMac (3 PCI-X, 2 PCI Extreme, 1 AGP 8x, 4 HDs with SATA RAID or 2 Optical - Deepen the chasis, add four more fans midbay)
-- Dual 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 7200, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB or GeForceFX 5950 Ultra 256MB, $1,999
-- Dual 2.5ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB or NV6800GT 256MB, $2,499
-- Dual 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 120GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, Radeon X800 XT 256MB or NV6800 Ultra 256MB, $2,999

As for the eMacs, if they're given a good enough video card to start with (they should be equal to the iBook's). They did upgrade it to the 9200 finally, but it took a while before it equalled the iBook. I wonder if it would be more cost efficient for the eMac and iBook to share logic boards? Obviously the eMac could have a larger enclosure, but would an SOC design on the G4 make this a better alternative - and possibly help to cut costs?

Interesting trivia fact - While not sharing logic boards, the original iMac and IBook did share many components. Try taking apart a dead Bondi sometime and count how many of the components are from latops.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

I'd like to see a resolution increase, with a possible switch to OLED as it'll make them cheaper and afford a much higher resolution.

It's interesting that you mention OLED. Have they solved the problem with the OLED dyes breaking down overtime? Most OLED's tend to lose one of their RGB components (forget which one) over time.

Still, that might not be a problem if the timeframe is long enough. Old CRT's certainly lost their color over time. I'm even writing this on a 10 year-old ViewSonic 17" that is starting to lose it's color fidelity (time to switch it to the second video card). I'm even lusting after a Sony T1 digicam which uses OLED and I'm not that worried because it's not going to be with me forever.

And who really uses a 5 year old computer these days besides cheapskates like me? I can see a $799 eMac with a 5-year-rated OLED doing very well.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Funny how I said it was too late, and that's why I wouldn't do my response until later. Here I am, at 6 AM...



I agree that this has been an enlightening and vastly interesting thread. Thanks for the material you've brought to my attention, at the very least.

The question of whether Freescale can deliver a viable laptop processor is one that I think is almost moot. Of course they can. At issue is the timeframe, the competitive standing of the eventual core, and the cost per unit, since it could very well be that the allegations some have made (that clocking down the G5 and somehow fitting its subsystems in would be cheaper) are actually true. I find this not only unlikely, but ludicrous, without some kind of major revamp of the 970 line that yields even lower heat. Of course, we've been all over that issue already.

True. The two big ifs involve FreeScale delivering in a timely manner and also the speed of the chips they deliver.

Actually, I could see a form-factor revision for the eMac if it were to move to LCD. It's for education, after all, so you want stability and solidity more than anything else, right? Take a page out of the 20th Anniversary Mac and the current PC all-in-one market... You could have the screen fronting a flat enclosure with some CHUNKY and rather solid adjustable legs, with a 1.8-2.0ghz e600 (what's that, like 25-20w?), a slot-loading combo drive, and the RAM and HD accessible from lockable panels in the back. Truly make it an education machine - sturdy, reasonably specced by not a bank breaker, and with a good screen (front the LCD in glass for protection and cleaning). Price it at $999 (generic LCDs are $350 retail for 17" now) and move those things off the shelf.

This is precisely what I was thinking, and Apple should be able to get a hold of a 17" LCD for under $300, likely more in the range of 200-250 if gotten in bulk for OEM purposes. You could set it on legs or you could develop a new tilt and swivel base that would give it great mobility. I'd likely place a slot-load drive on the right hand side, behind the LCD screen with USB and Firewire access located on the front of the machine. As for the e600, I believe the 25W at 2GHZ referenced referred to a dual core version of the e600, so my guess would be that a single core version for the eMac would run slightly below 20W. At $999, this would be a great AIO solution for education and for individuals. I'm not sure if they would still be able to pull of the $799 combo and $999 Superdrive, but it would be a great value with a 64MB Radeon in there as well.

I think it's either not quite that far down, or that insane profits are being taken, even in the PC world.

