Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Apple Businesses Hardware

Apple to Announce the Power Mac G5 at WWDC? 633

a.ameri writes "Apple Insider is reporting that Apple will announce computers based on IBM's 64 bit PPC 970 processor in the upcomming WWDC and will market them as G5. The new Power Mac G5s will sport a completely new motherboard design utilizing DDR 400 RAM as well as AGP 8x graphics, FireWire 800, and USB 2.0, sources said. "In the box" connectivity among the news systems is based on Hypertransport which provides 64-bit addressing and will replace Apple's multilevel bus architecture found in current systems. Initial offerings of the Power Mac G5 are said to boast 1.4 to 1.8GHz, single core PPC 970 processors, with the possibility of a dual 1.8GHz chips shortly thereafter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple to Announce the Power Mac G5 at WWDC?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I've not seen any gigabit ethernet capabilities ?

    Does anybody have information about this ?
  • Probably true but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by iJed ( 594606 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:19AM (#6142681) Homepage
    While it is probably true that Apple will launch a PowerMac G5 at WWDC the information given here is only from a rumor site. Many of the rumor sites cannot be trusted much (such as MacOSRumors) and a one or two are extremely accurate (ThinkSecret). AppleInsider is one of the oldest rumor sites and at one time was one of the best. Recently though it has been taken over and the general accuracy of its stories is now unknown. However this rumor seems to have enough other sites reporting generally the same thing to be true. Its not fact yet though!
  • by gotr00t ( 563828 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:19AM (#6142682) Journal
    Apple themselves have made public demonstrations trying to debunk the myth that clock speed is processing power. Being known for sticking to "slower" processors, it seems that Apple is finally starting to cave into the demands of the consumers.

    I have tried to use the client on an AMD Athlon 1600 XP running Linux 2.4.10 and a G4 864 Mhz using Mac OS X 10.2. It seems that in terms of raw processing power, the G4 was actually more powerful, at over 10,260,280 nodes/sec, while the Athlon was only at 8,160,200 nodes/sec, and that's with no backgrounds processes running (besides the OS)
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Because the dnetc is optimized for the altivec capabilities of the G4. The Athlon has no similar vector processing unit.
      • by RevAaron ( 125240 ) <revaaron&hotmail,com> on Sunday June 08, 2003 @04:07PM (#6144932) Homepage
        It is a good thing to know, acedemically, that Altivec is the reason dnetc is so fast on a G4 and that there is no equivalent on the Athlon or a P4. However, this does not change the fact that the G4 performs so much better than the x86 processors available- and isn't that end-of-the-day, real-world performance what matters? It's not like someone can say "The Athlon doesn't have a vector processing unit- so you have to take it out of the G4!" and expect some "more fair" comparison. The G4 is the G4 and the Athlon is the Athlon.
    • I wouldn't say that they've caved into the Mhz myth, so much as the G4 processors have pretty much hit the top of their lifespan quite some time ago. This is just a natural progression, they needed a new processor, and Moto's offerings are pants, so they went with the 970, which is a darn good processor.

      Furthermore, if they were really caving, they would have gone with a processor with a few more RPM.. 1.8Ghz? That's pretty weedy in the world of x86.. That's actually pathetic as far as "new" machinew w
    • I have tried to use the client on an AMD Athlon 1600 XP running Linux 2.4.10 and a G4 864 Mhz using Mac OS X 10.2. It seems that in terms of raw processing power, the G4 was actually more powerful, at over 10,260,280 nodes/sec, while the Athlon was only at 8,160,200 nodes/sec, and that's with no backgrounds processes running (besides the OS)

      It's kind of naive to equate OGR performance with "raw processing power". Computing OGR nodes is a very special case of computing something. There may
    • Perhaps you should ask AMD; that Athlon XP 1600+ really runs at 1.4 GHz, you know. AMD seems to be in a similar boat as Apple with the clock speed myths.

