[rmendis]

Now that Apple has started a trend to produce small and large versions of the iBook, the PowerBook G4s and to some extent the iMacs (well, Classic, eMac and iMac) perhaps the new PowerMac G5s will debut with a new enclosure - in two sizes!?

I suspect that the rounded/curvy enclosure of the current tower will be replaced with something more like the Macintosh IIcx (remember that? Good looking little box :-)

Also perhaps to distinguish between dual and quad processors they might even give them the denominations x2, x4 and x8?
Along the lines of Xserve?

So one smaller mini tower for the mono and x2.
A larger (standard) tower for the x4 and x8.

The PowerPC 970 should scale easily to 8 processors.
My main qualm with the 970 is the 900MHz system bus...Apple's PowerMac's are currently at 166. That is quite a jump and would add significantly to the cost of the machine.

Unless of course Apple is planning on making a splash with a new economical high bandwidth bus for the G5s?

[D'Espice]

Biggest horsesh*t I've ever read here, the different enclosures are all due to different displays, why the hell would they make the enclosure bigger or smaller, that would only make the Macs more expensive.
Unless they're gonna sell a PowerMac with built-in display, there will be one enclosure.

Dude, did you seriously think they are making different enclosures because they are bored or something and the bigger displays are just side effects?

[rmendis]

Actually, having thought about it, it's more likely to inherit design asthetics from the Xserve and Xserve RAID.

Think of the Xserver RAID on its side (standing tall - like a tower)

[euphras]

Quote: "Also perhaps to distinguish between dual and quad processors they might even give them the denominations x2, x4 and x8?
Along the lines of Xserve?
So one smaller mini tower for the mono and x2.
A larger (standard) tower for the x4 and x8."

Do you really think we will see quad- or even octa- based systems in the near future? They will give us a single processor unit en debut. And eventually after another half or even a year the first dual systems will come out...

As for the horsesh*t: Why not? Why not different case designs? El capitan for meant to be full fledged power towers and maybe a kinda "thin client" for educational market or so....

Pat

[rambo47]

I expect to see the El Capitan case in use for a while longer. The blow holes in the MDD are part of the cooling system that will be needed when the new processors debut. They will almost certainly change the colors, but the design will stay, IMHO.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by D'Espice:
why the hell would they make the enclosure bigger or smaller, that would only make the Macs more expensive.

Erm, To boost flagging PowerMac sales?

It is also the same motivation for a new case/design to debut along with the new processor (G5) - to make a big splash.

If anything is supposed to be kept simple it should be the low end entry level Mac. At the moment it is cluttered with iMac (Classic), eMac and iMac (new) and iBook. Here it makes (economic) sense to have fewer options to keep costs low. In fact, i suspect that this will indeed happen. Maybe with new iMacs and iBooks this summer/fall? But that is another thread in another forum :-)

Back to the topic:
When the original El Capitan design was released it was a 3 slot single processor machine. Since then, Apple have refined its design to accommodate 5 slots, squeeze in more media bays and support dual processors.

With the Xserve they have truely redefined the high end Mac.

Albeit Apple couldn't stick in it's hottest chips into an Xserve due to its size, but the arrival these machines says Apple could do much more with the space available in the El Capitan design.

One option: make a smaller tower...a mini tower.
Second option: put more processors, more media bays, more slots into the current design.

The first is the most likely.
Especially as it would help reduce costs.

Though i suspect (given the PowerPC 970's ability to scale up to 8 processors) that Apple wouldn't want to disapoint it's high end customers. Especially if it could charge a premium for them.

So why not have mini-tower PowerMac G5 in addition to the tower PowerMac G5?

Admitedly 8 processors is a bit much for a desktop or workstation. But quad procesors shouldn't be out of the question :-)
Maybe dual (X2) for the mini-tower and quad (X4) for the (super) tower?

[G4ME]

right now, compared to PC the G4 is a mini tower, my roomates Antech cast is almost 2 feet hight, if not more. wheres my G4 is pushin 14 inches w/o the handels,

BTW they did make smaller powermac it was called the cube, and we all know how that turned out

i could see making the G4 a little taller with 3-5 optical bays and some more PCI for the high hight end guys, but damn i think they are pretty good right now.

[Mac Zealot]

WTF is the point for more than 3 drive bays?

IMHO the big and small g4 things are stupid. The new case idea might be cool, but there already are 'small' powermacs, the imac g4.

