MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I think it was mentioned above (there are so many damn comments here) but Stevejack is wrong -- or at least overstating things. The best you can buy now is indeed a dual 2ghz G5, but what you could buy back then was a dual 1.42ghz G4. Quite a difference. They were "at" 2ghz last june, i.e. Apple had a few prototypes, but they weren't available until september. If Apple scrapes together a couple 3ghz prototypes and then bumps the current offerings to that speed by september or october, I say, close enough.

That said, making such a bold prediction about a product over which Apple has very little control was indeed a stuppid stupid move, and I hope Jobs has learned his lesson.

To: Arrogant Mac Guy

I cannot belive that diagram. If it's really the way it is and not just an oversimplification then I'm gonna apologize to you. I may have to get one and take it apart to find out tho.

Looks like to me that Apple has in one year gone from a 1.42 GHz top end to a 2.5 GHz top end which is an increase of 1.08 GHz in just 12 months. This is not even to mention the fact that the G5 architecture is far superior to what the G4 was. Now show me where Intel, AMD and/or anyone else has done the same in the last 12 months, otherwise stop bitching like children about it...

"Miss by a mile"...hmmm


Well as it is more important for all of us to just HAVE Macs then have to live in the PC world, and righteous headlines like this just fuel the CNN's and the computerworlds of the worlds glee that we are pissing on our own. I am not asking for hype but some support might be in order?

I am already so blown away with my dual 2GIG, that anything else just screams more.

So, call me happy these things exist and understanding that it isn't all perfect but these are still the best by a Redmond mile.

Thanks for your column.

Buzz Bell

RICHARD: no need to apologize one way or the other. It's just fun mac gossip.

Dang! Steve Jobs is human? I still can't get over that. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ... until June 28, at least. Dang had me fooled. Good luck, Stevie! Sounds like we're in need of a heavy dose of RDF. And don't forget the bottled water, son. And go to bed early the night before.

Dang if there isn't a disturbance in the force.

Maybe Steve watched "Patton" before last year's WWDC.

Well, MDN has always been the bottom of the barrel for Mac news. MacCentral, MaCNN, MacMinute are all better. Now that MDN has been moving towards the Thurrotts of the world, they are even worse.

BTW, how do you all equate Steve J. saying "We will hit 3ghz within a year" to him making a promise. He was incorrect - yes. Did he "lie" or "break a promise"? Hell no.

What a bunch of fuckin' whiners here.

In reading comments here, I note that this article is actually listed as opinion piece. Good thing. Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink.

As an aside, wouldn't it be fun if you could click on someone's name and see their resume? That way, we could see if someone with a huge opinion actually knew what they were talking about, or if they were talking out their ass.

Paul Thurrott <click> I once took a computer class, but didn't understand it. My mom didn't buy me a Mac for Christmas, so I'll always hate her for it. I hate Macs too. I sure wish I could afford one, but that job at 7-11 as the chief Slurpee operator just doesn't allow it.

"BTW, how do you all equate Steve J. saying "We will hit 3ghz within a year" to him making a promise. He was incorrect - yes. Did he "lie" or "break a promise"? Hell no."

What the he// do you want, to have him recite vows in front of a minister? He made the claim, and it didn't come to fruition. I don't recall people calling him a liar, they're calling him a moron for making a prediction that he can't back up. He just plain screwed up. That doesn't bode well for Apple's PR.

Also, to claim that MDN is an Apple-basher simply because it points out criticisms shows just how much of an apologist you are. Apple isn't infallible. Jobs isn't infallible. Get your head out of your arse and you can see that.

Arrogant Mac Guy....nice to see your posts again.

I also do agree, it was not realistic at all. Still Apple has done an amazingly good job with the new 2.5 PowerMac. Steve must get real and we too.

The 2xG5 is still a winner, only Mac users could still complain... Sigh...

Arrogant Mac Guy

The 90nm processor in the Xserve G5 is probably underclocked because it is in a server. The part may well be a 2.5Ghz part.

