Next-Gen Apples To Include 1394b, USB 2.0

seletz writes: "According to this article on The Register, Apple will ship its next-generation PowerMacs with USB 2.0 and double FireWire. USB 2.0 boosts data transfer up to 480Mbps, FireWire 1394b goes up to 3.2Gbps." It may seem a minor point, but the more and faster connections are built in, the less frequently the upgrade gremlins have to strike. 3.2Gbps!

Comments

old news and fake news

[selderrr]

this is old stuff... macNN (a rather silly mac site) had this a week ago. Shouldn't you be announcing flat panel iMacs ? Anyway, its pure bollocks : G5 procs aren't coming out in another 1.5 years. It's the G4 story all over again. They were announced 2 years early, came out at an insane price tag and lowerer MHz than expected, and stuck to a MHz barrier for 2 years. Apple should buy out Moto sommerset facilities and rent them to IBM. That might help a bit.

Re:old news and fake news

[Spruitje]

True, but I really remember the G4 being on silicon for a pretty long time. Same holds for the 700+MHz G4. Motorola has been having a really really hard time getting yields up..


Which G4?
There are at the moment for processors with the G4 nametag.
The PPC7400 was the first one with a 5 stage pipeline.
Due to the fact that this processor couldn't run above 500 Mhz because of this 5 stage pipeline Motorola made a new processor with a larger pipeline and onboard level 2 cache (256Kbyte) called the PPC7450.
This processor starts nowadays at 800 Mhz and runs up to 1.2 ghz.
Second, there is the 7410 which is a lower power version of the 7410 and it can run up to around 700 mhz.
And the new G4 is the PPC7460 which can run upto 1,4 ghz.
Apple shifted from 666 to 733 and now to 800 as the bottomline.
The reason is quitte simple.
The yield is getting better and better and so does the average clockspeed of the G4 processors.
All 7450 processors run at least 800 mhz nowadays with almost 10% top out at more than 1 Ghz..
The same goes with the 7410.

Faster USB

[krikke]

So now the mouse will have the bandwidth to have more than one button?

Actually, it will be nice to have the speed for video editing on external harddrives without having to use a firewire one.

Re:Faster USB

[CaseyB]

The PARC computer had 3 but in useability studies it found that people perfered the 1 button mouse.

Usability studies from 30 years ago, when people were still having trouble with the abstraction of a video screen instead of working right on a real sheet of paper.

Fewer and fewer people are so unfamiliar with computers that multiple mouse buttons confuse them.

Re:Faster USB

[flatrock]

Why wouldn't you want a firewire external harddrive?

Price. Firewire is a better high end technology, but it cost more to implement. If USB 2.0 becomes common, then external USB 2.0 drives should cost less than firewire ones. If the performance is suficient with USB 2.0, why pay for firewire.

Re:Faster USB

[aonifer]

WHAT is this _obsession_ this one button mice? Is your pinky on your other had broken so you can't press the control key?

My other hand is busy doing, um, other things.

Re:Faster USB

[Phroggy]

Fewer and fewer people are so unfamiliar with computers that multiple mouse buttons confuse them.

"Fewer" is still a HELL of a lot of people. I've been doing tech support for several years, and I am constantly amazed by Windows users who STILL can't figure out the difference between a single-right-click and a double-left-click. Apple's one-button mice are a godsend to tech support reps everywhere.

Re:Faster USB

[gig]

I can't believe I'm replying about a one-button Mac mouse in 2001, when Macs have been using plain USB mouses for three years, and Mac OS X features native support for a ton of USB peripherals, no drivers needed, including multi-button USB mouses. The Mac API for mouse buttons features support for 99 buttons if you want it.