It's hard to say. If people are willing to pay an inflated price then the LCDs will not drop but the profit margine will increase. My guess would be Apple could get a 17" LCD for somewhere around $250 when gotten in bulk.

If they do 256MB, I don't expect it to be standard, and while I think a margin reduction might be a good idea, I don't know what kind of impact it would have on the Apple warchest. I'm most interested in seeing them keep innovating and providing a good experience, not in growing marketshare.

That was my wishlist, not necessarily my "this is realistic" list.

I'm not willing to sacrifice the innovation in favor of marketshare, but I think there is a way of maintaining high margins while being innovative and growing the marketshare. If the quality and speed of the machine can pick up, I think OS X can win converts. It's the reason I switched over, and I've been positively delighted with it for two years - as well as all the other cool things that have hit the Mac first. Apple has slowly been reducing prices. I think the biggest factor will be how much they have to pay for the CPU. If IBM and FreeScale can get CPU cost to go down (and it should as they shrink the designs) then I can see Macs getting slightly less expensive.

As you said, the key is in Freescale. The G4 is not cheap at the kinds of speeds that we're talking about, and I'm hoping that Crolles and the new direction will help fix that situation. If not an outright correction, it would be nice to see it at least swinging in the right direction. I could accept delivery of the chip at current prices or thereabouts, with revisions as the process and design matures.

How much of the prices we due to low yields in the past? If Crolles can have a higher yield then we may see a cheaper chip. I agree that a move int he right direction would be a start. I'd be willing to pay the current price on a G4 if it delivered what FreeScale has announced. I think it would be a pretty good chip. I don't think that the prices from Intel or AMD will be able to be matched on the low-end.

It's the tradeoff of AIO. You get a cheaper machine, but less expandability and you're tied down. It's not like there's a huge market for returned AIO's that they could exploit.

This is true. The benefit of buying an Apple AIO is they tend to last longer in regards to general usefulness. I know a few people running OS X on original iMacs @ 233Mhz. Things are slower, but they can still get a lot done, and there have been upgrades offered by third parties. One friend had just recently upgraded the original iMac to a G4 running above 600MHZ. Granted, it's not as fast as it could be, but it allowed him to spend less than $200 and more than double his speed (and his own tests have shown that most things do run twice as fast - my guess is Altivec has something to do with some of that).

I think a move to at least 64 on the eMac (I'd even support 128 if it didn't hurt the price point too badly), and at least 64 on the iBooks would be a good idea. As ATI and nVidia progress with their cards, I think we might see some significant heat savings. The stats at this review of the new Radeon X800 show that it clocks higher than nVidia's offerings, performs better in nearly all tests, and has better power-saving features.

You might say GPUs are getting just as interesting as CPUs at the moment.

The only challenge is getting them to the Mac. I think all consumer products should be at 64MB with all Pro products starting at 128MB - and I can see that in the not-so-distant future. I will say something for Mac in the iBooks and eMacs - most similar PCs have got integrated Intel video with shared RAM. I'd much rather take the Radeon 9200 w/ 32MB, thank you.

Rereading the latest reviews of graphics cards, here's my modified wish list for the machines:
eMac - 1.8ghz, 512MB PC3200 RAM, 80GB PATA 7200 RPM, Superdrive, Radeon 9600 64MB, 17" ActiveTFT LCD $999

cMac (3 PCI-X, 1 AGP 8x, 1 Optical, 2 HDs, i.e. Current Towers)
-- 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 80GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB, $1399
-- 2.5ghz G5, 512MB PC3200, 120GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 XT 256MB, $1799
-- 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC3200, 250GB SATA 7200 RPM, SuperDrive, Radeon X800 Pro 256MB or NV6800GT 256MB, $2,199

