Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Tiffany Mac · Feb 27, 2003, 09:55 PM

Realyl simple:

Will the 970 be a single or dual processor?
Rumors are circulating that the dual processor was to help Apple since it's processors were slow. But if the 970 is put in the machines...will it still be a dual?

Also, when are we expecting to see this 970?

When to the 1.42 ghz machines start to ship?

Agent69 · Feb 27, 2003, 10:02 PM

I would bet single and expensive, as Apple will certainly want to make up for the loss sales of people waiting for it.

BenRoethig · Feb 27, 2003, 10:03 PM

It's not as simple as you might think.

The processor itself is multi-processor capable. Whether there will be Dual 970 systems, no one knows outside of Apple, but I wouldn't bet against it. When are we going to see them? They should be announced either around August or next January. This is all really speculation at this point.

greenG4 · Feb 27, 2003, 10:13 PM

Dual 970s announced by the end of 2003. Yum.

By the way BenRoethig, I'm origionally from Dubuque. I miss it...

piracy · Feb 27, 2003, 10:29 PM

The 970's architecture fully supports and lends itself to symmetric multiprocessing (this is important - it's not true for all processors). Whether there will be systems that feature dual - or even quad - 970s is up to the vendor. IBM certainly won't stop anyone. The PowerPC 970 is also relatively low heat, relatively low power, and relatively inexpensive. Draw your own conclusions.

rmendis · Feb 27, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Tiffany Mac:
Will the 970 be a single or dual processor?

I'm sure it will come in both single and dual processor configurations.

On a subsequent revision (of both the 970 and the PowerMac G5) i'd expect it to up to a 4-way SMP system.

IBM on the other hand has alreay made plans to put the PowerPC 970 in its Blade Servers (likely 8-way SMP systems).

The HyperTransport (derived) interconnect on the 970 allows it to be configured in an SMP system without many supporting chips. It is a serial packet based P2P topology that would allow 970s to be arranged in series 'emulating' a NUMA architecture. (That is where each processor connects to each other).

To answer your other question, the PowerPC 970 may appear as soon as June and probably no later than the end of the year. According to a recent IBM press release it will be feature speeds up to 2.5GHz.

Timo · Feb 28, 2003, 12:03 AM

I'm thinking triple processors.

slider · Feb 28, 2003, 12:22 AM

Top end dual, low end single, mid range not sure. Did someone above post "inexpensive", really? That would be great. Here is another question. What about the rest of the Mac line? I would say in the beginning Apple would put the highest Moto whatever in them, unless IBM is able to supply ample chips, yikes, a 1.4GB 970 iMac. Dual 2.5GB, holy mother!

MindFad · Feb 28, 2003, 12:39 AM

That's exactly what I think Apple ought to do to get a foot in the "performance door" with the current generation of competition -- make their Power Macs completely dual PPC 970, make the iMacs single PPC 970, keep iBooks with G3s, PowerBooks with G4s (until they can squeeze in a 970, which would eventually push G4s down to the iBooks), and make the eMacs very cheap G4 machines. Meh, I'm dreamin'. But that would be a sweet lineup for them.

Catfish_Man · Feb 28, 2003, 12:46 AM

The limiting factor is the northbridge (or "companion chip" as IBM calls it). From what I've read, Apple probably doesn't have the engineering skills/resources to handle the 970's bus, so they'll probably use a "companion chip" from IBM. That basically means it's up to IBM whether or not to sell a dual/quad/etc... capable companion chip (cc, from now on). I would guess that the first PowerMacs made with it will be single processor (even if IBM sells a dual cc), just because of the cost. Once the yields go up, or the proc switches to .09 micron (making it smaller, and therefore allowing more chips per wafer), Apple might go dual. I wouldn't be expecting any quad 970 boxes from Apple though.

im_noahselby · Feb 28, 2003, 01:58 AM

I think Apple will offer no dual processor configuration when the 970 Powermacs are first announced. I think the performance gain from the chip over the G4 chip in current Powermacs, will be so significant that it won't really be an issue. I'm sure Apple won't go ALL OUT when they annouce these chips, but spread the energy for a few revisions.