The short answer as to why Apple ships one-button mouses is that 70% of their users like the one-button mouse and continue to use it throughout the life of their Mac, while the other 30% of their users prefer something else. The 30% is split amongst trackball users, scroller lovers, 2-button former-Windows users, 3-button X-Windows users, people who want a specific mouse for gaming, people who want a mini-keyboard on their pointing device, etc. The 30% who don't like the default mouse have vast, cheap, third-party options. This is the perfect way for them, because they would not likely all be satisfied with one kind of mouse anyway. If Apple ships a two-button mouse, the X-Windows people will freak out about it, especially now that Mac OS runs X-Windows natively; if they ship with a scroller, some will complain; without it, others will complain. So they ship an easy mouse for everyone that most people are satisfied with; and you can go to Fry's and buy any other mouse you want and it will just work with your Mac and Mac OS X.

I have also read in a number of places that MOST Windows users don't use the second button on their mouse; this jibes with Apple's figures that 70% of their users don't want a second button.

This debate falls under the category of things geeks think are essential and non-geeks just find to be either extraneous and somewhat confusing or totally uninteresting and always in the way. In other words, if you've ever used a Unix command line, then have the humility to believe that Apple actually knows better than you how to ship iMacs for Grandma.

There are a number of other reasons why Apple continues to ship a one-button mouse as standard:

most beginners find a one-button mouse much easier to use when they are learning computing
the Mac OS user interface has traditionally only required one button, so there are a number of Mac users who have never used anything else
the fact that Macs ship with one-button mouses means that third-party hardware and software developers can never expect a user to have more than one button, just as they are never to expect a user to know how to use the command line; as a result, users aren't forced to use a second button ... it is always optional
maintaining one-button navigation of the OS keeps it ready for tablet use (a no-button stylus that you tap against the screen to register a click is the easiest stylus to use; a stylus with a one clickable button is second-best; a multi-button stylus is way, way, way harder to explain and to physically use)
Mac OS has a pervasive, context-sensitive menubar across the top of the screen that users quickly learn to hit with a quick flick of the mouse ... being able to pop-up a context menu under your cursor is just not as valuable in Mac OS as elsewhere
a single button Trackpad on a notebook where a Control-click is the same as a right-click means your hands stay on the keyboard more as you work, and your Trackpad button can be large and be used by both righties and lefties
there is a whole slippery slope of tech writing jargon that you avoid on the Mac: "right-button (unless you have your buttons swapped)"; "click (not right-click)"; "left-click (if you're right handed)"; "context-click" (many users don't know what that means) ... on the Mac, it is just "point and click"

Re:Faster USB

[gig]

>> Why wouldn't you want a firewire external
>> harddrive?

> Price. Firewire is a better high end technology,
> but it cost more to implement.

Not true.

> If USB 2.0 becomes common, then external
> USB 2.0 drives should cost less than firewire ones.

That is a big IF. FireWire is already common and cheap.

> If the performance is suficient with USB 2.0,
> why pay for firewire.

Performance won't be sufficient with USB 2.0. FireWire was designed to be a peer-to-peer multimedia LAN. USB 2.0 was designed to be a way to get mouses and keyboards plugged into computers. USB still requires that a computer be part of the device chain; with FireWire, a FireWire camcorder and VCR can talk to each other without a computer. There is much more to this than just making both standards faster.

FireWire is not just here NOW, it was here YESTERDAY. There is no place-your-bets atmosphere on FireWire, just incredibly happy and productive users doing things they used to only dream about.

Re:Faster USB

[gig]

> The problem is that contextual menus play
> a large role in the OS X interface

The only place they are important is on the Dock, and they can be accessed with a click-and-hold, just like in a Web browser. The right-click that also shows them is the "other" way to get them, if you prefer a two-button mouse.

> You can either provide additional buttons, or
> you can resort to chording. Which do you think
> people are going to have an easier time with?

People are used to chording, especially on the Mac, where there are more keyboard modifier keys (more physical keys on the keyboard). Command+O is the shortcut for Open, and Command+click is the shortcut for context menus. You can explain context menus to a Mac user like this: "hold down the Control key and click on the item that you want to control; a context menu will appear with options that are specific to the item."

I use my Apple one-button mouse for Web surfing, email, and writing. It doesn't need a mouse pad and it is relaxing to use it because you can click with your whole hand. I have a three-button Wacom mouse that came with my graphics tablet, and I use that sometimes when I'm drawing. The tablet has programmable buttons for Cut, Copy, Paste, etc. so I don't use the right mouse-button that much anyway.

