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.
Update: Apple and the PowerPC 970... Next Year?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
new mother board isnt going to take that long,new ram? ram is allready on the market working at those speeds on the pc side no issue. software has to be optimized,motherboard for chip is all thats needed maybe system controler? still what are you looking at? a new mother board and software thats it in a nutshell except for some more cosmetic changes on the case maybe a new color. And if this is to happen then they have probably been working on this since october or so.
Switching
Never posted here before; hi...
I've been watching the Mac site boards for about 9 months, waiting for the right moment to switch AND take about four or five of my students with me (in some kind of bizarre 'and then turned the floppy-drive on themselves' suicide pact).
[n.b. the only piece of Apple kit I have at the moment is this loverly 20" MY GOD IT'S SO BRIGHT I THINK MY RETINAE HAVE MELTED flatscreen that I'm looking at currently...through sunglasses, because I can't access the controls through XP].
During this time I've even managed to get a couple of friends to convert to iMacs because they weren't power-users and the new machines are actually good value. However...
I have about £3000 just sitting waiting for a decent machine from Apple so I can do graphics and animation. I don't care about games (the usual reason I'm unable to convert people), software compatability (I'll be building from ground up), or even the dearth of decent peripherals with OS X native drivers (tsch...). I DO care, however, about being lumbered with a machine that runs about half as fast on processor intensive tasks in comparison to similarly priced Wintels (and STILL doesn't have USB 2.0, further knackering its peripheral base - it's no good saying firewire is better; I agree with you. But that's of bugger-all relevance if no-one's making firewire devices).
If you check back on the boards, you'll see that the 'G5' has been anticipated for over a year. First it was going to be last summer, then end of last year, then middle of this year (with a switch from Motorolla to IBM). That's not good.
The problem of waiting for the new processor is further exacerbated by Apple's 6-month upgrade cycle. I know it might help them with product stability, technical support, and inventory management, it's REALLY knackering its switcher market. If a new Xeon comes out, Armari will wallop it into a (non-bottlenecked) workstation within about two weeks. And if they don't, I can always go somewhere else. Because there isn't a monopoly on Wintel harware.
I REALLY want to switch to Apple; I like the attention to detail in the hardware (FSB, recent noise problems, failure to site front panel Firewire/USB connections (etc.) notwithstanding). I love the OS. I like the idea of being part of a community, rather than just a target-market. I find you lot on the boards generally helpful, amusing, and surprisingly well mannered (although all that will change if and when I switch, of course). The trouble is, unless I see a 970 machine (or similar) arriving sometime around or before autumn, I will HAVE to stay Wintel; a wheezing, boiling 1.42+a-little-bit G4 just won't let me work efficiently. Which means that Apple will not only lose the money I and my student's would have spent on their machines, but also the concomitant benefits of an expanded user-base.
It therefore seems to me that Apple should do one of two things:
(1) Stick to a 6-monthly upgrade cycle but TELL US (roughly)what's coming so we can make an educated decision about when to spend (I understand the counter-arguments, but they only work if you don't trust the company not to stick you with soon-to-be-obselete gear or you think Steve Jobs is justified in lurching the inventory deployment cycle in order to 'wow' at MacWorlds)
OR
(2) By doing what the Wintel world does and upgrading regularly so you don't feel this dire need to time your purchase perfectly or get stuck with something that'll make you feel the company has given you a charming little marigold-moment (without lubrication).
Sorry for the long rant (although I clearly enjoyed it), it's just that I'm currently trying to get three or four students to hold off from investing in Wintel workstations on the premise that something competitive from Apple might be just about to arrive. And given the length of time this has been going on, I'm starting to wilt...
Brother Mugga
Never posted here before; hi...
I've been watching the Mac site boards for about 9 months, waiting for the right moment to switch AND take about four or five of my students with me (in some kind of bizarre 'and then turned the floppy-drive on themselves' suicide pact).
[n.b. the only piece of Apple kit I have at the moment is this loverly 20" MY GOD IT'S SO BRIGHT I THINK MY RETINAE HAVE MELTED flatscreen that I'm looking at currently...through sunglasses, because I can't access the controls through XP].
During this time I've even managed to get a couple of friends to convert to iMacs because they weren't power-users and the new machines are actually good value. However...
I have about £3000 just sitting waiting for a decent machine from Apple so I can do graphics and animation. I don't care about games (the usual reason I'm unable to convert people), software compatability (I'll be building from ground up), or even the dearth of decent peripherals with OS X native drivers (tsch...). I DO care, however, about being lumbered with a machine that runs about half as fast on processor intensive tasks in comparison to similarly priced Wintels (and STILL doesn't have USB 2.0, further knackering its peripheral base - it's no good saying firewire is better; I agree with you. But that's of bugger-all relevance if no-one's making firewire devices).
If you check back on the boards, you'll see that the 'G5' has been anticipated for over a year. First it was going to be last summer, then end of last year, then middle of this year (with a switch from Motorolla to IBM). That's not good.
The problem of waiting for the new processor is further exacerbated by Apple's 6-month upgrade cycle. I know it might help them with product stability, technical support, and inventory management, it's REALLY knackering its switcher market. If a new Xeon comes out, Armari will wallop it into a (non-bottlenecked) workstation within about two weeks. And if they don't, I can always go somewhere else. Because there isn't a monopoly on Wintel harware.
I REALLY want to switch to Apple; I like the attention to detail in the hardware (FSB, recent noise problems, failure to site front panel Firewire/USB connections (etc.) notwithstanding). I love the OS. I like the idea of being part of a community, rather than just a target-market. I find you lot on the boards generally helpful, amusing, and surprisingly well mannered (although all that will change if and when I switch, of course). The trouble is, unless I see a 970 machine (or similar) arriving sometime around or before autumn, I will HAVE to stay Wintel; a wheezing, boiling 1.42+a-little-bit G4 just won't let me work efficiently. Which means that Apple will not only lose the money I and my student's would have spent on their machines, but also the concomitant benefits of an expanded user-base.