So rev 1:
1.8Ghz
1.9Ghz
2.0Ghz

rev 2:
1.9
2.0
2.0x2

rev 3:
2.0x2
2.1x2
2.2x2

After the first revision and the price of the chips have lowered, than we will likely see a dual processor configuration on the high end system, and eventually into the rest of Apple's Powermac line...

Noah

rmendis · Feb 28, 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
The limiting factor is the northbridge (or "companion chip" as IBM calls it). From what I've read, Apple probably doesn't have the engineering skills/resources to handle the 970's bus, so they'll probably use a "companion chip" from IBM.

Actually, Apple usually prides itself in producing its own ASICs including the northbridge chip.

Also Apple's participation in the HyperTransport consortium and the PPC 970s HyperTransport (Derived) interconnect, makes me think that Apple very well might produce their own northbridge chip for this processor and it may very well use HyperTransport.

If my understanding of HyperTransport is correct, then devices (I/O or processors) simply are added in series. (As it is a serial P2P packet based system). It will appear as if it is connected in a star topology (the way NUMA SMP systems are).

So chips like AMD Hammer (Athlon-64) which has *2* HyperTransport interconnects can connect without a northbridge chip.

In which case Apple will have a simple architecture for producing powerful (yet inexpensive) SMP systems that could potentially scale up to 8 processors.

TC · Feb 28, 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Timo:
I'm thinking triple processors.

Nah, much better in pairs just like breasts!

OreoCookie · Feb 28, 2003, 06:48 AM

Hope the middle model will be dual. I'd expect the top end model to be a dualie. Entry level model will probably be a single.

I'd go for the middle one, hoping it is a dualie ...

rambo47 · 09:45 AM

Speaking in broader terms, I think we'll see one more revision of the G3 processor in the iBooks, then we'll go G4 in those justllike the iMacs,eMacs and PowerBooks. PPC970 in the PowerMacs. How long for a mobile version of the PPC970? A 17" PowerBook with a 2+ GHz 970

Gimme!

SalBaker · Feb 28, 2003, 01:44 PM

I don't expect that the first rev 970 will be anywhere close to cheap. Apple will not market the new Macs as "the new inexpensive cost effective upgrades to the G4." They will no doubt herald the 970's as a drastic jump in computer technology (think the rev-one G3--cheap?)

To pull this approach off, Apple will create new cases, circuitry, cooling strategies, features, and spend gazillions on advertising and marketing.

As someone mentioned, PowerMac sales are going to get even worse until the 970's come out. Apple has to charge a premium price for the new Macs just to cover their own R&D. The rev-one buyers (and there will be many) will have to pay the premium price as is typical for early adopters.

Even if the 970 processors cost Apple 3 cents a piece, and Apple charges a fortune anyway, who else are you going to buy from if you have been waiting for a year or two and want a Mac?

SalBaker · Feb 28, 2003, 01:52 PM

I don't expect that the first rev 970 will be anywhere close to cheap. Apple will not market the new Macs as "the new inexpensive cost effective upgrades to the G4." They will no doubt herald the 970's as a drastic jump in computer technology (think the rev-one G3--cheap?)

To pull this approach off, Apple will create new cases, circuitry, cooling strategies, features, and spend gazillions on advertising and marketing.

As someone mentioned, PowerMac sales are going to get even worse until the 970's come out. Apple has to charge a premium price for the new Macs just to cover their own R&D. The rev-one buyers (and there will be many) will have to pay the premium price as is typical for early adopters.

Even if the 970 processors cost Apple 3 cents a piece, and Apple charges a fortune anyway, who else are you going to buy from if you have been waiting for a year or two and want a Mac?

Tiffany Mac · Feb 28, 2003, 05:23 PM

you are saying that you believe the 970 will be here by the end of the year. We must keep in mind that the 1.42's aren't available yet. Even if apple announced it's intentions to use the 970, we wouldn't actually see one for 1.5 to 2 years

it seems like a long itme to wait
by then the world may have blown up

Amorph · Feb 28, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by SalBaker:
I don't expect that the first rev 970 will be anywhere close to cheap. Apple will not market the new Macs as "the new inexpensive cost effective upgrades to the G4." They will no doubt herald the 970's as a drastic jump in computer technology (think the rev-one G3--cheap?)