      And, AMD has done a pretty good job at disguising the real clock speed. I bought an Athlon 2400+ not too long ago. I couldn't find the real clock speed anywhere on the package, until suddenly a small note in a really tiny font size near the UPC label said: Operates at 2000 MHz.
    • Remember that Apple has optimised its processors to run with their OS, while Intel and AMD have no such luxury. I think a better test would be the above both running Linux.
    • the dnetc RC5-64 and RC5-72 client for MacOSX both make extensive use of hand coded Altivec optimisations. All that your results prove is that Altivec is an extremely powerful vector unit - but we knew that already.

      Look at the dnetc client comparison database and you'll find some spectacular results for the MP Macs - a 2 way 1.42 Ghz G4 scores like a 16 way 1.05 Ghz Sun Ultra SPARC III.
    • by akuma(x86) ( 224898 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @03:33PM (#6144743)
      Please people.

      Stop using "" to compare microprocessor performance. It's a highly skewed benchmark that really only tests the speed of the "Rotate" instruction (which is on the critical path of the program).

      Altivec supplies a data-parallel version of the Rotate instruction so processors with altivec can do many rotates in parallel which is why a G4 will beat anything else (no other processors have this data-parallel instruction because it is completely useless with the rare exception of this app). That is to say that most other computer designers felt that adding this instruction would be a complete waste of die area and power, since no other ISA supports it (x86, SPARC, MIPS, POWER etc...) ...

      1) Does not test branch predictors because it's a simple loop that is very easily predictable by even the most trivial preditctors

      2) Does not test the internal L1/L2 cache hierarchy because all of the data fits in the L1 of most processors

      3) Does not test the memory system (DRAM/Front-side-bus/memory-controller) because, as mentioned in #2, all of the data fits in the L1 cache.

      4) It does not test the instruction cache performance because all of the code fits in the L1 instruction cache.

      Stop using it to compare general-purpose computer performance. It is only important if the only app you care about is

      Your Athlon 1600 will spank the G4 at most everything else.
    • Clock speed is not very informative when comparing processors of different design, but it is certainly relevant when comparing similar processors. PPC's are faster than Intel processors at comparable clock speeds--but clock speeds have not been comparable for some time. The speed advantage of the PPC is not enough to compensate for the much faster clock speed of current Intel chips. So Apple does need faster processors, and one part of this is a faster clock.
  • Intel has 3GHZ+ chips out these days. Thats double what the new Mac would have. I know clock speed isn't everything but at a certain point wouldn't you want clock speed over architecture ?
    • When you buy a new car, do you look for the one with the engine featuring the highest RPM ? (thougth not)

      The comparison is not as stupid as it sounds, your argument is actually a lot worse. Not trying to flame here, but seriously, do you really think the amount of Ghz is what really counts nowdays ?

    • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @11:09AM (#6142980)
      but at a certain point wouldn't you want clock speed over architecture ?

      No. Intel has shown that you can sacrifice too much chasing clock speed in the case of the P4. Look at the Centrino - the same performance of the P4M at 2/3 the clock speed.

      With the G5 we are talking about a 64 bit CPU with clock speeds in the 1.2 - 1.8 GHz range. This is in fact quite competitive just on a clock speed basis with current 64 bit designs from AMD and Intel.

      • by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <> on Sunday June 08, 2003 @12:10PM (#6143392)
        No. Intel has shown that you can sacrifice too much chasing clock speed in the case of the P4. Look at the Centrino - the same performance of the P4M at 2/3 the clock speed.

        You seem to be missing the point - what good is the Centrino being just as fast at 2/3 the clockspeed if the P4 still has enough headroom to (say) quadruple it's clockspeed and the Centrino only has enough headroom to double it ?

        CPU performance can be increased by (amongst other things) architectural improvements or by ramping clockspeed. Neither, in an of itself, is inherently superior to the other. A CPU that performs twice as fast per clock, but is only clocked at 1/3 the speed, is still slower.

    • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @12:06PM (#6143351) Journal
      Intel has 3GHZ+ chips out these days. Thats double what the new Mac would have.