It therefore seems to me that Apple should do one of two things:
(1) Stick to a 6-monthly upgrade cycle but TELL US (roughly)what's coming so we can make an educated decision about when to spend (I understand the counter-arguments, but they only work if you don't trust the company not to stick you with soon-to-be-obselete gear or you think Steve Jobs is justified in lurching the inventory deployment cycle in order to 'wow' at MacWorlds)
OR
(2) By doing what the Wintel world does and upgrading regularly so you don't feel this dire need to time your purchase perfectly or get stuck with something that'll make you feel the company has given you a charming little marigold-moment (without lubrication).
Sorry for the long rant (although I clearly enjoyed it), it's just that I'm currently trying to get three or four students to hold off from investing in Wintel workstations on the premise that something competitive from Apple might be just about to arrive. And given the length of time this has been going on, I'm starting to wilt...
Brother Mugga
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
Macbandit you are right, but if Ibm is going to show prototypes to the public next month then i would bet apple is currently working on their stuff and putting the polish on it. If everything goes fine and from the sound of it (2.5ghz!) it is. Mass production this half and maybe on the shelves late summer?That still give those Superbrains in the software division time to get panther ready. Lets hope so.
wouldn't apple be shooting themselves in the foot by going straight for a 2.5Ghz chip in a model this year ?
If they went for a line up something along the lines of 1.4Ghz, dual 1.6Ghz and dual 2Ghz, they'd have more than enough room to bring out another range in january / february of 2004 at up to 2.5Ghz.
This would also give IBM around 18 months from now to come up with versions that are faster than 2.5Ghz.
I'm sure a boost of almost 600Mhz between now and the next range of macs AND a far more powerful cpu coupled with the kind of bandwidth that the G4 has been starved of would be more than enough for apple to wow plenty of people into buying a new powermac and you'd know there's a definate 25% speed boost coming 6 months later.
If they went for a line up something along the lines of 1.4Ghz, dual 1.6Ghz and dual 2Ghz, they'd have more than enough room to bring out another range in january / february of 2004 at up to 2.5Ghz.
This would also give IBM around 18 months from now to come up with versions that are faster than 2.5Ghz.
I'm sure a boost of almost 600Mhz between now and the next range of macs AND a far more powerful cpu coupled with the kind of bandwidth that the G4 has been starved of would be more than enough for apple to wow plenty of people into buying a new powermac and you'd know there's a definate 25% speed boost coming 6 months later.
technocoy
macrumors 6502a
I said it in the beginning and i'll say it now...
I know that apple has signed on for the 970...
as well, even if it isn't until next year (january) how do you figure it should already be in iBooks and iMacs by then?? in case you are all forgetting, unless something changes in the x86 realm... apple is about to be the first to market with comsumer 64bit machines in mass production... they could release these at 1.2 ghz if they wanted... it's 64 bit, it's going to blow away the current proccessors on the market out of the water. And if it is the "year of the laptop", what's to stop them from letting the PM sales lag a little, and packing the 1.4 and such into the sweet new laptops... consumers are really wanting laptops right now. If you were apple, and you knew you were preparing to release the most powerful desktop on the market in 9mos, and that the only thing you could do about the desktops you have now is make incremental bumps with motorola processors, why not kick the **** out of the laptop market, and reclaim the throne as the fastest desktop maker next year? OS X has only to be recompiled for 64 bit, and when those desktops are released with 64 bit 970's all of you who run the mouth now will be flocking to buy one, whether it's 800 mhz 64 bit, or 2.5.... and last time i checked the whole Percieved speed gap between pc and mac is getting ready to crumble anyway when intel and such have to explain why Mhz isn't the most important thing as the tables are turned when they're releasing their 1 ghz 64 bit processor and apple is turning out their increasingly popular unix based ultra-stable non tight-assed operating system on a processor that's what? what was that? clocking higher than the new intel and AMD chips??!!! oh my GOD it going to be SWEET....
The world wants to move to mac... they just don't know it yet... but it's coming. it's coming!!! mwhaahaahaa!!!
technocoy😀
I know that apple has signed on for the 970...
as well, even if it isn't until next year (january) how do you figure it should already be in iBooks and iMacs by then?? in case you are all forgetting, unless something changes in the x86 realm... apple is about to be the first to market with comsumer 64bit machines in mass production... they could release these at 1.2 ghz if they wanted... it's 64 bit, it's going to blow away the current proccessors on the market out of the water. And if it is the "year of the laptop", what's to stop them from letting the PM sales lag a little, and packing the 1.4 and such into the sweet new laptops... consumers are really wanting laptops right now. If you were apple, and you knew you were preparing to release the most powerful desktop on the market in 9mos, and that the only thing you could do about the desktops you have now is make incremental bumps with motorola processors, why not kick the **** out of the laptop market, and reclaim the throne as the fastest desktop maker next year? OS X has only to be recompiled for 64 bit, and when those desktops are released with 64 bit 970's all of you who run the mouth now will be flocking to buy one, whether it's 800 mhz 64 bit, or 2.5.... and last time i checked the whole Percieved speed gap between pc and mac is getting ready to crumble anyway when intel and such have to explain why Mhz isn't the most important thing as the tables are turned when they're releasing their 1 ghz 64 bit processor and apple is turning out their increasingly popular unix based ultra-stable non tight-assed operating system on a processor that's what? what was that? clocking higher than the new intel and AMD chips??!!! oh my GOD it going to be SWEET....
The world wants to move to mac... they just don't know it yet... but it's coming. it's coming!!! mwhaahaahaa!!!
technocoy😀
nuckinfutz
macrumors 603
Barkmonster I thought about that as well
I know there are battles going on within Apple right now on how to parlay these machines in such a way as to maximize profits. That's very risky however IMO.