To pull this approach off, Apple will create new cases, circuitry, cooling strategies, features, and spend gazillions on advertising and marketing.

They did much of that for the Cube, and it was still one of the highest-margin machines in their lineup.

Furthermore, they need to goose falling sales, especially in the pro lines. They're not moving to the 970 from a position of strength, at least not from a performance point of view. So while we won't see 970s for under a grand, say, why would we not see them for around the price of the PowerMac? Especially given that Apple has recently started to compete aggressively on price, even on those models that are still ahead of the competition (the laptops).

The R&D is already paid for by profits from current products, and the bulk of the design and engineering for a 970-based Mac is likely already done. Apple has had years to work on this project, and the better part of a year to play with sample CPUs.

Even if the 970 processors cost Apple 3 cents a piece, and Apple charges a fortune anyway, who else are you going to buy from if you have been waiting for a year or two and want a Mac?

If that were the case, they'd have kept the top of the line PowerMac at $3500. After all, where else are you going to get a Mac, let alone a faster one? That's not how you stay in business, let alone grow marketshare. If your solution is cost-prohibitive, people will adapt to less-perfect solutions. That is, after all, how the Mac got into publishing in the first place, despite the fact that early Macs were far less capable or precise than the dedicated hardware available at the time.

bradoesch · Feb 28, 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Timo:
I'm thinking triple processors.

Is this technically possible? I'm curious to know.

piracy · 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Tiffany Mac:
you are saying that you believe the 970 will be here by the end of the year. We must keep in mind that the 1.42's aren't available yet. Even if apple announced it's intentions to use the 970, we wouldn't actually see one for 1.5 to 2 years

it seems like a long itme to wait
by then the world may have blown up

The 1.42s aren't here because Motorola can't deliver the processors, not because of any reason internal to Apple.

Also, the Motorola 74xx family and its shipping schedules are totally unrelated to the 970.

When the Motorola PowerPC 7400 (G4) was introduced, the Power Mac G4 was introduced on the same day, and all were available and immediately.

Apple didn't "announce its intentions" to use the G4 until the day it shipped; why would the 970 be any different?

So no, it won't be 1.5 to 2 years, or anywhere near. IBM will be shipping machines with the 970 THIS year, and there's nothing stopping any other vendor that would like to use the 970 from doing the same.

greenG4 · Feb 28, 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
...it won't be 1.5 to 2 years, or anywhere near. IBM will be shipping machines with the 970 THIS year, and there's nothing stopping any other vendor that would like to use the 970 from doing the same.

Exactly right! If IBM is shipping them in machines this year, then so can Apple--even if they don't have OSX optimized for a 64bit chip. (It's a 32bit chip too, right? Or backward compatible or whatever.) We'll see them this year. Nothing could stop Apple from doing it except Apple.

SalBaker · Feb 28, 2003, 09:29 PM

Apple has made the new Macs more competitive because, technology wise, they aren't.

Apple will charge a premium for rev-one 970's because they can, and they know pro users have been holding off for so long.

The reason Macs aren't still $3500 is obvious. There has been many revs since they were that price, and Macs have fallen way behind the speed curve. That's why I intend to wait for a rev-two 970. Apple ALWAYS lets early adopters pay a premium.

I really think you will be disappointed if you think Apple will launch the first 970's as competitively priced computers.

(Why does Apple charge so much more for Airport than an equal speed Linksys wireless router that has more ports? Because we will buy it.)

engage1000 · Feb 28, 2003, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Timo:
I'm thinking triple processors.

No no no, that'll never do. You gotta have quadruple processing capabilities!!!

Tiffany Mac · Feb 28, 2003, 11:24 PM

why can't motorola produce the processors.?

rmendis · Feb 28, 2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by greenG4:
If IBM is shipping them in machines this year, then so can Apple--even if they don't have OSX optimized for a 64bit chip.

IBM may have it's PowerPC Blades ready around mid year...so there is no reason not to expect the same from Apple. Just in time for a MacWorld announcement?

As for re-compiling Mac OS X for 64bits...well, it's OS code base is very portable and has run on various architectures (incl. SPARC, PA-RISC, POWER) so this shouldn't be a problem at all.

The issue is really how to ship two version of an OS (and it's apps) together.