Also the cooling diagram may well be over-simplified as pointed out by other posters, but then none of us should jump to the sort of over-assertive conclusions to which you have jumped.

IBM had just saved Apple's bacon by producing 2 GHz chips that were as good as or better than the competition. They put Apple back in the game big time.

They also promised Steve that they would have the 90 nm process down pat by year's end and 3 GHz chips by this time next year.

Steve passed that promise along. The buck stops at Steve but to hold him responsible for IBM's, Pepsico's or Motorola's delays or screw ups is just being an A$$HOLE.

my $600 Dell runs at 3200 MGhz while it came with Nvidia 5200 256 MB card. Steve Jobs wants more of your cash

Two types of people here .....

Glass half full - glass half empty.

For the half empty folks, look around at the innovation Apple has given us - be grateful. Otherwise, we'd all be running around bragging about our $600 Dell POS! Former Apple Fan, be realistic. You can't honestly think that your machine could scratch the @ss of the G5... if you do .... well

All Dual G5 configurations one year after Dual G4 configs. Sounds like innovation to me. Thank you Steve. Thanks Apple. The glass half full people thank you.

JECRAWFORD: Good lord you're stretching. Underclocked! Yea right. Sure, everyone UNDERCLOCKS chips. They could BARELY get the darn part for the Xserves. You bet your a$$ they are not underclocked. Those are the cream of the crop chips from IBM, and Apple isn't going to waste higher clocked chips on a server. That's an astounding suppostion.

Clearly we disagree on this.

As for the diagram. It is what it is. And I'm not sure where I saw this today, but it was described as a closed loop system. Not a dual closed loop system. You guys are willing to jump through too many hoops to strain reality. Showing 2 loops circulating on two cpus is not more difficult to understand.

The reality is it probably uses a single liquid cool heat sink for both chips. That is a closed loop system. So on part of the sink will have warmer water passing through.

Now maybe this works out OK, but it clearly is not as optimal a design as 2 seperate loops from a pure cooling perspective. But pure cooling may not be the maximum issue.

Finally. HELLO?!?! This is the mac rag world. Hyper jumping over apple and apple competitors is the norm. You getting into a pi$$ about not liking something going agianst the mac isn't going to change the nature of the mac web to suit your uptight notions of properness.

Well, the G5 is a BIG box. I was at Best Buy the other day and they had a G5 there not far from all the PCs, and it just dwarfed everything else in the store. It almost didn't fit on the shelf.

As beautiful as it is, it's too big.

I'm not as upset about the clockspeed as I am about the design compromises they've made to keep the thing cool. All that space inside just for airflow. The old G4 could handle 4 internal drives and was a lot smaller.

I sure hope they can develop a smaller machine. Well, actually they do have one, but it's only available with the screen permanently attached.

Oh well...

A single closed loop system, if efficient under load, costs exactly half as much as a separate system for each chip.

Cost is a big part of design. An engineer has to count beans as well as over-design for safety.

'Jobs should STOP making public predictions that he cannot back up and cannot accurately predict. It unnecessarily opens Apple and the Mac platform up to potshots from those with hidden (and not-so-hidden) agendas.'

Now that you have fired the first potshot, maybe you should let us know YOUR agenda - aside from kicking dead horses.

'the PR disaster of Job's artificial "100 million songs sold in the first year" publicly stated goal.'

You Jobs bashing jerks need to get a life. I hope he keeps reaching beyond the horizon. So what if he can't produce miracles all the time? Everytime he approaches a podium, there is excitement.

Give him a break.

Iggy, one of the main guys talking out his ass about this is Paul Thurrott. He says, "There is a line between 'promotion' and 'bald-faced lying,' and Apple just crosses it a little too often". Now, if that's not calling Jobs a liar for the statement, I don't know what is.