I say it would have to be based on Yields. If IBM is getting sufficient yields of 2.5Ghz CPU's to satiate Apples demands then I say go for the gusto. After all this will be the only generation of PPC 970's on 130nanometer. They'll be ramping to 90nanometer quickly, perhaps allowing Apple to hit 3Ghz next year in 2H.
At any rate I think Apple still has much leeway if their able to get decent amounts of CPU's. I hope they do it right. It's time to start shipping some boxes!
I know there are battles going on within Apple right now on how to parlay these machines in such a way as to maximize profits. That's very risky however IMO.
I say it would have to be based on Yields. If IBM is getting sufficient yields of 2.5Ghz CPU's to satiate Apples demands then I say go for the gusto. After all this will be the only generation of PPC 970's on 130nanometer. They'll be ramping to 90nanometer quickly, perhaps allowing Apple to hit 3Ghz next year in 2H.
At any rate I think Apple still has much leeway if their able to get decent amounts of CPU's. I hope they do it right. It's time to start shipping some boxes!
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
I dont think we will see a 2.5ghz this year,nor do i expect a dual machine. 1.4, 1.6 1.8 sounds good to me AND a 1.2 or 1.4 imac 970. Then they can scale these up as they see fit since the cpu will allow a lot of wiggle room unlike the go nowhere motobutt g4. I still think all the duallies stuff was just trying to make up for where moto wasnt going. Hard to say what apple will do.
The Apple execs are worried about the 970 rumors hurting PowerMac sales. This puts them between a rock and a hard place: If they publicly say they are going to use the 970, that will definitely kill PM sales. If they say nothing, some people will assume nothing better is coming (especially after months of 1.0 then 1.2 then 1.4 dribbling updates) and buy PCs.
So I have a suggestion for Apple: Leak something. Not something absolutely conclusive, but something pretty persuasive. Give it a day or two, then send the usual recall missive. It won't hurt PM sales, because those who are hot on these rumors are waiting anyway. But it will give the rumor-hounds something to be excited about, courage to talk up the Mac at work and school, because the greatest Macs of all time are coming.
And as long as I have your attention, we need a better compiler. We hear that IBM has a highly optimizing compiler for the PPC. Please look into it. License it, and give it to everyone. Get Adobe and Microsoft to use it. It could make a huge difference.
So I have a suggestion for Apple: Leak something. Not something absolutely conclusive, but something pretty persuasive. Give it a day or two, then send the usual recall missive. It won't hurt PM sales, because those who are hot on these rumors are waiting anyway. But it will give the rumor-hounds something to be excited about, courage to talk up the Mac at work and school, because the greatest Macs of all time are coming.
And as long as I have your attention, we need a better compiler. We hear that IBM has a highly optimizing compiler for the PPC. Please look into it. License it, and give it to everyone. Get Adobe and Microsoft to use it. It could make a huge difference.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
i agree somewhat cubist, but i think what is really hurting powermac sales is motorola stagnation. If they want the sales then they will have to break from the g4 and do it as fast as possible and with a massive advertising campaign. After all they are wanting switchers and they are not going to get those in quantity as long as macs cost more and are still slower then the wintells.( the smarter ones know the OS is superior but the hardware is not)
970 and switching (redux)
r.e. Don't Hurt Me's post (the relevant 970 stuff is near the end, by the way. The rest is precursive).
Yes, I agree. The OS is superior (although XP isn't too bad). And yes, it is principally the cost😛ower ratio that puts many off. But it's really not the only thing that makes or breaks a switcher. This is why I have to chuckle when people say things like 'yeah, having a fast(er) chip is going to have people flooding over to Apple.' No it won't. It will help, but it's just part of a package of reasons. It's like they don't have any mates with Wintel machines or, if they do, they've never talked to them. The performance difference is important (see my previous post), but it's not the be all and end all that some Mac-a-holics think it is; they seem to be confusing their own frustrations with those of a switcher.
Most people I talk to ask the following questions:
1) Why does it cost so much?
2) Do I need new software?
3) Will my printer/scanner/etc. work with it?
4) Where do I get it fixed?
5) Can I play games with it?
6) WHO ELSE SELL'S 'EM?
I can kind of get round the first one (even though PowerMacs are still too expensive in my opinion). I can explain the benefits of OS X and hence get them over the hump of the second one. The third one is a git (see below), and it still amazes me at how few scanners and printers are OS X native when one of Apple's key markets is for graphics. Question 4 is trickier in Britain than the U.S. (new Applestores on the way though?). Question 5: Games? Schmames. Buy a console.
The real killer (and I don't think many Mac-users appreciate this) is the final question. Apple has an OS/hardware monopoly. Not even M$ has that (and imagine how indignant you'd all be if it did?). People don't like not having a choice of vendors; it makes us feel we're potentially getting ripped off (and, let's face it, if you look at some of Apple's business moves over the last 6 months, it does seem to be wringing every last drop of dosh out of its loyal customer base).
I don't see this talked about much on the boards, but it comes up a lot when I'm talking to fellow Wintels about Apple. They don't like the idea that EVERYTHING (pretty much) to do with their computer is going to be determined by the business plan and output of one company.
As a result, it's hard(er) to get people to switch, and so Apple's market share doesn't increase, and so there follows a paucity of OS X compatible peripherals and software (specifically games, although to be honest I don't give monkies about that) and hence the problem trying to get people to switch continues...and so the cycle persists.
So, am I hoping for the 970 soon? Yes, or I won't switch. But one of the main reasons for this will be that if Apple doesn't shift things along, no-one else will, because it's a monopoly. And I don't wan't to invest in a (potentially) sinking ship. This is why the idea that 970s might not arrive till next year is pushing me way over in the direction of Dual Xeon Armari. In fact, the website is loaded as we speak. Of course, if Apple could confirm that the 970s will be out in a few months...