Some applications that can benefit from 64bits (like iMovie for example) can be compiled 'fat' (using Apple/NeXT MAB - multi-architecture binary). That is the application contains two (or more executables) one for 32-bit PPC and a second for 64-bit PPC.

DrBoar · Mar 1, 2003, 02:04 AM

Currently the replacement of the lowend dual 0.867 with a single 1GHz looks really lame. However a single 1.6-dual1.6-dual2.0 would make a lot of sense. A single 1.6 would still be both quite competetive with the Intels and also beat even the fastest G4. Both performance and clock speedwise.

Why the low clcok speeds? I have no idea what Apple pay for IBM 970 but if AMD and Intel is anything to go by the price hike at the very top is very steep. A 2.6 GHz P4 is about 50% of the price of a 3.06 while giving about 80% of the performance so backing of a bit on the speed and going dual gives more bang for the bucks . This is of course neglecting any other costs than just the CPUs. Can anyone give information how expensive it is and will be to have dual support?

TIA on that one!

For the G4 accelerators 90 is very bad news.
When the low price LC475 came out, it gave Quadra 700 performance at a fraction of the cost more or less killing of the 32-40-50 Mhz 68030 upgrades. What will happen when the low end tower is faster in SMP and way way faster in single CPU stuff like games than any dual G4?

Superchicken · Mar 1, 2003, 04:46 AM

In all honesty I think apple probably will take advantage of a bit of the fevor over the PPC 970 amoung pro users once they see the bench marks most people might be willing to drop 3+ grand.
BUT, I think the second revision will offer a much better price point, esspecially since I think Apple most likely will move all it's comps over to the PPC 970 from the G4. And simply stagger the speeds. I mean they're practically that way already with the G4, and I think it would make more sense cuase they'd probably get cheaper rates from IBM too if they're buying more.
And as far as making two OSes... easy, mark one box, Mac OS X 64 Bit, or Mac OS X G5 eddition (assuming they brand it G5).
Or just stick a DVD in the box and have both OSes on it. And simply have the system software dertmine which one to use.

I'm really hopeful for mac world NY... Although I think Steve might have just decided to do 2003 as mainly notebook focused... so unless the Power book gets the PPC 970 first... which I dout... I dout it'll happen.
And the Xserve just got revised... so I think apple'll probably hold off until MWSF

rmendis · Mar 1, 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
And as far as making two OSes... easy, mark one box, Mac OS X 64 Bit, or Mac OS X G5 eddition (assuming they brand it G5).

Well, I'm sure it will ship on one set of discs.
That is there will be no distinction in Mac OS X for either 32 bit or 64 bit.

It's not like they are completely two different architectures. Most of the several hundred MBs of disk space is attributed to system resources (like images, nibs, etc...and executables are relatively small). Frameworks, Apps can ship MAB (with both binaries) while the system can figure out which of the two base operating system and executables to install.

Gul Banana · Mar 1, 2003, 08:07 AM

Or, they could simply make OS X 10.3 be the 64-bit version, and make that required.

rmendis · Mar 1, 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Gul Banana:
Or, they could simply make OS X 10.3 be the 64-bit version, and make that required.

What about backward compatibility with the G4 and G3 systems (iMac, iBook, PowerBook)?

I think not :-)
Apple will definitely ship Mac OS X to support both 32-bits and 64-bits.

What i wonder is if Apple will remove the Classic Environment from Mac OS X for the PPC 970. It is a 64-bit processor and Classic may not work there...well, even if it could, Apple might use it as an *excuse* to completely transition to Mac OS X?

BenRoethig · Mar 1, 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by SalBaker:

There has been many revs since they were that price, and Macs have fallen way behind the speed curve.

Like when the 604e was running at 350mhz and the P2 was at 266. Makes were competitive or ahead of PCs in the megahertz department up until the G4 came out.

rambo47 · Mar 1, 2003, 03:10 PM

I don't expect we'll see the 970 announced in calendar year 2003. Remember, this is "The Year of the Laptop", according to his Steveness.

beb · Mar 1, 2003, 03:45 PM

-Year of the laptop. At Seybold: The new 17" Powerbook 970. -And you thought you had a hot pants now.