You can plug five or six mouses into a Mac and it's happy to let you use whichever one is under your hand. It's amazing how big an issue non-Mac users think this is. It's like "Apple ships computers with only one display!" ... yeah, but you can add four more to a tower machine if you want to, and the people who want to do that buy four PCI video cards and four displays and they don't complain. It's not an issue.

Re:Faster USB

[flatrock]

Performance won't be sufficient with USB 2.0.

Why? That completely depends on the application. USB 2.0 has the bandwidth to handle what most single drivers can deliver. It's true that it's not a peer-to-peer technology, but talking to a hard drive isn't a peer-to-peer task.

USB 2.0 was designed to be a way to get mouses and keyboards plugged into computers.

USB 2.0 was designed to allow higher bandwidth devices to be attached to computers. Few people need more than 1 keyboard and 1 mouse. A lot of people can use a portable backup device such as a CD-RW or tape drive. USB 1.X really wasn't fast enough for these tasks. Even printers and scanners are pushing the 12 Mbit limit.

USB still requires that a computer be part of the device chain; with FireWire, a FireWire camcorder and VCR can talk to each other without a computer. There is much more to this than just making both standards faster.

Of course there's more to this than making the standards faster. There are a lot of things Firewire can do that USB 2.0 can't. Firewire is especially good for multimedia, where you want devices to be able to control other devices, or be controlled, for lack of better, simple explaination. However, if all you need is external, portable storage, then USB 2.0 may become a more cost effective solution.

Notice I said it may become a more cost effective solution. That depends on if it becomes widely accepted. Firewire is a mature, established technology. That means that the cost of developing devices has come down, and they have become reasonably affordable. From a quick search, I still think that external firwire drives are priced too high compared to internal devices. If USB 2.0 becomes commonly used, the simplicity of the controller on the devices should make USB 2.0 devices cheaper that a firewire device that performs the same task. USB can't do everything that Firewire can. But for tasks that both can perform, USB should be cheaper. There are other costs, USB is likely to use more processor power on the host machine, but if that doesn't effect your application, and you want to save money, USB 2.0 may be right for you once it becomes established.

FireWire is not just here NOW, it was here YESTERDAY. There is no place-your-bets atmosphere on FireWire, just incredibly happy and productive users doing things they used to only dream about.

Sounds like Firewire weets your needs very well, that doesn't mean that USB 2.0 doesn't have a place of it's own where it excels as well. Firewire could probably meet those needs as well. You could easilly have a firewire mouse and keyboard, but it just wouldn't be cost effective. Use the right technology for the job. I work with Fibre Channel. It's very fast. It's peer-to-peer (and can do one to many in a limited fasion), and you can use multiple protocols over it such as FCP (SCSI) and IP. You can also use many devices over long distances. Using optical, longwave tranceivers you can have cable lengths up to 10 km. But it's not for every task. Use the right technologh for the job.

Re:Faster USB

[flatrock]

Absolutely true, I don't use the full potential of my firewire adapter, I use it only for my camcorder which pumps through 3,6 mbytes per second on average. No dropped frames, very low CPU load, try that with USB....

USB 2.0 will likely be able to only get you 2 out of 3, though implemented well, it could get all 3. The 3.6 MB/s shouldn't tax USB 2.0 much, and since it supports Isychronous transfers like Firewire does, it can reserve the bandwidth so that frames aren't dropped. The issue is CPU load. In most cases, the USB controller on the computer side doesn't have much brains to it. It relies on the system processor and a device driver to do most of the work. It may also use PIO to transfer the data from the FIFO's to system memory. This will result in high processor utilization. It doesn't have to be this way. The USB controller could contain a very basic processor that runs firmware to implement it's tasks rather than doing them in software on the system processor. Think of it as the difference between a hardware or software modem.

So if both were solid, established technologies (which USB 2.0 isn't yet), why use firewire? Wouldn't you like your nice camcorder to be able to print stills on a color printer? How about it copying that video clip to a hard/tape drive? You could even have it control lighting over firewire. There are many uses for having the additional intelligence in the camcorder, rather than just having it be a dumb device. That's the reason to use firewire.