PowerMac (3 PCI-X, 2 PCI Extreme, 1 AGP 8x, 4 HDs with SATA RAID or 2 Optical - Deepen the chasis, add four more fans midbay)
-- Dual 2.0ghz G5, 512MB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 7200, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB or GeForceFX 5950 Ultra 256MB, $1,999
-- Dual 2.5ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 80GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, Radeon 9800 Pro 256MB or NV6800GT 256MB, $2,499
-- Dual 3.0ghz G5, 1GB PC4200, 2x 120GB SATA 10000, SuperDrive, Radeon X800 XT 256MB or NV6800 Ultra 256MB, $2,999

Now I'm going to have to wash my shirt. You made me drool all over it. I'd be putting in an order for the dual 3GHZ machine the second it was announced. If they were able to do anything near that for $2999, that would absolutely kill any PC for value - especially with the architectural improvements of the Power5 derivative (including SMT).

Interesting trivia fact - While not sharing logic boards, the original iMac and IBook did share many components. Try taking apart a dead Bondi sometime and count how many of the components are from latops.

I didn't know that. I wonder if that is happening now? If not, it would be a good idea - especially if the eMacs and iBooks share processors, HDD, videocards, etc. If they shared logic boards then it should save money - if only by the fact that Apple only need to design one board for each.

 

[sjk]

Hey thatwendigo, your latest future eMac specs/price proposal sure made it less inspiring to buy the current eMac. Glad my wife likes it since it'll become her system when I upgrade (by November) and it's certainly an improvement over my pokey 600Mhz G3 iBook.

Hopefully someone who can influence Apple has been following this thread.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

It's interesting that you mention OLED. Have they solved the problem with the OLED dyes breaking down overtime? Most OLED's tend to lose one of their RGB components (forget which one) over time.

Still, that might not be a problem if the timeframe is long enough. Old CRT's certainly lost their color over time. I'm even writing this on a 10 year-old ViewSonic 17" that is starting to lose it's color fidelity (time to switch it to the second video card). I'm even lusting after a Sony T1 digicam which uses OLED and I'm not that worried because it's not going to be with me forever.

And who really uses a 5 year old computer these days besides cheapskates like me? I can see a $799 eMac with a 5-year-rated OLED doing very well.

Blue is the one they are having a problem with.

 

[thatwendigo]

This is precisely what I was thinking, and Apple should be able to get a hold of a 17" LCD for under $300, likely more in the range of 200-250 if gotten in bulk for OEM purposes. You could set it on legs or you could develop a new tilt and swivel base that would give it great mobility. I'd likely place a slot-load drive on the right hand side, behind the LCD screen with USB and Firewire access located on the front of the machine. As for the e600, I believe the 25W at 2GHZ referenced referred to a dual core version of the e600, so my guess would be that a single core version for the eMac would run slightly below 20W. At $999, this would be a great AIO solution for education and for individuals. I'm not sure if they would still be able to pull of the $799 combo and $999 Superdrive, but it would be a great value with a 64MB Radeon in there as well.

The other thing is that, like PC OEMS, Apple could (and I hate to say this, but we really do need kids to see the mac if we want more home users) buy some cheaper LCDs and that weren't wide-aspect and use them specifically for this purpose. It's not like those Dells and HPs are coming with top of the line 17" OLEDs ore anything, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

Here's my idea for layout, and I'd sketch this if I had a scanner or a tablet:
You have a bezel that's about an inch out, with the same kind of frame that you'd use in the older imacs or the current eMacs, only flattened. Have the frame be hollow but strong (magnesium allow, maybe?) with a relatively thick plastic shell so that they don't scar or break easily. The board would ideally be around the size of a laptop or mini-ATX and sit up high, with a riser-style AGP slot that let the GPU exhaust directly out of the top of the machine. The RAM would have a removable (but attached!) bay door that locks with screws that aren't those tiny star-head ones, and be mounted towards the lower end of the case. In fact, the 'bay door' would swing out to reveal the HD and the RAM at the same time, along with an AirPort Extreme slot. On the bottom right edge, you'd have the slot-loading optical drive, and on the left you'd have FireWire 400 (x2), FireWire 800 (x1), USB 2.0 (x3), and analog audio in/out. The bottom edge is partially rounded off, with two legs that fold up to protect the optical drive and the cords when unlocked and closed.