Former Apple Fan, yeah your $600 Dell POS runs at a big clock speed - so what? It still runs Windoze and it's still a $600 piece of crap. You get what you pay for. Jobs wants more of my money for a better product. He gets it. Maybe you should try to find a good paying job so you can afford quality stuff.

Blame the rumour sites. Blame Steve Jobs. Blame IBM.

Many of you arent happy unless you're unhappy. Ive never seen such a bunch of whiners in one place. Be thankful you're using a platform that, over the last 12 months, has produced some outstanding hardware and software.

if its not enough, you know where to go.

Hey Steve Jack - don't quit your day job. Shit op-ed pieces like yours (that's what they call them in the "real world" of journalism, of which you'll never be a part) are a dime a dozen on the wish-I-was-a-real-journalist web sites such as MDN and Paul Turd-Rot shit.

I am sure all this animosity will whither away with time and maybe a demo or two at the WWDC. Then the attitude will shift to "that dual 2.5 GHz rocks!"

Too true : )

Why do people complain? Here is my reason. If Apple is ever to claim they have the fastest computer in the world, it has to be easily recognizable as the fastest. Having chips that are always lower in megahertz than Pentiums will always make Apple look bad to the general public. I also do not like knowing that they can really do better than this but don't bother. If you can't get the high end to reach 3ghz, FINE. BUT DO NOT keep crippling the entry level models just because you can't compete with your own high end models. If Apple put the same motherboard and the same GPU in the $1.7k model people would see just how bad this speedbump really is. In one year all they could come up with is ONE chip that is 500mhz faster and will cost you over $3,000 just to touch.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/12/ibm_90nm_g5_chip/

Read that. IBM was saying in Feb. 04, 90nm 3Ghz was a no brainer for this summer's promised delivery. They stumbled and AMD and Intel aren't fairing much better. Be patient.

I'm glad Steve Jobs is being vocal about his predictions/goals. It gives us insite as to approx. how long we will have to wait for the new technologies. It gives us a basis as to when/how much we are willing to spend/invest in todays technologies.

It was a predicition not a promise. Should Apple keep us totally in the dark?

Carlos, when you consider the downtime associated with being on the Wintel platform, Macs are the fastest desktop computers in this planet, full stop. Benchmarks are meaningless when the other guy cannot race because of some virus or crash-restart.

anton, I think it's time we should be looking for a tower that is really a tower -- a structure taller than its width, depth or diameter. I can't imagine anyone putting these heavy objects on their desk; it belongs on the floor next to one's desk, with perhaps only the power cord in the back. Put the cable ports on the front and route them down a flap to exit on either side neatly. Put the disk devices at arm level when sitting and make the Apple logo a big glowing affair on top. I'm talking mini-Cray here. C'mon Apple, think differently for the G6 and blow us all away. W-users would be devastated by penile envy. Benchmarks would become irrelevant.

(Packaging: the tower comes apart in the middle and packages as two pieces.)

Less is More, I am not saying that Macs are not the best out there, I am just saying that they can do better if they just didn't scam us all the time. Look at how much the 2Ghz model dropped in price, now think about how long Apple was raking in profits on that (now) old chip? They could have discounted the G5's at the 6 month mark to keep them competitive. Instead they just kept all that to themselves, just like they are doing with the monitors they sell. You don't think it still costs them $2k for a an LCD do you? If you have nothing new to sell, at least give us some incentive to buy, like a sale or something!

Apple does run a promo once a while. However, it would be stupid to just drop the price because:

1. it is hard to increase the price once you drop it. Promotion has an expiration date and nobody feels screwed over the price once the promo is over.
2. Apple buys parts from other manufacturer. Do you think IBM cut down the price of their top performing chips?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see cheaper Apple products, but not at the cost of the company's existence. Apple is a business and sometimes it must make decisions that is contrary to the consumers' wish.

"MacTech. It's the same part as in the xserve that runs at 2ghz. you go read it.