      It gets worse. The new 3GHz P4 has a thermal output of almost 80W, around four times the thermal output of a . How will Apple cope with a computer which produces so little heat? The average consumer won't care that you can leave a Mac on longer in order to heat up their room, or that they will actually be able to hear their music over the fan noise. All they will see is that the Mac costs more and they have to buy a heater to keeps their house warm as well.

  • nTh Post!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FosterKanig ( 645454 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:23AM (#6142702)
    Anyway, what I found most interesting about the rumor/article was the inclusion of USB2.

    They have long championed Firewire as superior (which it is, and is still included) but it is nice to see that they are willing to adapt and a more common USB2.
    This acceptance of USB2 shows a willingness to accept standards, no matter how wrong they are.
    • Re:nTh Post!!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:44AM (#6142837) Homepage Journal
      There's nothing particularly wrong with USB2 - it's seen as a competitor merely because the bus speeds of FW and USB2 are similar. USB2 is cheap and processor intensive. FW isn't either cheap or processor intensive. You'd want to use Firewire for most storage applications (ie the computer's permanently attached disks, etc) and processes where there'd be high processor involvement while those devices are in use, such as DV cameras.

      But there's no reason for USB2 not to be used for a lot of the "rest of the stuff", such as portable storage devices, CD burning, cameras and MP3 players, etc. There's no reason to believe that while these devices are being used, the machine itself will need to do a lot of other work, and given the price difference, it seems reasonable.

      You might liken it to IDE vs SCSI, except IDE was a real heap of crap so even when performance wasn't an issue, there were still good reasons to go with SCSI. USB2 on the other hand is a decent enough standard, has wide support, and shouldn't be treated with the snobbery it usually attracts.

  • G5 a good name? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by freedom_leffo ( 605662 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:23AM (#6142707)
    Is G5 a good marketing name though? I've understood that the whole Gx-line is thought of as slow and stagnant processors. Perhaps a name not associated with Motorola would be a better idea.

    Thoughts, anyone?

  • by A_Non_Moose ( 413034 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:25AM (#6142713) Homepage Journal
    Panther (10.3) we know is coming, that is a given and that is the substance.

    The "Shadow" is the G5 and even the most die-hard mac fan would most likely utter the phrase:

    I will believe it when I see it.

    IMO, apple needs to figure out if they are going to keep/dump metadata...and stick with it.
    I find it quite half-assed you can generate previews of images, but not store them.
    (with the exception of Internet Explorer, but only one at a time)

    (won't someone think of the pr0n collections?)
    • "[...]and even the most die-hard mac fan would most likely utter the phrase:

      I will believe it when I see it

      Nah, the phrase we die-hard Mac fans use (when talking about the G5) is:

      I want to believe

  • rumors (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pcp_ip ( 612017 ) *
    there's been a rush of rumors in the last few weeks- and most have them have been fakes (like PAL []).

    Gone are the days of WorkerBee [].

    You can't bet on the rumormill- only steve knows what's going to happen.

  • by niko9 ( 315647 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:26AM (#6142723)
    whats stopping IBM from making these chips available
    with an appropriate motherboard for folks who would like to run linux/bsd/ on them?

    • by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:48AM (#6142861)
      In point of fact IBM announced they would be selling PPC970 based systems running linux months ago. The announcement concerned blades, but I'd be willing to bet they'll build "low end" (compared to Power4 systems) workstations around them too, finally phasing out their old PPC604 low end workstations.

      Of course, I wouldn't count on them matching/beating Apple's price point. Historically IBM's PPC based stuff has been *much* more expensive.
    • whats stopping IBM from making these chips available with an appropriate motherboard for folks who would like to run linux/bsd/ on them?

      In 2004, IBM will produce a chipset and subsequently subcontracts a Taiwan motherboard company to produce boards for the White Box market. These boards run Linux/BSD/OSX. Price point for a single-CPU board is seeded (with a small subsidy from IBM) at about US$200.