I'm not willing to sacrifice the innovation in favor of marketshare, but I think there is a way of maintaining high margins while being innovative and growing the marketshare. If the quality and speed of the machine can pick up, I think OS X can win converts.

The quality is already outstanding, and the only reason that people in the mac community can point out people that they know who have the same problem is that, really, we're all a lot more likely to be able to talk about it, and to share that information. Contrary to what some would seem to like to spread around, the average PC user is not an overclocker, and the fact that you know how to fool with bios and multipliers kind of removes you from the basic group.

The beauty of the Mac experience at this point is that we have PowerPCs and OS X. The bad part is that we have PowerPCs, as well, since our supplies are far more limited than they are on the PC side. However, this could very well change with Sony, Toshiba, AMD, and others signing on to the PowerPC platform. Maybe not right now, maybe not directly for Apple, but these companies are definitely showing that it's better in some situations.

I think the biggest factor will be how much they have to pay for the CPU. If IBM and FreeScale can get CPU cost to go down (and it should as they shrink the designs) then I can see Macs getting slightly less expensive.

It should. We'll see how much of it gets passed along, though.

This is true. The benefit of buying an Apple AIO is they tend to last longer in regards to general usefulness. I know a few people running OS X on original iMacs @ 233Mhz. Things are slower, but they can still get a lot done, and there have been upgrades offered by third parties. One friend had just recently upgraded the original iMac to a G4 running above 600MHZ. Granted, it's not as fast as it could be, but it allowed him to spend less than $200 and more than double his speed (and his own tests have shown that most things do run twice as fast - my guess is Altivec has something to do with some of that).

My daily use machines are a 700mhz eMac and a 600mhz G3 snowbook, so I'm well aware of the new life that OS X keeps breating into these machines with ever revision. It's palpably better when I install, snappier and more responsive, even in real-world world applications (I xBench our machines at each revision, though I think that someone who was using the tower I keep them on tossed the results a few weeks back ).

The only challenge is getting them to the Mac. I think all consumer products should be at 64MB with all Pro products starting at 128MB - and I can see that in the not-so-distant future. I will say something for Mac in the iBooks and eMacs - most similar PCs have got integrated Intel video with shared RAM. I'd much rather take the Radeon 9200 w/ 32MB, thank you.

I think we should be shooting for 128MB across the board on desktops, and and at least 64MB across the board for portables. Differentiate the models on GPU core, if you really need. ATI and nVidia both offer at least two versions of their latest GPUs, and at least three of their previous generation. Also, we need pro cards back. The Wildcat and FireGL are too important in the graphics sector to be left out of the G5, which is touted as a workhorse machine for creative professionals.

Why settle for the same as PCs, though? Lets go back to the days where we could proudly run the toasted commercials on our desktops, where we could slam Intel on TV without any chance that a lawsuit would take the advertising down.

Dual 3.5ghz 975s with x800 XTs, 10k RPM SATA performance RAID, and PC4200 RAM! Toast those bunnies!

Now I'm going to have to wash my shirt. You made me drool all over it. I'd be putting in an order for the dual 3GHZ machine the second it was announced. If they were able to do anything near that for $2999, that would absolutely kill any PC for value - especially with the architectural improvements of the Power5 derivative (including SMT).

This is the future, if the technology will just come together. I've looked at the availability of DDR4200 RAM, just as a starter, because it's a part they'd just need to address on the motherboard and have the memory controller feed and pull from. They're going to have to adust the ASIC anyways, so why not move it up on memory access, too?

I didn't know that. I wonder if that is happening now? If not, it would be a good idea - especially if the eMacs and iBooks share processors, HDD, videocards, etc. If they shared logic boards then it should save money - if only by the fact that Apple only need to design one board for each.

The CD drive was a laptop drive, the chip was the same, the board was almost small enough and shaped right. I've got a broken (literally) iBook Rev A and a dead iMac Rev A... Maybe I'll dig them out and compare again.