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/03/20040323093026.shtml

So why don you get your lame a$$ sh*t straight. Moron." - Arrogant Mac Guy

As a rule of thumb, never take rumors as facts without confirming them from a legit news site. You may be quite right, but as many of us know, there is a very good chance that you are wrong. Calling names only make things worse.

I don't need a G5 3GHz for a desktop machine - I don't play games and if I wanted more power for scientific computations or 3d rendering I would build a cluster. What I want for a G5 PowerMac is a smaller, nicer, quieter box and a further 300 EUR decrease so that I could afford more RAM or that fantastics TFTs.

And if you really need to go wintel, you can definetely do better than Dell for $600.

SteveJack is a twit. Does he run this site?

Why not include Jobs' massive under-pridiction of iTunes initial success - he screwed up there too - right?

Why not damn Jobs' briliance and endless enthusiasm for his work - which has had such an huge impact on advancing personal computing? It's a 'VISION thing' right? - of which predictions (guessing the future and then striving to make it happen) are an integral part.

Why doesn't SteveJacks finish his article by taking it to it's logical conclusion... "Steve Jobs should STOP being Steve Jobs".

I used to like this site, but the babyish worshipping of Apple's CEO - and the inevitable twist into bitterness when Jobs (naturally) fails to live up to this fantasy - is spoiling what could be a valuable news resource.

Jacks isn't alone in this... I suspect those whinging here are the same people who had tantrums over Apple's mini ipod pricing and 'predicted' its failure.

The only failure I can see at the moment is this site.

Steve Jobs lying.....there's a surprise(!)

"Former Apple Fan, yeah your $600 Dell POS runs at a big clock speed - so what? It still runs Windoze and it's still a $600 piece of crap. You get what you pay for. Jobs wants more of my money for a better product. He gets it. Maybe you should try to find a good paying job so you can afford quality stuff"


Spoken like a true brainwashed Mac zealot....

It's because of sheep like you that Apple gets away with all its many many lies.

Apple, just put three 2GHzs processors in the G5 = 6GHzs problem solved.

Steve Jobs and Muhammad Ali...bold, brash and ballsy...you gotta love it that they both took the risks where others fear to tread...they will forever be entertainers, great entertainers...

Never forget this...they believe in what they say at the time they say it. Passionate and idealistic people do have a tendency to trip on their tongues every so often...but they light a lot of rooms along the way...

For crying out loud, people, make up your minds. For years you were all whining because Jobs didn't give you a roadmap of his future product plans. Now that he's given one, you're screaming because (surprise, surprise) not everything went according to plan.

The laws of physics intervened. Guess what? The whole semiconductor industry ran up against exactly the same physical limits. Can you say 'Tejas'? And would you care to be in Bill Gates' shoes N years from now, when Longhorn is finally ready to ship, but requires a dual-core, 6-GHz, 64-bit processor? (That, I believe, is Microsoft's recommended CPU for 'optimum' performance.) At the rate things are now going, such a chip is extremely unlikely to exist. Delivering a 25% speed increase instead of the expected 50% is small potatoes compared to what's going on in the Wintel camp.

Jungle, Well said.

Although there are many Mac people here, most of them do not "think different."

When everyone sees S.J. as moron, liar,... a few see him as Genius. If they have not aspired to make a 3.0 GHz machine by this summer, they probably would have never known these problems existed now!! They would have realized a few years down the line.

Newton (or someone else.. ) made two holes in his lab so that his cats could come in and go out without him having to open the door. A small hole for the small cat and a big hole for the big cat. Some people may see him as a moron for this!!

OK. One more time. Does ANYONE recall the transputer concept Atari and Commodore had? You could add as many as 17 processers to the computer thu the pci slots!! Now look, even if ALL the processers were running at 1GHZ...that's 17GHZ combined power!!!! Now that Apple wants to sell you a dual processer top of the line in a frige, isn't TIME TO START RETHINKING HOW TO GET MORE POWER???