      Apple whines and whimpers, but their contract with IBM does not prohibit IBM from doing chipsets or motherboa

  • Shenanigans (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:30AM (#6142751)
    I call shenanigans on both AppleInsider and Slashdot for being lame. I'll believe it when I see it.
  • No news really (Score:5, Informative)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:32AM (#6142756) Journal
    those rumors have been floating around for a few weeks, if not months on other sites. For the wannabe-mac fanatics among yuo : here are other rumor adresses :

    macrumors [] (reliable, good forums)
    macosrumors [] (unreliable, bloated, no forums)
    looprumors [](reliable, low traffic forums)
    thinksecret [](reliable, low traffic content, low traffic forums)
    macwhispers [] (reliable, mostly hardware info, no forums)
    macslash [](slashdot for mac, mostly blahblah)
    macbidouille [](french, rather new, so reliability unconfirmed)
    appleturns [](100% reliable news by Steve Jobs's alter ego)
  • by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:41AM (#6142816) Journal
    Aye aye aye, now don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to see the next generation of chips being put in Apple's machines, but doesn't this just seem too easy a rumor to put out? C'mon rumor-mongers, there are much better ones to go after.

    Take for instance, this snippet taken from the article: ""In the box" connectivity among the news systems is based on Hypertransport -- a universal chip-to-chip interconnect developed by AMD and partners..."...why don't we start the speculation that we're going to AMD chips? Hm...that could be fun. And to be honest, I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet.

    Then wouldn't really surprise me to have IBM's new chips in there (I'm still wondering what's going to happen with Motorola and their silly little antics). We've got FinalCut Pro 4 coming out, Panther (OS 10.3) coming out, a couple new updates just happened (ie, iSynch)...all setting the stage for something new.

    Now if they'd just hurry up with the Windows version of the music service to ward off the Redmond fellows...
  • Pet rock. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:48AM (#6142865) Homepage
    "These initial units will ship with Mac OS 10.2, and hence, will not be optimized for the 64 bit PPC 970 processor. Consumers who purchase these Power Mac G5s will receive a coupon for a free copy of Mac OS 10.3 (Panther), which will ship in September and will be optimized for the new 64 bit processor"

    Translation: It's a pet rock until September, by which time production can be geared up and units will actually be available. Of course this will kill all sales until then, so announcing this early would be a very bad idea. So an announcement this early is unlikely.

    But... we all know it's coming. Won't be cheap tho, but you get what you pay for in the OSX/Win/Linux world. Over 2 years and still not one crash on my Mac.
    • Who's to say Apple will announce it now, but not ship it until Panther debuts? Apple announced and demonstrated the original iMac (IIRC) in May 1998, but did not actually begin shipping until August of that year-- I may not have the dates exactly right, but there were certainly at least two months between announcement and availability. And that was not an instance of Jobs saying "This is available now," but product not shipping until weeks later because they couldn't ramp up production quickly enough. It was a stated two or three month delay from the start.

      I think that this time, however, Apple would be doing the right thing to release the G5 ASAP-- that way the hardware will be available during back-to-school time, one of Apple's busiest sales periods. If they do the announce-and-wait thing this time, they'll miss the back-to-school sales. They'll also piss off a lot of people who just blew their wad in August on a G4 with significantly less computing power for about the same money that now buys a G5.

      As long as everyone who buys a G5 gets a voucher in the box for a free upgrade to 10.3, I see no problem with shipping the hardware a few months before the OS that takes full advantage of it debuts.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08, 2003 @10:51AM (#6142877)
    A lot of you have been commenting that you're surprised they have USB 2 ports on them. I personally am not surprised to see them - the current MDD G4s have USB 2 ports on them, it's just the drivers in OS X make them into USB 1, you can actually replace the drivers and get nice 800Mbps ports. The fact that the hardware is there does not mean that they will be supported in the OS - it just means that USB 2 ports are cheeper to get hold of than USB 1 ports.

  • The Way Of Steve (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nwf ( 25607 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @11:06AM (#6142959)
    Didn't Steve say some time last year that Apple will never introduce new hardware at WWDC?