I understand that the 'mac clone' era almost killed Apple, but this just seems to indicate that Apple was bloated and unable to compete effectively...as it often appears now. I think they might need some competition on the hardware side; after all, they TELL us theirs is the best, but won't let anyone else put that to the test. Without a hardware competitor, I think they may just keep milking their customer base with a grind up through even more tiny G4 'boosts' and then a slow roll-out of 970 (I guess we'll know one way or another by the end of the year). BUT, oh, hang on, if a PC company tried to do that, it would die like a dog, because all the competition would pounce on the latest and/or best value chips and wander off with their customers.
Let's face it, we all have a chuckle at Gateway...but if Apple customers (with a lot of investment in the OS) had been free to go to an alternative vendor over the last few years then Apple could well have gone the same way...
Brother Mugga
PS: As you can see from the length of these posts, time is hanging heavy until The Premiership at 10.30...
r.e. Don't Hurt Me's post (the relevant 970 stuff is near the end, by the way. The rest is precursive).
Yes, I agree. The OS is superior (although XP isn't too bad). And yes, it is principally the cost😛ower ratio that puts many off. But it's really not the only thing that makes or breaks a switcher. This is why I have to chuckle when people say things like 'yeah, having a fast(er) chip is going to have people flooding over to Apple.' No it won't. It will help, but it's just part of a package of reasons. It's like they don't have any mates with Wintel machines or, if they do, they've never talked to them. The performance difference is important (see my previous post), but it's not the be all and end all that some Mac-a-holics think it is; they seem to be confusing their own frustrations with those of a switcher.
Most people I talk to ask the following questions:
1) Why does it cost so much?
2) Do I need new software?
3) Will my printer/scanner/etc. work with it?
4) Where do I get it fixed?
5) Can I play games with it?
6) WHO ELSE SELL'S 'EM?
I can kind of get round the first one (even though PowerMacs are still too expensive in my opinion). I can explain the benefits of OS X and hence get them over the hump of the second one. The third one is a git (see below), and it still amazes me at how few scanners and printers are OS X native when one of Apple's key markets is for graphics. Question 4 is trickier in Britain than the U.S. (new Applestores on the way though?). Question 5: Games? Schmames. Buy a console.
The real killer (and I don't think many Mac-users appreciate this) is the final question. Apple has an OS/hardware monopoly. Not even M$ has that (and imagine how indignant you'd all be if it did?). People don't like not having a choice of vendors; it makes us feel we're potentially getting ripped off (and, let's face it, if you look at some of Apple's business moves over the last 6 months, it does seem to be wringing every last drop of dosh out of its loyal customer base).
I don't see this talked about much on the boards, but it comes up a lot when I'm talking to fellow Wintels about Apple. They don't like the idea that EVERYTHING (pretty much) to do with their computer is going to be determined by the business plan and output of one company.
As a result, it's hard(er) to get people to switch, and so Apple's market share doesn't increase, and so there follows a paucity of OS X compatible peripherals and software (specifically games, although to be honest I don't give monkies about that) and hence the problem trying to get people to switch continues...and so the cycle persists.
So, am I hoping for the 970 soon? Yes, or I won't switch. But one of the main reasons for this will be that if Apple doesn't shift things along, no-one else will, because it's a monopoly. And I don't wan't to invest in a (potentially) sinking ship. This is why the idea that 970s might not arrive till next year is pushing me way over in the direction of Dual Xeon Armari. In fact, the website is loaded as we speak. Of course, if Apple could confirm that the 970s will be out in a few months...
I understand that the 'mac clone' era almost killed Apple, but this just seems to indicate that Apple was bloated and unable to compete effectively...as it often appears now. I think they might need some competition on the hardware side; after all, they TELL us theirs is the best, but won't let anyone else put that to the test. Without a hardware competitor, I think they may just keep milking their customer base with a grind up through even more tiny G4 'boosts' and then a slow roll-out of 970 (I guess we'll know one way or another by the end of the year). BUT, oh, hang on, if a PC company tried to do that, it would die like a dog, because all the competition would pounce on the latest and/or best value chips and wander off with their customers.
Let's face it, we all have a chuckle at Gateway...but if Apple customers (with a lot of investment in the OS) had been free to go to an alternative vendor over the last few years then Apple could well have gone the same way...
Brother Mugga
PS: As you can see from the length of these posts, time is hanging heavy until The Premiership at 10.30...
Re: Barkmonster I thought about that as well
Unfortunately, if you look at the ZDNet article that started this thread, you will see that the implication is that it is the .09 micron version that will run at 2.5 Ghz, not the .13 micron version.
I too was extremely impressed when the IBM Press Release said that the .13 micron 970 would scale up to 2.5 Ghz. It would mean that the 970 would significantly outperform the Pentium 4 on an equivalent process, since the P4 will only reach about 3.2 Ghz or so on the .13 micron process (and a 3.2 Ghz P4 would be no match for a 2.5 Ghz 970 in integer performance, let alone fp or vector performance - and all at lower power consumption no less).
Of course, maybe the ZDNet article is wrong (given that it is generally a cut-and-paste job) and the IBM Press Release was correct. I really hope that is true. But the fact that the IBM Press Release has now been pulled from their website certainly doesn't look promising - it sounds like somebody in the PR department might have made a serious mistake in implying that the .13 micron 970 will scale to 2.5 Ghz. Sigh. Of course, even a 1.8 Ghz 970 will be much better than what we have now, and for the first time in several years we will actually be competitive with Intel/AMD offerings (on things besides vector operations). But a 2.5 Ghz 970 really would have leap-frogged the Pentium 4 and Athlon-64 by a good margin...well, it's nice to dream!
Unfortunately, if you look at the ZDNet article that started this thread, you will see that the implication is that it is the .09 micron version that will run at 2.5 Ghz, not the .13 micron version.