I'm just kinda wondering when the iMac will get a 970. That'll be one fast freakin iMac

piracy · Mar 1, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by rambo47:
I don't expect we'll see the 970 announced in calendar year 2003. Remember, this is "The Year of the Laptop", according to his Steveness.

The PowerPC 970 will be shipping this year. Products that feature the PowerPC 970 will be shipping this year. The 970 has already been announced and will be shipping in quantity this year. Samples have been, and are, available, and there is no reason why any vendor who wishes would be prevented from having begun a design process for products that utilize the PowerPC 970. Volume customers for the PowerPC 970 wishing to use it would already have been in contact with IBM before last October; and they are more than privvy to any information or details, as well as samples, necessary to design and built products with the 970.

keston · Mar 1, 2003, 06:56 PM

What we have seen in the past is that when clock speeds are high or decent stevie boy makes the towers single proc., when its pathetically low he slaps on the DPs, turns on his RDF, and talks about dual this and that...

I predict single at first and MAYBE dual when they have made enough and have plenty or it becomes cheaper for them to make. Either way, its a long way of i think.

btw, this is just my opinion... i dont know taht much about the whole thing.

clarkgoble · Mar 1, 2003, 07:07 PM

Of course we're all just talking out our ass. However I think Apple will release DP as the high end system and then lower end 970 systems at a reasonable price. They need to start doing better price/performance ratios relative to PCs. They are loosing too much marketshare in the graphics market. Look for Steve to look at marketshare over huge margins - at least initially.

MindFad · Mar 1, 2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Of course we're all just talking out our ass.

SalBaker · Mar 1, 2003, 08:13 PM

For marketing reasons, I think Apple HAS to release a high-end only 970. They need to hype a "Super Computer," not assorted flavors of low to high "Super Computers." (I hope I'm wrong)

To get any buzz, Apple has to focus, focus, focus. Remember the hype about the G4, and how long it took to migrate down to consumer machines?

As far as the year of the laptop, don't look for any significance in that statement. What else could Steve say at that keynote? He had no Powermac or iMac announcements to make. Plus, Apple never offers us hidden hints about what to expect in the future. For example, this has already been the year of the affordable LCD's too.

I would bet $1.00 (yes America, one dollar!) that Apple has to and will launch with one focused "64-bit Super Computer" (what ever that is.) It's the only way to get the press' attention.

I do work in marketing, but I am also talking out my orifice when it comes to Apple. I know my team would be salivating for the chance to market only one machine at launch.

slider · Mar 1, 2003, 08:38 PM

Actually you know what, if the 970 stomps with one processor, who cares. And if they are cheap enough why not stick in two. I am quite sure Apple is aware of the cpu speed problem, they not only need to catch up, but they need to do damage control. Like the "smoke the competition", campaigns they has with the G3. In fact, I don't think it's a stretch to say that they have to release a DP 970, at least one. Apple as not been sitting on low processor speeds by choice, they don't make the processors.

Amorph · Mar 1, 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by SalBaker:
Apple has made the new Macs more competitive because, technology wise, they aren't.

Except, as I've noted, for the ones that are: The notebooks are priced aggressively now, too.

Fred Anderson said several quarters ago that Apple was aiming for marketshare over margin, and that average margin would decline as a result. He's now said that Apple wants to more than triple marketshare to 10%. I'm sure that Steve dearly wants to bring back the demos showing Macs blowing away PCs in tests (not merely beating them) because that's own of the main ways that Apple makes their case to the pro crowd.

Again, they're not coming from a position of strength. The people who are currently holding their noses at PowerMac G4s would probably hold their noses at PowerMac 970s if they were only available for $3500 and up. Furthermore, Apple's been pretty good lately about passing on breaks in component prices (deal with LCD supplier -> huge price drop on 23" HD display).

If they were augmenting a commanding lineup with a really super high-powered machine, they could get away with a very high price. But they aren't. The 970 will basically keep professionals who've had less and less of a business case to stay with Macintosh from switching to Windows.

The reason Macs aren't still $3500 is obvious. There has been many revs since they were that price, and Macs have fallen way behind the speed curve. That's why I intend to wait for a rev-two 970. Apple ALWAYS lets early adopters pay a premium.