    Of course, the way of Steve is complex and sometimes contradictory.
  • DDR Ram? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rubyflame ( 159891 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @11:19AM (#6143044) Homepage
    Does that have anything to do with Dance Dance Revolution?
  • Rumors and more (Score:4, Insightful)

    by customjake ( 662717 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @01:35PM (#6143996)
    Personally, there are a lot in the PC community who are crying "FOUL" I personally believe that the 970/980 will bring Apple back to the fastest computer title, and PC users don't like the fact that they're using a server processor to do it. I personally think it's great!

    Yeah, it's a rumor, but this is a pretty substatiated rumor, that i think we can all agree is happening. One thing still in dispute, is if the new processor is gonna be called a G5 or not. I'm sure Apple wants to get away from the image that the motorola processor havee generated over the last few years.

    I would expect to see the PPC 970 at WWDC, or shortly after, i.e. August. As for USB 2, it's coming. Apple has already started using USB 2 cards in its powermac lineup (just not supported by the OS). As for apple trying to catch up in the Mhz race, i don't see this. IBM is the one who's set the Mhz of the 970. I also agree with many rumor sites, stating that the 970 will not be any more expensive that the current G4 lineup. Apple is the only company getting anything based off the G4 motorola line, but IBM currently builds the 970 for it's own blade servers, thus they don't have to gear up just to make chips for apple.

    Yeah, the P4 is up over 3Ghz, but looking back, crays are still uber fast, and they don't run ungodly mhz......

    Also, i wouldn't count on Apple calling it a G5, as apple might go back to calling their chips by their developed

    As for 10.3 and the 64-bit stuff, the 64 bit only comes into play when you start getting 64 bit software to run on the machine, that's why Panther is so big, it'll be a 64 bit OS. Also expect a 64-bit version of Project Builder to help move to 64-bit apps.

    AMD is not the founder of hypertransport...They are part of a group who's developing it, and one of the last members to join if i recall...... And I don't think that the transition of an AMD chip is much more complicated than you make it out to be....

    Personally, if the idea of a 970 makes your blood boil, wait until WWDC and make an informed choice...if you can't wait to buy a mac, but it now.....

    How cany anyone say that the 970 is behind AMD/Intel? Last time i looked, IBMs own 970 is FASTER than the new opterons, aren't those supposed to be fast?

    Sorry for the sarcasm, but i find that PC users bash what they don't understand. Apple is heavily imitated by the PC world, so the must be doing something right. Let's just all watch and see what happens at WWDC, and talk about it later. Gossiping about new Mac Hardware......$Free Writing Cocoa apps that screa.........$Free Showing your PC friends how must faster your PPC 970 is over their WINTEL box......$Priceless

  • by JDizzy ( 85499 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @01:37PM (#6144008) Homepage Journal
    Back in 96' or 97' I can recall a bunch of hype in the public markets for the infamous DEC ALpha. I can recall banner adds here on slashdot for "64bit power" and other advertisments basically to the effect of "my processor is bigger than yours" type stuff. The difference now is that the market seems slightly more ready for 64 bit computing as more than 2 vendors are selling 64 bit systems. Intel (ia 64), IBM (ppc 970), Transmeta (128bit/2 core), MIPS, AMD, and I think you can still buy a new Alpha from HP still. I suspect the market still isnt' ready for 64 bit computing, but the saturation of vendors trying to be the one wwho actually makes penetration, like sperm on the egg of the consumer market. Apple is probably the most end-user'ish vendor on the market with very little server penetration, and this is promising news. Most of the other 64 platforms go the way of awsome servers. Apple has the chance to sell systems to mac-heads who would do anything to recapture their former elitness geek glory of years gone by. The onyl way 64 bit system will work ijs if they are compatible with the 32 bit software, and yes I mean the OS + user apps. This is why Apple, and AMD have an advantage. Intell seems to have the notion that since it is the market leader that it can simply force a new architecture down our necks, and the market has decided otherwise, and Intel hasn't lived up to its own expectations either. Time will tell is the IBM incarnation of the PPC is going to make it, and Apple has a history of over pricing their gear. If they could get their systems down to the average price of $1200 usd, then they would have a chance.
    • by multiplexo ( 27356 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @04:40PM (#6145090) Journal
      Back in 96' or 97' I can recall a bunch of hype in the public markets for the infamous DEC ALpha.