It's not just a matter of Intel vs. apple. They BOTH ARE having problems getting to the next level.(as far as GHZ)
So I have to point out that MORE PROCESSERS ARE the answer, as it looks like EVERYONE AGREES there is a problem. So how many extra cpu's can you add in the pci slots? NONE.

Is it possible for a third party to come out with a board, that has at least FOUR g5 processers on it? (1.6-2ghz). I KNOW third parties offer Dual add ons. Does anyone know if OSx COULD RUN IT? It's important that Apple have a true 64 bit OS. When's that gonna happen, huh? I wonder HOW MUCH that would speed things up.

i never see what the big deal is about this kinda crap. who cares. when setting goals aim high, not safe. complainers are just armchair CEOs without the guts to fail gracefully.

I think effwerd and Jay Random doesn't know what their talking about.

agreed, and happy Birthday Steve Jack!

It was very funny to read your posts here. A lot of mac defenders says:
"12 month ago we did not have a 2GHZ G5 but a 1.4GHZ G4 and now we have 2.5 G5 so it makes a big improvement"
But sorry, compare official release dates with official release dates or shop availability dates with shop availability dates! Compare 2.0GHZ of last year with 2.0GHZ of now or 1.4GHZ of last year with 2.0GHZ of now. the 2.5GHZ is still not available!
Other try to interpret the words "in 12 months" with "12 month after the time the G5 will be available in shops"...
funny...

Anyway, this not a big thing, cause AMD and INTEL all the time postpone their roadmap as well.
It is usual to be far too optimistic in roadmaps. But it would be better if Mac would have, after one year from that prediction, something at least faster than what already existed then. Let's say a 2.2GHZ G5?

For cww and the folks thinking that 3 2.0GHZ G5 would make a 6.0GH machine... well they look like tech kiddies
firstly we can see 2 or 4 or 8 cpus on a board, but not 3 G5. and secondly, the scalability of multiprocessor architecture is never 100%. So it means that 2 G5 at 2.0GHZ is never so fast like an hypothetical 4.0GHZ G5, cause they looses time communicating together. And in most cases, the applications you are using are not SMP compiled, that it means: they use only one of the dual G5 (and the free G5 can be used by another application in the same time) so that makes the speed of a single G5 so important.
cww: PCI cards with additional processors exist (at least for PC) but again it really makes sense only for server purposes that use several instances of a serving application on several processors or SMP-applications (typically scientific applications using MPI standard).

Personnaly I never had a Mac, only PC. Because I want to be compatible with the world leading standard. But I agree, Windows sucks..... XP is still a nightmare even if it doesn't crash anymore (autoreconfiguration features that make a running system a failing system, all users are usually root(admin) per default, lots of hidden settings, spywares, virus, etc...).
I would be very curious to discover mac OS X with its unix backbone. On PC I love using SUSE Linux for professional solutions, not easy to learn, but then quite rock solid! But I think OS X is more user-friendly and a very mature piece of OS.

For me the OS is more important that the speed alone, and I still think that the G5 2.0GHZ are belongs to the fastest machines.
But forget about the official benchmarks of Apple sayning that it is the fastest desktop machine in the world, that only marketing, in other words lies. I also never watch to seriously the official benchmarks of AMD/INTEL, instead I give a look at SPEC benchmarks. (http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/index.jsp)

Enjoy the Mac! (or try to keep zen with PC like me ... )

Just a few things.

Jobs would not have made the statement without being told 3GHZ was not a problem.

Jobs wanted to let people know they were not buying into another G4 that could not get over 500MHZ even if it hurt some sales.

IBM is pushing the envelope hard and we will probably see better spead increases then AMD/INTEL for some time to come.

Sooo, you are going to turn down the dual 2.5 G5 because it's not 3 gz?

Apr 26, 08 - 01:14 pm Comment from: dd

I come from the future and I'm happy to report that we only recently crossed the 3GHz barrier. Didn't think it would take this long, didja?