I too was extremely impressed when the IBM Press Release said that the .13 micron 970 would scale up to 2.5 Ghz. It would mean that the 970 would significantly outperform the Pentium 4 on an equivalent process, since the P4 will only reach about 3.2 Ghz or so on the .13 micron process (and a 3.2 Ghz P4 would be no match for a 2.5 Ghz 970 in integer performance, let alone fp or vector performance - and all at lower power consumption no less).
Of course, maybe the ZDNet article is wrong (given that it is generally a cut-and-paste job) and the IBM Press Release was correct. I really hope that is true. But the fact that the IBM Press Release has now been pulled from their website certainly doesn't look promising - it sounds like somebody in the PR department might have made a serious mistake in implying that the .13 micron 970 will scale to 2.5 Ghz. Sigh. Of course, even a 1.8 Ghz 970 will be much better than what we have now, and for the first time in several years we will actually be competitive with Intel/AMD offerings (on things besides vector operations). But a 2.5 Ghz 970 really would have leap-frogged the Pentium 4 and Athlon-64 by a good margin...well, it's nice to dream!
0.09
Yeah, I just presumed that the ZNet was a cut'n paste cock-up because otherwise...well, what are we (and specifically Macrumors) getting excited about?
I didn't realise it'd now been pulled by IBM. That doesn't look good. Any chance of arn confirming whether it's meant to be 1,8-2.5 at o.13 or whether the 1.8+ relates just to the lower process?
Brother Mugga
Yeah, I just presumed that the ZNet was a cut'n paste cock-up because otherwise...well, what are we (and specifically Macrumors) getting excited about?
I didn't realise it'd now been pulled by IBM. That doesn't look good. Any chance of arn confirming whether it's meant to be 1,8-2.5 at o.13 or whether the 1.8+ relates just to the lower process?
Brother Mugga
zac4mac
macrumors 6502
IBM specs wrong?
I find that idea a lot less likely than Steve was on the phone screaming that he has enough trouble with these 970 rumors killing PM sales and IBM pulled it as a nicety. See if they still show the protos at CEBIT or Apple makes an announcement before that. Hoping for a summer release - I want a rev 2 or 3 next year.
Z
I find that idea a lot less likely than Steve was on the phone screaming that he has enough trouble with these 970 rumors killing PM sales and IBM pulled it as a nicety. See if they still show the protos at CEBIT or Apple makes an announcement before that. Hoping for a summer release - I want a rev 2 or 3 next year.
Z
Sol
macrumors 68000
Uncle Bill Wants You!
To the teacher telling his students to wait for Apple: do not hold your breaths. Apple takes its sweet time with upgrades and if their current line-up is not good enough for you now then it will never be good enough.
Those who say things like "my $5 Dell blows away the top of the line PowerMac AND it has USB 2.0" are probably comparing how many frames per second Quake 3 can render on the two platforms. The G4 processor may be underutilized by most programmers but when Altivec and dual processors are taken into consideration then it is the Pentium chips that are left sucking eggs.
As for the architecture differences, you are comparing apples to oranges. Apple has never taken the bigger is better approach to hardware design and if you cannot live with that then too bad. Personally I find value in a computer that is optimized to be powerful and stable.
Several months ago Apple brought out the first consumer machines with Silicon On Insulator CPUs. I do not remember which version of the G4 that was but I do remember that Apple was the first. Funny how no-one mentions innovations like this when the focus is on increasing GHz. Anyway, say what you will about the G4 but the fact is that without it Apple would not be an industry leader when it comes to fan-less and portable designs.
The theory that rumor sites are affecting the sales of PowerMacs may be partially true but I think that misguided Apple users are also to blame. They are the first to suggest that Intel hardware is better while easily editing movies, burning DVDs, etc that their "slower" Apple hardware and software lets them do. Any potential switchers reading comments from these misguided Apple users probably nod their heads in agreement and return to Wintel in the hope that GHz will somehow empower them. Too bad the software on Windows is so confusing.
When Quark XPress finally gets released for OS X one of the last hurdles will be overcome. Unfortunately a lot of you will jump on the "Where are the G5s" bandwagon and continue spreading this negativity about Apple products. The rest of us will surely feel a degree of pride in being part of the Mac club.
To the teacher telling his students to wait for Apple: do not hold your breaths. Apple takes its sweet time with upgrades and if their current line-up is not good enough for you now then it will never be good enough.
Those who say things like "my $5 Dell blows away the top of the line PowerMac AND it has USB 2.0" are probably comparing how many frames per second Quake 3 can render on the two platforms. The G4 processor may be underutilized by most programmers but when Altivec and dual processors are taken into consideration then it is the Pentium chips that are left sucking eggs.
As for the architecture differences, you are comparing apples to oranges. Apple has never taken the bigger is better approach to hardware design and if you cannot live with that then too bad. Personally I find value in a computer that is optimized to be powerful and stable.
Several months ago Apple brought out the first consumer machines with Silicon On Insulator CPUs. I do not remember which version of the G4 that was but I do remember that Apple was the first. Funny how no-one mentions innovations like this when the focus is on increasing GHz. Anyway, say what you will about the G4 but the fact is that without it Apple would not be an industry leader when it comes to fan-less and portable designs.
The theory that rumor sites are affecting the sales of PowerMacs may be partially true but I think that misguided Apple users are also to blame. They are the first to suggest that Intel hardware is better while easily editing movies, burning DVDs, etc that their "slower" Apple hardware and software lets them do. Any potential switchers reading comments from these misguided Apple users probably nod their heads in agreement and return to Wintel in the hope that GHz will somehow empower them. Too bad the software on Windows is so confusing.
When Quark XPress finally gets released for OS X one of the last hurdles will be overcome. Unfortunately a lot of you will jump on the "Where are the G5s" bandwagon and continue spreading this negativity about Apple products. The rest of us will surely feel a degree of pride in being part of the Mac club.