      What was so infamous about the DEC Alpha? I worked for a large e-commerce company that used AlphaServers from the AS1000 up to the big 8400s and they were fast, solid boxes with great storage options. Having 64 bits available for databases was nice and the megahertz of these systems wasn't that bad either. Plus the fact that you got Tru64UNIX which despite some annoyances (most notably problems with AdvFS) had some nice features and was far more pleasant to work with than any variant of Slowlaris that I ever touched. The university where I worked also used a bunch of DEC hardware for number crunching, they were quite happy with them. As far as I can see the Alpha wasn't hyped, the 8400 with a bunch of Storageworks BA-370 arrays smoked everything on the market at the time. It's a pity that DEC's marketing department was run by the people who weren't smart enough to be in their engineering department, otherwise the Alpha architecture might still be alive instead of being discarded by HP.
  • by The Lynxpro ( 657990 ) <lynxpro@[ ] ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday June 08, 2003 @01:44PM (#6144061)
    I've read several rumor sites myself, and I've read that the PPC970's manufacturing price point is actually cheaper than the existing chips Apple uses. So if this is true, it raises serious issues with Apple. 1. Apple needs higher clock speeds to remain competitive in the minds of Joe Consumer and Joe IT Worker (see #2). 2. If the PPC970 is cheaper to manufacture and consumes less power than the existing G3 and G4 chips Apple computers feature, then the PPC970 needs to be implemented immediately throughout the Mac line. 3. Abruptly phasing out all G3/G4 machines (#2) would kill sales of existing units on the shelves. 4. Apple would want to offer the PPC970 at the top end to enjoy large profit margins from early adopters before implementing the 970 throughout the entire Mac line. The greater good requires Apple to incur short-term losses (think existing G3's and G4's in the stores) in order to leapfrog the entire PC market by offering 64 bit solutions top-to-bottom in their product line. It is crucial Apple comes out ahead of AMD's consumer 64bit offerings. But because of #3 and #4, Apple will probably choose otherwise... If Apple were smart, they'd start off with a single 1.4 ghz PPC970 in the eMacs and iMacs, and then work their way up the PowerMac ladder with dual (or even quad) processors up to 1.8 ghz. Afterall, it would be easier for $7/hr. sales employee at Worst Buy explaining why Joe Consumer should pick a 1.4 ghz 64-bit PPC970 powered eMac over a 2.5 or 3.0 ghz P4 equipped PC than it would continuing to argue the merits of the G4 line...
    • by willtsmith ( 466546 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @03:33PM (#6144749) Journal
      Apple needs higher clock speeds to remain competitive in the minds of Joe Consumer and Joe IT Worker (see #2).

      Apple doesn't have a prayer of competing in the Joe IT Worker space. Wintel rules business operations, Unix still has a mindshare in web services, Linux is making a LARGE dent in web services, Mac is a non-player.

      The first job of any Mac today is to PRESERVE market share in it's core demographics, Elementary Ed, Higher Ed, Graphics Artists, Publication, Videography. BTW, did you know that many hollywood and HBO/Showtime movies are edited with Final Cut Pro????

      A PPC970 machine would obviously be a higher end offering for high-end customers that need serious CPU horsepower. Most of the market doesn't NEED 64-bit and probably won't take advantage of it for quite some time.

      In the higher ed space, I see that a 64-bit processor could become a great tool for researchers who want to do simulation work on their desktops (and notebooks).

      This is especially relevant as IBM starts putting PPC970 CPUs into super-computer rigs running linux variants. It becomes feasible to run the same large scale programs (at a dialed down resolution) on a G5 OSX Mac.
    • Just a short FYI, the 1.2Ghz PowerPC 970 goes through about 19 watts, a 1Ghz PowerPC 750FX (current G3) goes through about 6 watts, so the 750FX can be used in enclosures where the 970 or a 7455 would be too hot.

      okay, so the 970 will absolutely BURY the G4 performance wise, and outstrip it on heat output as well (22w @ 1Ghz I think), so the G4 is pretty much a dead end at this point.
    • A processor is just one part of a computer. You need to have a variety of buses and other attachments surrounding it, and they cost money too. Presumably, this new system will carry an updated surrounding architecture -- if it doesn't, a lot of people will be very pissed off.