*shrug* what's the point?

[Mac Zealot]

One of the HUGE problems with this, by the way, is that the people will be wanting to mix/match enclosures. You'll see people wanting top end machines in low end enclosures and the like.

This seems to happen with every of the 'multi-size' systems.

And don't include xserve. It's a server/extension thing.You know you can buy a Xraid to work with a g4 powermac alone?

[Superchicken]

I think with the PPC 970 you'll see a new case, but probably not a dramatic change possibly different handles, possibly a more square look to it, more sleek and sexay, probably a bit taller to make it look thinner, then again they could always do something like a curved top with ventalation
Honestly I'd just like them to go back to a blue look and not make em look soo blah. These things don't need to be different sizes, they just need to look cool and be FAST, once the PPC 970 is out and apple's new power macs are beating the old ones by huge margins then you'll see people upgrading. Untilt hen the lack luster power mac sales are happening because unless you have a single 500Mhz G4... you really probably arn't seeing a major need to upgrade.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by rmendis:
My main qualm with the 970 is the 900MHz system bus...Apple's PowerMac's are currently at 166. That is quite a jump and would add significantly to the cost of the machine.

Unless of course Apple is planning on making a splash with a new economical high bandwidth bus for the G5s?

I thought the 970 was supposed to be cheaper than the current G4s due to some better manufacturing process (or something similar.) Still, I don't quite understand why a faster bus would mean significant cost. Sure, Apple would have to design that into their motherboard, but would it have to cost that much more because it's 900 MHz?

[rmendis]

Originally posted by bradoesch:
Still, I don't quite understand why a faster bus would mean significant cost. Sure, Apple would have to design that into their motherboard, but would it have to cost that much more because it's 900 MHz?

It is because supporting chipsets must also run at the system bus speed. They tend to be more expensive. Servers and workstations typically have high bandwidth system buses. This is what makes the 970 more of a workstation class chip.

This is what motivates my thought that Apple will up the number of processors to 4 or even 8.

It must be developing a faster bus technology or something to jump from 166 to 900! At the same time, that high bandwidth bus could easily accommodate 4 or even 8 way processor architecture.

See:
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
new case idea might be cool, but there already are 'small' powermacs, the imac g4.

My guess is that Steve would ideally like to keep the PowerMacs as dual processor systems, while keeping the iMac (and the eMac) as single processor G4s.

However, i'm sure the market demanded a single procesor system which was more expandable than the iMac - to add extra hard drives, or upgrade the graphics card, etc...that may be the reason why single processor PowerMac configurations were re-introduced.

So this is the market to whom a smaller mini-tower would appeal to.
Perhaps 3 slot machine with 2-3 media bays, expandable to dual processors. Especially if the new iMac revisions in summer appear in more agressively priced configurations (finally reaplcing the aging iMac Classic and the eMac).

While the lucrative high end could be retained with a 2-4 (or 8 :-) way processor workstation class PowerMac G5 with the current size casing.

What would be really cool is if one could add extra processor 'modules' the way we add memory SIMMS. That is whenever we want to up the computing horsepower of the machine, order an extra module which *adds* to instead of *replacing* the processor(s) in the PowerMac G5. (Nothing new really - servers and workstations already do this, but it would be new on the desktop and low end workstation market).

[Superchicken]

I thought IBM was going to be making the Bus? Either way I think apple unless they can make a cheaper one would just use whatever bus IBM is gona put on the boards they slap these things on because as we know IBM will also be selling 970 linux systems.

[Mac Zealot]

Originally posted by rmendis:

You know all of that could be done with a modern cube. Just a slight redesign and it could accomodate 2 PCI, 1 AGP.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by G4ME:
BTW they did make smaller powermac it was called the cube, and we all know how that turned out.

Actually the (new/LCD) iMac is an evolution of the cube.

Think about it: cube -> dome :-)

[DrBoar]

For varius reasons I see two optical drives and two HDs as the minimum in a tower so I really do not see any reason for a small tower. A really small enlosure like the smallest compact PCs would just risk cutting into the iMac.