I don't recall a premium on the first PowerMac G3s. In fact, I distinctly recall a significant price drop. There wasn't one on the PowerMac G4, nor on the PowerBook G4. AirPort debuted on a consumer laptop, and the AirPort Base Station debuted at a price point a good $200 below what anyone else was charging.

If there's a reason to wait for a rev 2, it's to give Apple time to work the bugs out of an all-new hardware platform.

I'm not saying that the $3500+ Mac won't return, because the 970 scales much higher than the G4 could, and Apple could offer a monstrously powerful workstation if they so chose. But I don't see how or why the 970 couldn't simply make the current professional desktops worth the money again. After all, even $1500 isn't exactly cheap for a tower.

(Why does Apple charge so much more for Airport than an equal speed Linksys wireless router that has more ports? Because we will buy it.)

When I was looking at wireless hubs for my mom, I couldn't find anything that had the AirPort's feature set (not just ports - that's what ethernet hubs are for - but NAT, DHCP, a firewall, the option of an external antenna, and the very cool USB printer sharing capability) that was significantly cheaper than the AirPort Extreme Base Station. Granted, I was paying educational prices, but still. The new prices are a bit on the high side, but they're competitive. Configuring it was dead simple, which is another bonus.

I started out looking at other solutions first, because I was sure something else would be cheaper. But the ones that were cheaper left me wondering whether they'd work, and whether they offered any provisions for security.

SalBaker · Mar 1, 2003, 11:21 PM

PowerMacs are Apple's problem now, not notebooks.

I do remember the first G3's being expensive. But the intelligent press (and Apple) justified the price as..."You get what you pay for." That is still Apple's niche, and I can't imagine why they would change their positioning to..."finally, the same or slightly better speed for the same price as a PC!"

My Linksys wireless router works great with my mac, and cost me $200 less than Airport at the time. It is VERY secure (firewall and all) and works flawlessly. I don't need print sharing or an external antenna (maybe Airport needs this?) And, if one knows how to use a browser, the Linksys is dead simple too.

I love Macs. But I am convinced that Apple is not ready to say..."The new 970 Macs, and we pass the savings along to you!"

nagha · Mar 1, 2003, 11:57 PM

let's not become irrationally exuberant here. apple is AAPL first and the world's computing savior second. they need to make money.

this will be marketed as "the mother of all supercomputers" and be featured across the line:

$1599 - single 1.8 ghz
$2499 - single 2.4 ghz
$3200 - dual 2 ghz

sound familiar? this is what the first gen MDDs sold for. you might even find the following scenario:

$1599 - dual 1.42 ghz G4
$2499 - single 1.8 ghz 970
$3299 - dual 1.8 ghz 970

and just to be safe, apple has a margin of safety for both quanities and future speed bumps. the performance will be more than adequate and people will upgrade.

na

Agent69 · Mar 2, 2003, 12:07 AM

Whatever happens, Apple needs processors that can ramp up in clock speed. Nothing else really matters because, to most of the non-Mac users that Apple is trying to entice, it is the only measurement of computer performance that matters.

Of course, we here at the MacNN forums know that it is not that simple and that other things, not just clockspeed, effect performance.

beb · Mar 2, 2003, 03:34 AM

Nah, I don't believe that single double single scenario.

Apple isn't the only company using the 970. Sony plans on using it for some reason -and apparantly in great quantities.

All of it makes me wonder how Apple's marketing is going to handle this.

I mean "Bamn" -that was some speed bump from a top speed of 1.4 to 2.something Gigahertz. It's almost an explosion in velocity that really isn't that common lately in the tech world. Suddenly instead of a good and steady 55-60 mph on a country road we're going 110 mph and there are no cops and we're on the interstate.

Nobody will want a G4 anything anymore in the wake of the 970. And Apple gets stuck with a pile of unsellable mess. And then it happens again late next year with the Power 5 and/or it's derivative 980?

rmendis · Mar 2, 2003, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by beb:
Nobody will want a G4 anything anymore in the wake of the 970. And Apple gets stuck with a pile of unsellable mess.

Well it is possible that the the Classic Environment may not run on the 970/64-bit Mac OS X.