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
Nice post sol but apple hardware is not up to speed with the wintel stuff and this is fact. Look at buses,ddr ram that isnt fully used and speed, look at benchmarks on cpu tests,look at any benchmarks for photo apps or games or you can look at some flash benchmarks people were doing today on this site. Bottom line is the hardware is behind or slower if you will. Software the mac is superior, iapps,The OS,ease of use stability etc. They have been holding on to the G4 for to long and its showing. I love my Mac but if they are going to charge top dollar and are supposed to be the cream of the crop then the hardware needs to catch up to the software. Lil Motobumps just aint getting the job done hence 3% marketshare. Rumor sites arent affecting sales, Slow minor increases with motorolas stagnating g4s are!
Sol
macrumors 68000
In the words of Mr. Burns, "Hogwash!"
Whatever benchmarks you are referring to I can tell you that there would be other benchmarks showing the Apple hardware as the superior machines. I think someone had links for such benchmarks earlier in this thread. I also refer you to the speed comparisons performed by Steve Jobs with Photoshop. As for the games, there are many reasons why frames are lower on OS X than on Windows and most of those are software based. Remember that most games for OS X are ports from Windows so there is bound to be a generation loss when it comes to performance.
You say that Apple has held on to the G4 for too long but it can also be argued that Windows has held on to the Pentium for too long. It would be no exaggeration to say that the x86 architecture is hopelessly outdated and the only reason why it is still developed is that the domination of Microsoft's operating systems has created such a huge demand for it.
There are benefits to PPC RISC chips and chief amongst those is the heat efficiency. Consumer RISC processors are also set to go 64 bit this year while Intel has dismissed the need for such progress. Perhaps it would clash with their dependance on Windows.
In any case, where you see bottlenecks in Apple's hardware I see efficiency and superior design. If bigger is better for you then there is no point in spending your money with Apple. If you can appreciate things that are well-built then by all means, pay the premium price and get a premium product.
Whatever benchmarks you are referring to I can tell you that there would be other benchmarks showing the Apple hardware as the superior machines. I think someone had links for such benchmarks earlier in this thread. I also refer you to the speed comparisons performed by Steve Jobs with Photoshop. As for the games, there are many reasons why frames are lower on OS X than on Windows and most of those are software based. Remember that most games for OS X are ports from Windows so there is bound to be a generation loss when it comes to performance.
You say that Apple has held on to the G4 for too long but it can also be argued that Windows has held on to the Pentium for too long. It would be no exaggeration to say that the x86 architecture is hopelessly outdated and the only reason why it is still developed is that the domination of Microsoft's operating systems has created such a huge demand for it.
There are benefits to PPC RISC chips and chief amongst those is the heat efficiency. Consumer RISC processors are also set to go 64 bit this year while Intel has dismissed the need for such progress. Perhaps it would clash with their dependance on Windows.
In any case, where you see bottlenecks in Apple's hardware I see efficiency and superior design. If bigger is better for you then there is no point in spending your money with Apple. If you can appreciate things that are well-built then by all means, pay the premium price and get a premium product.
r.e. hogwash
Sol,
I wouldn't have thought many would dispute that PPC architecture is superior to x86; it's one of the reasons I want to switch (although I feel it IS something of an exaggeration to suggest that the latter is 'hopelessly outdated'...and on the RISC/CISC front most chips are effectively lopsided hybrids now anyway).
But, hang on, wasn't Betamax was superior to VHS? (etc.)
Similarly, I agree that if apps. were cocoa and coded efficiently for altivec then the G4 could compete...but they aren't, so it doesn't. Your line of argument exhibits the problem that I've been alluding to in all my posts; that Mac-users tend to talk about potential rather than living in the here and now. For example, note all the posts over the last year talking about the 'G5' (or whatever) in which posters say 'how cool would that be! We'll really hammer (no pun intended...well, okay, maybe a little) AMD and Intel and people will switch in droves' (etc.). Meanwhile, the Athlon and P4 have steadily scaled to speeds that - sorry, but as Dont Hurt Me points out, in any 'real world' test - leave the G4 puffing along like an asthmatic lard-arse.
I fear the same might happen with 970s 64-bit possibilites; don't forget that re-coding will be needed to take advantage of this and how many major software houses are even bothering to write in cocoa, rather than carbon? Be prepared for more 'potential over real world' board arguments.
It's no good moaning that it's only the installed user base of Windows that is driving this process; I agree. But the fact remains that it's happening (and I wouldn't underate the effects of competition either (see previous post) - see what happened to Intel's R&D when AMD started making inroads. Expect similar between Nvidia and ATi now the latter is back in the saddle).
Finally (in response to your final paragraph), it's NOT that bigger is better per se, but rather that there comes a point when chip speed really does matter for some applications. I agree with you; I really wouldn't mind paying a premium for a premium product. That's why I will switch if it arrives soon enough. Because these current PowerMacs AREN'T premium. XP is (generally) stable enough (not that I wouldn't prefer OS X) and I can get workstations (that do not have bottlenecks...I'm not quite sure how you percieve a FSB that chokes the processer as evidence of the Mac's 'efficiency and superior design'?) that are pretty well designed and really fly (although I'd prefer a Mac that COMPETED, and wouldn't mind paying a premium).
People often come out with the 'comparing Wintel with Apple is like comparing Ford with BMW' analogy. Yeah, to an extent. But how long do you think BMW would last if they only managed to put 1.1 engines (chip) in them and you couldn't go on half the roads in the country because of the suspension or whatever (OS), whereas Fords were knocking out 2 litres (for half the cost) that could go pretty much anywhere?
Now do you see why I fear for Apple unless they start whacking out competitive processors (and soon)?
Brother Mugga
PS: Regarding heat, Google up 'Centrino' and also 'Prescott' for Intel. Not 970s, but a lot better than the P4.
PPS: Notice also that, in talking up the Centrino Intel are having to shaft the 'megahertz myth' themselves (just as with the Itanium, but now for a CONSUMER chip). Now, come on Sol, that's GOT to have you laughing almost as much as me...?
Sol,
I wouldn't have thought many would dispute that PPC architecture is superior to x86; it's one of the reasons I want to switch (although I feel it IS something of an exaggeration to suggest that the latter is 'hopelessly outdated'...and on the RISC/CISC front most chips are effectively lopsided hybrids now anyway).
But, hang on, wasn't Betamax was superior to VHS? (etc.)
Similarly, I agree that if apps. were cocoa and coded efficiently for altivec then the G4 could compete...but they aren't, so it doesn't. Your line of argument exhibits the problem that I've been alluding to in all my posts; that Mac-users tend to talk about potential rather than living in the here and now. For example, note all the posts over the last year talking about the 'G5' (or whatever) in which posters say 'how cool would that be! We'll really hammer (no pun intended...well, okay, maybe a little) AMD and Intel and people will switch in droves' (etc.). Meanwhile, the Athlon and P4 have steadily scaled to speeds that - sorry, but as Dont Hurt Me points out, in any 'real world' test - leave the G4 puffing along like an asthmatic lard-arse.
I fear the same might happen with 970s 64-bit possibilites; don't forget that re-coding will be needed to take advantage of this and how many major software houses are even bothering to write in cocoa, rather than carbon? Be prepared for more 'potential over real world' board arguments.
It's no good moaning that it's only the installed user base of Windows that is driving this process; I agree. But the fact remains that it's happening (and I wouldn't underate the effects of competition either (see previous post) - see what happened to Intel's R&D when AMD started making inroads. Expect similar between Nvidia and ATi now the latter is back in the saddle).
Finally (in response to your final paragraph), it's NOT that bigger is better per se, but rather that there comes a point when chip speed really does matter for some applications. I agree with you; I really wouldn't mind paying a premium for a premium product. That's why I will switch if it arrives soon enough. Because these current PowerMacs AREN'T premium. XP is (generally) stable enough (not that I wouldn't prefer OS X) and I can get workstations (that do not have bottlenecks...I'm not quite sure how you percieve a FSB that chokes the processer as evidence of the Mac's 'efficiency and superior design'?) that are pretty well designed and really fly (although I'd prefer a Mac that COMPETED, and wouldn't mind paying a premium).
People often come out with the 'comparing Wintel with Apple is like comparing Ford with BMW' analogy. Yeah, to an extent. But how long do you think BMW would last if they only managed to put 1.1 engines (chip) in them and you couldn't go on half the roads in the country because of the suspension or whatever (OS), whereas Fords were knocking out 2 litres (for half the cost) that could go pretty much anywhere?
Now do you see why I fear for Apple unless they start whacking out competitive processors (and soon)?
Brother Mugga
PS: Regarding heat, Google up 'Centrino' and also 'Prescott' for Intel. Not 970s, but a lot better than the P4.
PPS: Notice also that, in talking up the Centrino Intel are having to shaft the 'megahertz myth' themselves (just as with the Itanium, but now for a CONSUMER chip). Now, come on Sol, that's GOT to have you laughing almost as much as me...?
Sol
macrumors 68000
Now that you mentioned it, yes it does seem ironic that Intel will try to convince its customers that lower MHz does not mean less performance. A few weeks ago Intel announced that its next-gen mobile processors will come out at something like 1.6 -1.8 GHz speeds in the middle of the year. It occurred to me then that (in the mobile space) Apple will suddenly close the MHz gap all thanks to Intel.
Anyway, the applications that matter on OS X are those made by Apple, Adobe, Macromedia and Quark. Apple's iLife suite has no equals in other OSs and I guess it is due to the optimizations for Altivec and dual CPUs. Adobe has a reputation for taking advantage of new hardware features and Photoshop is a prime example of 3rd party software done right. Macromedia continues to provide the goods and have supported OS X from the beginning. Quark are... Well, the less said about them the better. Major let-down for what is supposed to be an industry leader in layout software. My point is that while the average programmer does not optimize for Apple hardware, the ones that matter do. Except for Quack, I mean Quark.
A point about Carbon: in retrospect I think Apple made a mistake by encouraging developers to Carbonize their applications. The Classic layer all-ready gave us compatibility with older applications. If Carbon was not part of the equation then chances are that developers would have been forced to re-write their work in Cocoa. Surely it would have taken longer to see an OS X version of Photoshop or even Final Cut Pro but in the meantime OS 9 would have been good enough for most people.
Anyway, the applications that matter on OS X are those made by Apple, Adobe, Macromedia and Quark. Apple's iLife suite has no equals in other OSs and I guess it is due to the optimizations for Altivec and dual CPUs. Adobe has a reputation for taking advantage of new hardware features and Photoshop is a prime example of 3rd party software done right. Macromedia continues to provide the goods and have supported OS X from the beginning. Quark are... Well, the less said about them the better. Major let-down for what is supposed to be an industry leader in layout software. My point is that while the average programmer does not optimize for Apple hardware, the ones that matter do. Except for Quack, I mean Quark.
A point about Carbon: in retrospect I think Apple made a mistake by encouraging developers to Carbonize their applications. The Classic layer all-ready gave us compatibility with older applications. If Carbon was not part of the equation then chances are that developers would have been forced to re-write their work in Cocoa. Surely it would have taken longer to see an OS X version of Photoshop or even Final Cut Pro but in the meantime OS 9 would have been good enough for most people.
Do you think Apple might release a 'premium product', that can match a home built PC from about 18 months to 2 years ago sometime soon ?
Superior design that includes motherboards that render a whole range of powermacs next to useless for audio and a cooling system that was obviously inspired by a hairdryer isn't exactly something to brag about. The TiBook, iBook, iPod etc... are all examples of superior design but there's really not much that would make me do anything other than buy a cpu upgrade for my current mac right now.
For the software I use mainly (Protools LE) there's a few things that kind of piss me off right now. The positive things are that Protools 6.0 is out and it takes full advantage of both cpus on a dual system and runs under OS X. The negative thing is the performance compared with typical PCs and even older macs.
The current dual 1.25GHz model is under 60% faster than a properly configured dual 500Mhz sawtooth model. Where's the progress ?
The same dual 1.25Ghz model, even though it's running under OS X and the software is fully multithreaded so both cpus are being used to their full potential, is STILL around 20% slower than a custom configured Athlon PC that can be built for under $1000!
That's not even the fastest PC system, some people with very recent "thoroughbred" Athlons and 2.4Ghz+ Pentium 4s are running well over 60% more plug-ins that the mac can manage.
I wouldn't pay full price for a brand new mac (if I had the cash) until there's some genuine power, I want a mac that's going to last me a few years, if it's already dated THIS year, why would I bother buying one ?
I could get a used digital audio G4, pop in one of those powerlogix dual upgrades and max out the RAM for about the same price as the entry level 1Ghz G4. I could also actually "use" the thing too, It's a long up hill struggle of waiting for software synths and plug-ins to be released for OS X. I don't have boatloads of outboard effects, samplers, synths etc... I have a mac, protools LE, a few plug-ins and a few software synths. It's running on an old mac, I've been waiting years for at least an entry level 1Ghz G4 before I give up on my beige G3, now it's here, it's OS X only and I can't use it!
Seeing as whatever the CPU situation on the mac, I'm waiting for software to be ported to OS X, by the time there's loads of it available, the PPC970 based macs could be out. That's worth waiting for.
It's got all the bandwidth the G4 lacks, that's half the reason the AMD and Intel based PCs are slaughtering the G4 in certain benchmarks, 2.1 - 4.2Gb/s is a lot better than the 1.3Gb/s the G4s are limited to.
Carbon cock-ups
I'm inclined to agree with you, Sol. I think encouraging carbonisation just tied up coders who could have been working on cocoa. Mind you, I'm not exactly au fait with how software houses go about deciding these things, so that's just an uneducated opinion on my part.
r.e. the Centrino/Powerbook stuff - absolutely. Suddenly that G4 1 Gig in the Powerbook is going to start looking much more attractive to the big-number=big-value monkies around the world (indeed, even considered PC opinion (i.e. PC Advisor magazine) is hailing them (rightly) as class acts). This is probably why Mr. Jobs has labelled this year the 'year of the notebook/laptop' - because the power consumption to performance ratio of the G4 allows it to compete more effectively in this market.
My worry about this is that Jobs' statement perhaps implies that the 970 won't make it into Powermacs this year...which means Apple is probably going to lose me and my mates/students as we need to get workstations by late summer/early autumn. Pah.
Brother Mugga
PS: Must go now - England are just giving us all hope in the cricket (before no doubt rudely dashing it as Australia power home with 5 overs to spare).
PPS: Update...
Sorry to doubt you, England. What I meant was keep us all on tenderhooks and then screw it up in the PENULTIMATE over.
I despair...
(Sorry if this makes no sense to any Americans out there. It's a cricket world cup thing).
I'm inclined to agree with you, Sol. I think encouraging carbonisation just tied up coders who could have been working on cocoa. Mind you, I'm not exactly au fait with how software houses go about deciding these things, so that's just an uneducated opinion on my part.
r.e. the Centrino/Powerbook stuff - absolutely. Suddenly that G4 1 Gig in the Powerbook is going to start looking much more attractive to the big-number=big-value monkies around the world (indeed, even considered PC opinion (i.e. PC Advisor magazine) is hailing them (rightly) as class acts). This is probably why Mr. Jobs has labelled this year the 'year of the notebook/laptop' - because the power consumption to performance ratio of the G4 allows it to compete more effectively in this market.
My worry about this is that Jobs' statement perhaps implies that the 970 won't make it into Powermacs this year...which means Apple is probably going to lose me and my mates/students as we need to get workstations by late summer/early autumn. Pah.
Brother Mugga
PS: Must go now - England are just giving us all hope in the cricket (before no doubt rudely dashing it as Australia power home with 5 overs to spare).
PPS: Update...
Sorry to doubt you, England. What I meant was keep us all on tenderhooks and then screw it up in the PENULTIMATE over.
I despair...
(Sorry if this makes no sense to any Americans out there. It's a cricket world cup thing).
Dont Hurt Me
macrumors 603
Nice post barkmonster, the hardware is behind this is no secret. this why they are using 2 cpu's -1.25 &1.25 does not equal 2.50 no matter how hard you try. The whole computing experience is better on the mac period. I own 3 macs right now but the bottom line is that the hardware is on the back row on the race track and if they want to be the pole sitter then they are going to need the 970 as soon as they can because soon these g4's powermacs wont be on the race track. Iam not trying to bust on the mac at all, iam just stating the facts that the hardware division needs to let go of the g4. The g4 has held back the Mac for to long. I think most of us know this and is why there is so much interest in where cpu's and the mac are headed.
Follow the money. I think that would be wise to do in this case. Intel has the fastest chips because they have all the money. Money for development and research. Motorola has money but must play it safe for now. The safe play is cell phones. Who has even more money then either one of them? IBM. IBM is the mother load of research money. They will have the fastest chip.
Re: IBM specs wrong?
Conceivably, yes. But it does not help your case (which, trust me, I want to believe, but I am being realistic here) that the ZDNet story linked at the beginning of this thread specifically says that the 2.5 Ghz version is the *next* release of the 970, not the first release of the 970.
Conceivably, yes. But it does not help your case (which, trust me, I want to believe, but I am being realistic here) that the ZDNet story linked at the beginning of this thread specifically says that the 2.5 Ghz version is the *next* release of the 970, not the first release of the 970.