The functions of the ventilations holes and the handles could be combined by having 3 cm high slots along the top and bottom edges of the front and back of the towers. This design would also fit with a more angular design. This would reduce the bulk or apparent bulk somewhat

The current towers has those two metal plates with the optical drives behind them, I could envision a tower with 4 of those plates. Behind the third plate would be the USB and FW ports that the digital hub really need and behind the fourth the option to have a slot loaded IDE bay just like in the servers. For backup nothing beat the speed and ease of a big hardisk.

Hibernating until my midrange dual 2 GHz 970 arrives

[mfessenden]

Originally posted by rmendis:
So one smaller mini tower for the mono and x2.
A larger (standard) tower for the x4 and x8.

The PowerPC 970 should scale easily to 8 processors.
My main qualm with the 970 is the 900MHz system bus...Apple's PowerMac's are currently at 166. That is quite a jump and would add significantly to the cost of the machine.

Unless of course Apple is planning on making a splash with a new economical high bandwidth bus for the G5s?

This doesn't make a lot of sense. IBM will probably be supplying boards to go with the 970. To keep costs down, I'd imagine most of the new Mac line will be single-processor. The XServe line might get dual or quads...but it's likely to cost a bundle.

[G4ME]

Originally posted by rmendis:
Actually the (new/LCD) iMac is an evolution of the cube.

Think about it: cube -> dome :-)

true never thought of it that way

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by mfessenden:
This doesn't make a lot of sense. IBM will probably be supplying boards to go with the 970. To keep costs down, I'd imagine most of the new Mac line will be single-processor. The XServe line might get dual or quads...but it's likely to cost a bundle.

Not the boards, the support chips. Given that the 970 is bigger than the G4, I would guess it's going to be more expensive. Possibly significantly more expensive. That, and the fact that quad 32 bit wide 900MHz busses are extremely non-trivial to make, have me leaning towards the single-processor-970-on-apple-mobo-with-IBM-support-chip idea. When the 970 goes to .09 micron, IBM might make a dual core one and a support chip to go with it. I think IBM's going to keep the 4/8 way 970 support chips for themselves (in very expensive machines), maybe even the duals. Also, given the heat constraints on the XServe, I think it's likely to remain weaker than the PowerMac for the forseeable future.

[I Bent My Wookiee]

The problem is really all the PCI slots, they create lots of heat and eat power. Because of this the Towers need that big honking power supply and those bloody fans. When Apple had 3 PCI slots people screamed bloody murder so I don't see them getting much smaller unless they make the power supply external like the cubes.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by I Bent My Wookiee:
The problem is really all the PCI slots, they create lots of heat and eat power. Because of this the Towers need that big honking power supply and those bloody fans. When Apple had 3 PCI slots people screamed bloody murder so I don't see them getting much smaller unless they make the power supply external like the cubes.

I think this clearly highlights the dilemma: some people are gonna want smaller and some are gonna want bigger :-)

As the prices of PCs have declined over the past fwe years, it may no longer be such a huge cost to design and manufacture *two* tower enclosures for the PowerMac line: one mini tower and a (super/standard) tower.

There is a big gap between the no slot G4 iMac and the 4/5 slot dual processor PowerMac. This is probably why the single processor configurations were re-introduced.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
Given that the 970 is bigger than the G4, I would guess it's going to be more expensive. Possibly significantly more expensive. That, and the fact that quad 32 bit wide 900MHz busses are extremely non-trivial to make, have me leaning towards the single-processor-970-on-apple-mobo-with-IBM-support-chip idea.

Perhaps Apple will finally debut HyperTransport with the PowerPC 970 in the PowerMac G5?

Particularly as HyperTransport apparrently can be used to create SMP systems. See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/16905.html

"The bus also doubles up as a multiprocessing bus, connecting each processor's Northbridge to all the other processors' Northbridge chips. That's essentially a NUMA configuration, giving each CPU its own local memory, connected via its Northbridge, and access to other processors' RAM banks."

[DrBoar]

For some 2 optical drives, 4 HDs and 4 PCI slots is over the top. The problem is if Apple want to save money with a low price tower ( 1 optical drive, 2HDs and 1 or 2 PCI slots) in a case similar to a Quadra 700 in size. The case has to be unique to that model, the same goes for the motherboard and perhaps also the powersupply. It really does not bode for a lower price does it? Making a nonbudget mini tower is a Cube mk II...

Having a low end with only one CPU that share the case motherboard, powersupply etc with the rest of the towers really makes more sense. Possibly they could also lower the price point by stripping the MB of some IDE controllers and PCI slots but I think it would be marginal.

Now is not the time to diversify.
SJ intruduced the 4 quadrant line up. With a good better best version in each of the four lines. In total 12 Macintosh models. It is alredy made more complex with the fifth quadrant the xServers, and the addition of the eMac the sixth quadrant and the remaining CRT iMacs, four different tower configurations etc have made the number of Macs way past 12.

Apple has to work on the weakest links in its offerings. And the main problem 2003 is not that there are to few models to choose from Hint the main problem was around 2002 and also 2001 and it was at it worst at 2000 and late 1999

[Simon]

I think Apple could benefit from a more diversified line-up as they try to expand into new markets. Maybe the present economic climate isn't quite perfect, but maybe in a year...

Anyway, I was wondering if Apple has completely given up on the office market. If not I think the should have beside the iMac and PowerMac something like a netMac. A device about the size of an Airport Base Station that is not much more than a G3, Ethernet controller, simple graphics card with a ADC/DVI out and a USB for keyboard. The box would run as a NetBoot client from OS X server running on an Xserve or so. A cheap solution to bring OS X to the office masses that don't need huge performance, but many terminals per dollar. This would probably also be a good solution for university computer labs or schools...

[rmendis]

Originally posted by DrBoar:
SJ intruduced the 4 quadrant line up. With a good better best version in each of the four lines. In total 12 Macintosh models. It is alredy made more complex with the fifth quadrant the xServers, and the addition of the eMac the sixth quadrant and the remaining CRT iMacs...

I think come this summer we shall see a $999 iMac and a sub-$999 (possibly $899 or $849) iBook.

At this point my guess is that the 'stop gap' eMac and the iMac Classic will be EOLed. (Well, the eMac may be relegated to the education market again until the cheaper iMacs + iBooks become more popular there).

So two quadrants (that shouldn't have been there) knocked off putting Apple back into the 4 quadrant product line + (Xserve + iPod).

Apple is diversifying within the product lines which is great.
What it should not do is have too much overlap and confusion as is the current low end of Apple's product line: iMac Classic, iBook, eMac and iMac...too confusing for consumers.

However, i suspect that this is only temporary...until summer/fall.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
These things don't need to be different sizes, they just need to look cool and be FAST

Come this summer/fall i suspect the iMac breaks the $1000 mark and becomes the new entry level Mac (along with a sub-$1000 iBook), they will effectively replace/EOL the iMac (Classic) and the eMac.

When that happens there will be room for Apple to produce a more cost effective single processor PowerMac for the low end Pro user as well as one for the high end. Having different sizes + monikers will help distinguish single and dual processor machines in the market.

Especially to new Mac or nieve PC users.

[tgrundke]

I think moving to a twin case design for the professional line would be great. You can offer the same top-of-the-line motherboard, but in two different cases. Example: I don't want to be limited by the iMac monitor, but I don't need PCI slots. So offer, like Dell's 4300S model, a slim-lite model with one or two PCI slots, an optical drive option, and hard drive.

I'm tired of Apple dictating what I can and cannot have in my computers and would like Apple to start offering "stripper" base systems that allow total customization.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by tgrundke:
I think moving to a twin case design for the professional line would be great. You can offer the same top-of-the-line motherboard, but in two different cases.

Absolutely.

Especially as HyperTransport will allow Apple to produce an extensible or scalable motherboard design.

For example, in the base case, have a 3 PCI (2xPCI+AGP) slot HyperTransport bridge. On the larger motherboard hook that up to another HyperTransport bridge for an extra 3 PCI-(X) slots.

The same could be done with additional processors.

HyperTransport will allow great flexibility for Apple to produce designs in more than one motherboard configuration and with great cost effectiveness. Perhaps not initially, but soon.

Given the cost of the PPC 970 and the new HyperTransport based system design and components, i think it may be essential that Apple produce a mini-tower single processor system for the majority of users if the standard configurations are going to be too costly.

[rmendis]

Originally posted by Simon:
I think Apple could benefit from a more diversified line-up as they try to expand into new markets.

It seems that a new case design is indeed in the works for the new PPC 970 PowerMacs according to these two articles:
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=1832
http://www.macdailynews.com/comments.php?id=P779_0_1_0

One article suggestes that there may be two versions of the motherboard. Suggesting that maybe there may be twin size case designs? (Though it may just be the way the article is worded.)