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

The other thing is that, like PC OEMS, Apple could (and I hate to say this, but we really do need kids to see the mac if we want more home users) buy some cheaper LCDs and that weren't wide-aspect and use them specifically for this purpose. It's not like those Dells and HPs are coming with top of the line 17" OLEDs ore anything, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

Precisely. I think they should still keep the 17" Cinema Display hanging around. Not everyone wants to invest in a 20"+ 16:9 Cinema Display, or can afford one. It's possible now to have a decent LCD display and not break the bank - although we always do have the option of not buying Apple's display. The sacrifice there is that we lose ADC (which could use and update). Of course, for the eMac you'd have no choice.

Here's my idea for layout, and I'd sketch this if I had a scanner or a tablet:
You have a bezel that's about an inch out, with the same kind of frame that you'd use in the older imacs or the current eMacs, only flattened. Have the frame be hollow but strong (magnesium allow, maybe?) with a relatively thick plastic shell so that they don't scar or break easily. The board would ideally be around the size of a laptop or mini-ATX and sit up high, with a riser-style AGP slot that let the GPU exhaust directly out of the top of the machine. The RAM would have a removable (but attached!) bay door that locks with screws that aren't those tiny star-head ones, and be mounted towards the lower end of the case. In fact, the 'bay door' would swing out to reveal the HD and the RAM at the same time, along with an AirPort Extreme slot. On the bottom right edge, you'd have the slot-loading optical drive, and on the left you'd have FireWire 400 (x2), FireWire 800 (x1), USB 2.0 (x3), and analog audio in/out. The bottom edge is partially rounded off, with two legs that fold up to protect the optical drive and the cords when unlocked and closed.

The sounds good to me. I like the idea that there is access to the RAM and the HD. Realistically, that would be good expansion capability for a machine like that, allowing the owner to add more RAM or upgrade the HD. I'd make sure that the machine could take up to 2GB (and that's where they'd hit a snag in sharing logic boards with the laptop). The cool thing is they could make it rather inexpensively while also making it look cool (and much less bulk than the current eMac). The easy access to the FW and USB ports would also make it appealing, especially for things like digital photogrpahy and home movies for families.

The quality is already outstanding, and the only reason that people in the mac community can point out people that they know who have the same problem is that, really, we're all a lot more likely to be able to talk about it, and to share that information. Contrary to what some would seem to like to spread around, the average PC user is not an overclocker, and the fact that you know how to fool with bios and multipliers kind of removes you from the basic group.

Most PC users buy their machines, maybe upgrade the HD and RAM at some point (most likely just the RAM) and use it till it breaks. Then they toss out that machine and buy another Gateway, Dell, etc. In fact, most PC users would have to drop their computer off at CompUSA for any upgrades because they don't have the know-how to even install a DIMM (and that's sad).

The beauty of the Mac experience at this point is that we have PowerPCs and OS X. The bad part is that we have PowerPCs, as well, since our supplies are far more limited than they are on the PC side. However, this could very well change with Sony, Toshiba, AMD, and others signing on to the PowerPC platform. Maybe not right now, maybe not directly for Apple, but these companies are definitely showing that it's better in some situations.

I think PowerPC is the horse to stick with. My personal belief is that it will eventually succeed the x86 as the chip of choice because it's got a longer road in front of it. We're already seeing that the x86 architecture is being pushed to its limits - and I'm not sure how much further Intel or AMD can really push it. AMD is already onboard with IBM in moving to PowerPC anyways. Intel's solution for the future has sunk (hence why we call it Itanic - and the Itanium never impressed me much; day late and dollar short). I also think we'll see the PowerPC begin to scale faster - and it may even catch up in raw clock rate to Intel in the somewhat near future (and it could be closer than you think - I'm hoping we get shocked in June. The possibility is there to hit 3.5GHZ with the new chip and have it not run overly hot. Add the 90nm controller and you should have a cooler PowerMac, but the 3.5GHZ is not a guarantee). The PowerPC also needs something to challenge the Pentium M in the laptop market (even though it's not selling as well as Intel had hoped, a victim of their "MHZ Matters" style of advertising in the past - people don't get that a 1.6+ Pentium M is a nice chip and plenty fast) - and I think FreeScale could provide the answer there, if they deliver. A G4 with improved architecture, improved cache access, larger L2 cache, better bandwidth, etc could be a strong alternative in the Mac world.

It should. We'll see how much of it gets passed along, though.

I come from the perspective that Motorola owes Apple something for the years of failure to deliver - but corporations don't often have a strong sense of guilt or obligation, but they do have a strong sense of profit. I'm hoping the cleaner fab and the chip reduction is enough to reduce the price significantly. Of course, if they can get more embedded customers to desire those chip then the price should come down more.

My daily use machines are a 700mhz eMac and a 600mhz G3 snowbook, so I'm well aware of the new life that OS X keeps breating into these machines with ever revision. It's palpably better when I install, snappier and more responsive, even in real-world world applications (I xBench our machines at each revision, though I think that someone who was using the tower I keep them on tossed the results a few weeks back ).

My primary machine is an iBook 700 and I've noticed it get speedier with each OSX update. The funny thing is that even though my PC is faster in raw speed, this G3 makes up for it in lack of down time. I don't have to spend hours trying to fix a problem, wondering why Windows isn't working right. Having an UNIX backbone is a wonderful thing. Apple did a great job of making it usuable and creating the most gorgeous OS I've ever seen. After two years, using this thing is still a joy - even though I've only got a G3 700, I can still get a lot of what I need to get done with ease (and no reboots to try to correct problems).

I think we should be shooting for 128MB across the board on desktops, and and at least 64MB across the board for portables. Differentiate the models on GPU core, if you really need. ATI and nVidia both offer at least two versions of their latest GPUs, and at least three of their previous generation. Also, we need pro cards back. The Wildcat and FireGL are too important in the graphics sector to be left out of the G5, which is touted as a workhorse machine for creative professionals.

I agree. I see no problem with the PowerBooks having the Radeon 9700 @ 64MB and the iBooks having the Radeon 9200 @ 64MB. I think the kicker here is that Apple has a problem getting the high end Radeon into the 12" PowerBook. Also agree on pro cards, especially if AutoCAD is coming to the Mac, as many rumors have stated. Even stuff done with Maya, etc needs something better than a Radeon. A bad GPU could drive a lot of people away from the PowerMac.

Why settle for the same as PCs, though? Lets go back to the days where we could proudly run the toasted commercials on our desktops, where we could slam Intel on TV without any chance that a lawsuit would take the advertising down.

Dual 3.5ghz 975s with x800 XTs, 10k RPM SATA performance RAID, and PC4200 RAM! Toast those bunnies!

Not too sure we'll see a RAID, though it would be a good option. As for the Dual 3.5GHZ - like I said, you may see those sooner than you think. My personal thought, based on what I know, is that we could see 4GHZ+ dual-core 65nm 975s (I'll go with the designation for now) come January, with shipment happening in the spring. That's if the transition to 65nm goes smoothly. Still, MS has announced it'll desire a dual-core 5-6GHZ chip for Longhorn with at least 2GB of RAM. I'm not sure Intel can deliver that by 2006, but I think IBM will get Apple there. I'd love it if MS had to scrap Longhorn or scratch a lot of it when they discover Intel can't scale as well as they'd hoped.

The CD drive was a laptop drive, the chip was the same, the board was almost small enough and shaped right. I've got a broken (literally) iBook Rev A and a dead iMac Rev A... Maybe I'll dig them out and compare again.

If a redesigned eMac goes with a slot-load, I can see them sharing Combo-drives across the eMac, iBook, and PowerBook lines. The same won't go for Superdrives though - not if Apple wants to keep the high speed burner now in the eMac.