So there will be those users who are attracted to the speed and performance of the 970/G5 systems who will be willing to forego the Classic Environment, while there will be others who will maintain demand for the slower G4 systems in order to run Classic apps or who demand Classic compatibility. Quark hopefully by then will be Mac OS X compatible :-)

docholiday · Mar 2, 2003, 05:34 AM

i don't really care whether they're single or dual (in the first rev)... what I want to see is a 64-bit version of the OS and some key apps such as Photoshop within a few weeks/months of the chip's release.
If a single PPC970 can kill the competition, the dual will be a monster - something that proffessionals in the film industry for example would use and be willing to pay a higher price for. And Apple will probably quickly release at least one high-end model that is dual soon after the single (if it hasn't doesn't done so in the first rev).

beb · Mar 2, 2003, 07:51 PM

About the only thing, actually THE only thing I use classic for is Acrobat Distiller.

I had to use it for Color IT -now in beta for OS X, then I'd want it for Poser, which is due any day now. I also wanted MGI -but I have that on NT so I can wait. Having Groboto and Typestyler would be really nice -but I can wait.

So in three or four months if Apple wanted to kill off classic It'd be fine with me.

The only thing classic has over OS X is LIST SHADED WINDOWS!

As far as the 970 goes... Bring it on!

::leaves to go play Patton movie theme::

Amorph · 08:22 PM

Originally posted by SalBaker:
PowerMacs are Apple's problem now, not notebooks.

My point exactly.

If Apple isn't charging a huge premium for their most attractive products, where do you get the idea that they'll charge for a product that is basically a solution to a problem?

If you charge too much for what you offer, people will seek less-capable alternatives that are more reasonable. That's how Macs took over publishing. Right now, a fair number of PowerMac customers are asking rather seriously how well Photoshop runs on a Dell. Check the MacInTouch reader reports. If Apple releases the new 970 for $5000, and keeps the G4 around at the current price points, guess what? They'll buy Dells.

I'm not arguing that the 970 will show up in eMacs for $799, at least not for a while. But I don't see why Apple wouldn't slot them into the old PowerMac price points. If they bring back the $3500 price point (and I think they will) it'll be a pure-lust machine like the 17" PB is. But a 970 isn't a pure-lust item. It's what will rescue the line from irrelevance.

I do remember the first G3's being expensive.

The clones, perhaps. The Beige G3s looked awfully cheap relative to the 200MHz PowerMac 8600 I'd taken delivery of not so long before. That's when they ran the "Pentium crushing" ads as well. The G3 "Kanga" notebook was pricey, of course, but at the time a high performance laptop was a fairly exotic beast. I'm confident that the 970 will appear all the way down (and up) the traditional PowerMac price range - which is not cheap, of course. It might even go higher. And Steve won't announce something with the same or better speed, he'll announce something that flattens the PC in performance. (ObThreadTopic: Since an individual 970 doesn't flatten a P4, I think that's enough of an argument for duals, except perhaps for the low end model). That's been the selling point of the PowerMac since '97, and that's why PowerMacs haven't been selling so well of late. The "you get what you pay for" line only works if you actually are getting what you pay for.

My Linksys wireless router works great with my mac, and cost me $200 less than Airport at the time. It is VERY secure (firewall and all) and works flawlessly. I don't need print sharing or an external antenna (maybe Airport needs this?) And, if one knows how to use a browser, the Linksys is dead simple too.

At the time, perhaps. If you haven't looked at the price for the new Base Station, you probably should.

I can report that the AirPort Base Station does not need an antenna, but if you want the option of even better range, it's right there. If you know you'll never need the option, you can lop a few bucks off the price, too.

Apple is trying to grow marketshare. By Fred Anderson's own admission, they are sacrificing margins for market share, even to the point of not expecting their retail stores to be profitable (although they're shooting for break-even). They're pushing OS X adoption, and the #1 way to do that is to sell OS X booting machines. So, their strategy will be to sell compelling machines at reasonable (if not cheap) prices. G4 PowerMacs are not compelling anymore. Look at the numbers.

ccsccs7 · Mar 2, 2003, 08:21 PM

Do y'all remember where DDR showed up first? It was in the Xserve. Apple's professional server. It has all that high end stuff. I'd think we'd see the 970 appear there first befoe moving to desktop (or laptop) systems.