      As I understand it, Apple has not been giving it's newer desktop machines very good underlying architectures as of late. There's a lot of speculation that this is because most of their hardware development effort was going into the
  • i'll buy one. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by option8 ( 16509 ) on Sunday June 08, 2003 @09:35PM (#6146623) Homepage
    i'll buy one. hell, i'll order ten of them for my office...

    the day quark xpress 6 comes out.

    seriously. the only reason i and a good many other mac IT folks with purchasing power have still got previous generation macs on our desks is that f*ing quark xpress isn't X native yet. the new G4s don't boot in 9, so it's not an option to dual-boot or run 9 and wait to upgrade to X. everybody i've talked to pretty much agrees, apple needs to light a fire under quark. or maybe buy them, since apple seems to have eaten up all the companies that make video editing software to create final cut and dvd studio. maybe an apple iQuark...

    anyhoo, the day xpress 6 is available, apple will immediately see a spike in sales of new systems and OS X boxes. i'd be willing to put money on it.

    Quark has had 2+ years now to carbonize xpress. i thought adobe was lagging with photoshop being so late to the game, but quark makes them look like early adopters by comparison. and with every day they don't have a carbonized xpress, their market share in the heavy mac-using print graphics world is eroding away, given over in droves to adobe indesign.

    probably off-topic, but i felt a rant coming on and this was a target of opportunity.
  • Mac niche markets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @09:26AM (#6149366) Journal
    This is somewhat OT, but it is relevant in that many percieve the Mac as being relegated to non business applications.

    The introduction of the PPC970 will no doubt improve Apple's fortunes in a very cut throat computer market led mostly by FUD, price sensitivity and monopoly practices. Allow me to explain.

    As many here know, Linux is eating into Windows server marketshare in all areas, as it is becoming acceptable in business to actually think about what one spends the IT dollars on before one spends them. This is a market that Linux will almost certainly dominate in the next 4 to 5 years, as I cannot imagine that Redmond will be able to introduce technology spectacular enough for corporations to not consider using Linux in that space instead, as has been shown in numerous articles here on slashdot.

    On the desktop there is also movement, particularly in civillian infrastructure IT such as local government offices, health departments etc, worldwide as the departments are increasingly having to cope with IT spending cuts and definitely get more bang for their IT buck with Linux than they do with Windows.

    Where does the Mac fit in here? Recently, here in Switzerland, I had to buy a new car after trashing my old one, and in my tour of various used car lots, came across a wierd phenomenon: The majority of the offices of said used car lots were using Filemaker database applications on Macs for their bookkeeping, inventory tracking etc. This would be similar to the windows world of Access applications, except the people claimed that the Macs "just work" when asked why they weren't using newer PC's with Access.

    The Mac, with it's simplicity and robustness, makes friends even today where Windows can often be a royal pain in the butt to administer (my job) . Not only this, but Mac OSX is very compatible to Linux and the execs and management in a company would be more amenable to running a Mac with a hyped to the extreme PPC970 (the marketing is important in these areas) than a beige box if they thought that it could be used to bolster their egos ("the PPC970 is much faster than any Intel", "My Powerbook goes so well with my metallic Audi TT"). It is kind of elitist, but I've never known Management types not to fall for status symbols, and this status symbol would actually be worth something of true value as opposed to the chrome cufflinks and platinum Rolex.
  • by dsb3 ( 129585 ) on Monday June 09, 2003 @10:11AM (#6149772) Homepage Journal
    Canon recently (as in the last couple of weeks) announced their G5 digital camera ... this is the followup to the G1, G2 and G3.

    Why no G4? Because, apparantly, Apple had discussions and pursuaded them to skip "G4".

    So ... I find it doubtful that after that, Apple will now come out with the G5 themselves.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford