[Commodus]

We all know that there's a good possibility that the summer update of Apple's pro desktop line will use the PowerPC 970 (for those who don't know, it's a 64-bit chip, roughly equivalent to a Pentium 4 running twice as quickly, etc.). Since it's a significant jump ahead of the G4, wouldn't that be a prime opportunity for Apple to revise the whole image of their pro desktop lineup?

As such, I bring to you a concept for... the XMac:

- PowerPC 970 processors, up to dual 1.8 GHz
- 900 MHz DDR system bus (not a joke - that's what the spec calls for)
- up to 2 GB of dual-channel DDR400 RAM
- NV35 (GeForce FX update) video at the high-end
- at least one Serial ATA controller
- 80, 120, and 200 GB hard disk options
- Combo or 4X Superdrive options

I think we could all live with that... how about you?

Now of course, a crucial component of such a major change in Apple's processor lineup would be a radical restyling of the case and its peripherals. The XMac, as you might expect, would take its styling cues from the Xserve (minimalist, industrial). They may even go with an aluminum casing - a perfect fit for the brushed-metal look of some of the iApps. It would also ensure that the system runs well without much cooling.

Note that this case would NOT, however, look like those fake images you see at sites like Spymac. It would be considerably less angular, and still probably have handles of some sort for grabbing and moving the system. Apple may want to convey an image of strength, but they do still have to be halfway friendly in terms of case design.

Such a change would also affect the keyboard and mouse designs. Apple may choose to abandon or minimize the translucent appearances. A mouse with multiple buttons, or a scroll wheel? Probably not, but if the computer itself is overhauled, an input device update wouldn't be a stretch.

If the XMac came to be (and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't), I can imagine it being very heavily promoted as the ultimate "switcher's machine." That would be especially true if at least one model were dual-processor (IBM's spec notes that the PPC 970 is designed for multi-processor systems). I do know that the PPC 970 costs as much or less than a Pentium 4 chip to manufacture, so Apple could even do something so revolutionary as to lower their system prices!

Your turn... do you see this happening?

[Jerome]

It could happen, maybe not next summer but it's not completely unrealistic (is that a word?). If it does happen, I'm buying a new computer next summer. Better start saving now...

[suhail]

Good thoughts�
However a little bit on the optimistic side of when the 970 will be ready. IBM said that the 970 chips will be available for developers in the second half of 2003. Which may mean that Apple will not begin to ship till Fall 2004 and will probably be introduced in Jan MWSF 2004.

Your configuration is very real though!

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you will, especially after you hear what I'm gonna say) Apple may change the name from Macintosh to something else, the reasoning behind my statement, is more convincing TV ads that may overcome stereotyping towards Macs, and the new UNIX based OSX with a new Processor. MAC OSX will not be OSX after version 11.0 Apple may introduce a brand-new solution!! Moreover, they may not refer to processors by their GHz but by a name like PPC Ralph or Bob to avoid the MHz Myth. Here is an example:

On January 2004,
Apple will introduce
FuzzySlippers
And You'll see why 2004
won't be like "2004"

Config:
Apple FuzzySlippers Grippy
Processor: IBM Grippy
OS: Fuzzy Chimpanzee
Optical: 24x DVD-RW
Memory: 1GB (Upgradeable to 4)
HD: 200GB
Interface: USB III
HighSpeed Interface: FireWire IV

Something like that, I'll drum-up a pic and post it when I have time.

P.S. Too bad about my friend who is being sued by Apple for leaking Mac pics to MacRumors.

[Jansar]

When Apple releases the 970, it will most likely be of similar speed to the current G4 processors, except the processor will be allowed to operate at higher clock speeds. Instead of 1.8 GHz, it'll be more like 4 or 5.

[Superchicken]

if anything it'd be Xmac not XMac.
Second it would be marketed as a switcher comp, they'd be there they'd look cool but apple wouldn't be telling these people who are used to getting these ultra cheap PCs to go with a Power Mac.
But I do think the name of the Power Mac is kinda dumb. an Xmac would be kinda funny... it'd be really funny if they did a buy an Xmac or Xbook for Xmas... then again I really don't like the whole idea of Christmas being reffered to as Xmas but I'm not gona get all up in arms about it... acctually if I did get an Xmac I'd probably call it Chi Mac or something... since the X is acctually the greek letter Chi (think that's how you spell it) which was the first letter of the greek word for Christ ... anyway

renamming the Power Mac line would be cool me thinks.

But yeah don't expect the PPC 970 TO soon because obviously developers need it first, and there's almost always set backs, and I heard apple's bus that they're making was behind schedual and junk... so once it comes out it'll be good but I dout 2003 will be the year of the Mac by any strech.

[clarkgoble]

Apple NEEDS it this summer. Yeah, I know achieving that is difficult. But right now they are falling further and further behind in cost/performance.

Likely there will be a few configurations. One will be a 1.3 GHz system, a 1.8 GHz system, and a dual 1.8 GHz system.

[derekn]

Whenever it comes out, I'm wondering if Apple might make the bottom and mid range PowerMacs Motorola G4 based and the high end 970 based to help ease the costs initially. Then when the price of making the 970 comes down, make the PowerMac line 970 based across the line.

Or that might just be me having a case of "mot syndrome", they never seemed to have ample supply of the fastest G4s. LOL I hope IBM can pump this puppy out in enough numbers for Apple to have all 970 based PowerMacs.

[Commodus]

I hadn't really taken into account any necessity on the part of developers to have the chip before it can be used in a Mac, but my question is this: IS it necessary?

After all, the PowerPC software architecture was actually designed with both 32-bit and 64-bit abilities in mind, even in 1993. A 64-bit PPC chip doesn't need to run an emulator, or to have a CPU section dedicated to legacy functions, in order to acknowledge PPC32 code. It just goes.

Furthermore, as noted in another thread, IBM itself has stated that their "VMX" (Vector Multimedia Extensions) is one-for-one compatible with Altivec, so not even that would need to be addressed. We may in fact be looking at a chip where you might only have to do a few cursory compatibility checks or adjustments before you rubber-stamp the chip's use for a given piece of software.

Of course, this could also be a pipedream, and they may have to make a significant code change to OS X and/or 3rd-party apps before they'll run properly. I'm just saying that there are many 'hooks' in the PPC 970 that are effectively identical to what Apple has used in the G4.

Edit: it's my 250th post, and apparently I'm now a "veteran" member. Should I start being more jaded and disillusioned?

[rogerkylin]

More memory would be needed/wise, especially for 64-bit applications

[superblue]

The abandonment of the MHz/GHz unit is interesting - afterall, what's the point of using a unit in comparison with PCs when it's not indicative of real speed? At least if the units were different (say Macometres/sec ha-ha) the line to a potential switcher that Mac Mhz and PC Mhz are not directly comparable would seem more sensible.

[eddiecatflap]

..i don't know why they make such a big deal aboot this mhz thing anyway..

..the mac's interface is what matters - that speeds things up a lot more than a pentium.

[Commodus]

The irony is that Intel itself will start having to downplay the importance of clock speed in their chips: their Banias (that's the codename) mobile CPU is supposed to be considerably more efficient than its clock speed will suggest!

[Eug]

Originally posted by eddiecatflap:
..i don't know why they make such a big deal aboot this mhz thing anyway..

..the mac's interface is what matters - that speeds things up a lot more than a pentium.

What, are you Canadian?

Anyways, I always wonder how many of these posts we will get in these types of threads. MHz matters, get over it. If MHz didn't matter we'd all be running G4 400s for the rest of our lives.

I'd like an Xmac for Xmas next year.

[mitchell_pgh]

Wow, no wonder everyone thinks the Dual 1.2 systems are slow when you think that in 6 months we are going to see Dual 1.8 GHz IBM 970 PPC systems.

The main issue with the Mac in its current state is that there really isn't all that much noticeable difference between a VERY high end Dual 1.2 Ghz systems and the LOW end 800MHz eMac (other then the price and a little speed [that 90% of consumers don't use anyway]).

I also think that I (as a consumer) want more. Being faster just isn't good enough. I want more bang for my buck. Apple needs to develop something that WOWs me. I'm thinking something like the TIVO that hooks directly into my TV and uses MPEG4 to copy videos.

[suhail]

O.K. Guys I got some insider pics of the future Apple Fuzzy which replaces the Macintosh all together as we know it (As decribed above).

[Eug]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Wow, no wonder everyone thinks the Dual 1.2 systems are slow when you think that in 6 months we are going to see Dual 1.8 GHz IBM 970 PPC systems.

The main issue with the Mac in its current state is that there really isn't all that much noticeable difference between a VERY high end Dual 1.2 Ghz systems and the LOW end 800MHz eMac (other then the price and a little speed [that 90% of consumers don't use anyway]).

I also think that I (as a consumer) want more. Being faster just isn't good enough. I want more bang for my buck. Apple needs to develop something that WOWs me. I'm thinking something like the TIVO that hooks directly into my TV and uses MPEG4 to copy videos.

1) I don't want a TiVo in my Mac. I don't want a TiVo at all actually. I'm personally not into paying monthly fees. I have a Panasonic DMR-E30 DVD-RAM set top recorder. I do minimal time shifting so the several hours is sufficient. I prefer to use MPEG-2 for recording video. If you want more TiVo like functionality you can buy a Panasonic DMR-HS2 which includes a hard drive.

[DrBoar]

The Power mac generations
I. The Nubus generation-Qadras with a 601 tossed in
-really no added features apart from the CPU

II. The PCI, 601,603,604 and G3 Beige
-added PCI card and IDE disks

III. The towers 100 Mhz bus G3& G4
-added AGP USB FW and CDRW and resonably useful dual CPUs

IV. The 970
-adds Faster CPU and bus.
On the wishing list.
1. A up to date sound system. Mac was ahead 10 years ago but now they have been way behind for several years. Pathetic

2. "Slotloaded" IDE disks like in the Xserver

3. Front USB and FW ports many of them!
A digital HUB. FWno1 Video camera FWno2 iPod FWno3&4? USBno1 PDA, USBno2 Still camera, USBno3Joystick etc USBno4?


4.The big bulky handles replaced by ventilation slots that give a good grip.

5. Up to date with AGP and IDE

6. Lowered prices.
Take a look at what a dual 2GHz AMD costs.
For those that for various reason wants a separate monitor the cheapest mac is 1700 dollar and that is a lowly sub GHz box. I am not saying that Apple shoud compete with 600 dollars PC towers. But a low end tower at the 1200-1400 range and the midrange below 2000 would be more competetive. A low end tower at 1700 dollar that you really need to add some RAM and perhaps a ATI 9000 (low midrange) card and then you are at 2000 dollar for a low end tower!!!

6. Kill the G3s.
If AltiVec is so good and has been since 1999 whey the heck sell computers without it in 2004? If you put G4 in the iBook and the classical iMac they will be very similar to the current PB eMac and iMac2. That would mean new and revised motherboard and single 970 CPUs in the iMac2 eMac and possibly the PB and "not only" in the towers and the servers.

This would entail basically replacing every line in a rellatively short time span for Apple and for IBM to produce 970s for the high volume sellers like the iMac2.

Those 2x10W amps are neat but do anyone use them? And how abou the gigabit ethernet port? How many has more than a 10/100 net at work and who beside SJ has T1 line at home? If they add significantly to the price remove them if they are not used!

[raferx]

It's gonna be called the "Xstation" I can almost smell that new plastic!

[docholiday]

I can almost smell that new plastic!

Plastic?? You mean titanium...

[whatever7]

I like the Xmac idea but I think is too short for a professional machine. Also "X" has never associate with professional stuff but rather "rar rar over-the-top" stuff like Xtreme game, Xbox, Xterra, XFL and X5 (okey X5 is a legitimate product.)

Xmac would be a good name for the next evolution of comsuner desktops and laptops. I'm think somethng like "Ultra Mac", or go back to the vintage "Apple" name instead of Macintosh. How about "Apple_Ultra"? Haha I know is lame. Machintosh line has always been slower than it PC counterpart. I don't mind seeing it goes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Apple NEEDS it this summer. Yeah, I know achieving that is difficult. But right now they are falling further and further behind in cost/performance.

I agree. I feel it's critical - especially if they truly want masses of windows users to switch.

Otherwise, they are just wasting advertising dollars that would have been better spent on R & D.

[Mac Zealot]

Top end Xstation

Dual 1.8ghz PowerPC G5 Processors.
1gb DDR533 ram (upgradable to 10gb)
250gb Ultra 320 SCSI hard drive
Redundant power supply
Apple 8x Superdrive
Built-In� Gigawire and bluetooth - no need for eyesore wires!
Dual system controllers, featuring 6 PCI slots and 2 AGP slots (GeforceFX standard)
Gigabit ethernet
7.1 Digital sound output (RCA, optical, and minijack output)
S-Video out
2 removable hard disk bays (Scsi 320)

$2499.

That would be the computer to end all computers.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Top end Xstation

Dual 1.8ghz PowerPC G5 Processors.
1gb DDR533 ram (upgradable to 10gb)
250gb Ultra 320 SCSI hard drive
Redundant power supply
Apple 8x Superdrive
Built-In� Gigawire and bluetooth - no need for eyesore wires!
Dual system controllers, featuring 6 PCI slots and 2 AGP slots (GeforceFX standard)
Gigabit ethernet
7.1 Digital sound output (RCA, optical, and minijack output)
S-Video out
2 removable hard disk bays (Scsi 320)

$2499.

That would be the computer to end all computers.

Got anything realistic to say?


Sure apple needs new hardware and cheaper hardware, but there's a lot of OS stuff that needs fixing too. Instead of the mad rush for faster hardware, there should be a bigger push for more efficient software. That would solve a lot of problems.
I for one won't buy a new mac because they are too loud. I'd rather see some nice low power low to zero noise desktops.

/me now returns you to your speculation.