Good Thing.

[Stackster]

Probably takes someone like Apple to be the first to make boxes with USB 2.0 and 1394b. Hopefully, PCs will have them too, in a not-too-distant future.

From what I remember (from the distant 20th century), Apple where first with "regular" USB too. Some PC:s had it (I had an old pentium MB with a USB bracket (sold separately)), but noone where able to use it (no drivers or hardware).
Think it was the same with FireWire too.
Why is this? Are Apple more daring and adventureous than all PC manufacturers? Or is it because noone wants to spend money on a technology that might not be "wanted" (meaning: Windows won't support it)?

Re:Good Thing.

[Idjit Savant]

I remember seeing a Compaq DeskPro with USB on the logic board in early or mid 1997. The first Apple machine to have this feature was the first iMac, which showed up in August/September of 1998.

In both cases, I would say support through the OS and the availability of USB peripherals was weak for at least another year after their initial release.

As for the "daring" Apple, I would argue that they have the advantage of a less fragmented target market than most Intel-based manufacturers. Aside from coming to USB late, Apple had been working with others on FireWire since the 1980s. This, it seems, was simply their strategy to move away from SCSI, one of the largest sources of customer dissatisfaction since the arrival of the first scanners and SyQuest drives.

Re:Good Thing.

[phillymjs]

I remember seeing a Compaq DeskPro with USB on the logic board in early or mid 1997.

Who had the hardware first is irrelevant. Until Windows 98 added functional USB support (Win95 OSR2 does not count because its USB support was half-assed crap), those USB ports were little more than extra holes in the backplate. And aren't DeskPros aimed at the corporate market anyway, where (since NT is the "recommended" OS) USB was unusable until Windows 2000 was released in 1999?

Even with the USB support that came with Windows 98, Wintel users still hung on to those serial and parallel port devices for their dear little lives. Apple was the first company to fully support USB, which it did by producing a product that exclusively used USB to connect peripherals-- and that is what created the market for USB.

You can argue that forcing people to replace their legacy devices or buy adapters so they can continue to use them kind of sucks, but it is a tactic that is sometimes necessary. For example, to make sure people used the mouse on the first Macintosh, its keyboard had no cursor keys, so they couldn't stick with the 'old' ways. Once the mouse became accepted and it was shown that cursor keys still had a useful place on the keyboard, they were reinstated on the keyboards of subsequent Mac models.

~Philly

Re:Good Thing.

[gig]

> The open nature of the PC

That is a myth that PC manufacturers are currently riding all the way to hell. A typical PC these days is made up of components that were spec'ed by Microsoft (without input from Intel, since 1999), OS and application software by Microsoft, curvy box and branding by Gateway/Dell/HP/etc, hardware construction by far east subcontractor. It is exactly the same with the XBox, except the curvy box and branding are now also done by Microsoft. Same with Microsoft UltimateTV, same with the upcoming Microsoft HomeStation (XBox with keyboard, mouse, and MS Office "HomeStation Edition").

Microsoft has long-since taken over the PC and made it the "Microsoft PC". Apple and Microsoft are pretty much the only vendors with unique products in the PC space. Users want Apple or they want Microsoft, and anyone else is generally incidental. People have been buying Microsoft PC's for years, then stripping off Windows (which they paid for) and telling themselves "this is a generic, open PC that I have here". Check out the Windows logo on your keyboard ... it's a Microsoft PC. Change all the Compaq, HP, Gateway logos on boxes out there to Microsoft logos and the constraints that the box makers are under ("thou shalt ship only Windows") begin to make sense.

My wife recently bought a new handheld, and she preferred Palm over HandSpring because using Windows and then a Mac had taught her that getting the OS with the hardware and from one company is a better experience. When faced with the choice of a cheap Microsoft PC or a cheap Gateway PC featuring Microsoft Windows, people are going to go with Microsoft in droves. They will know that their box and bundled apps will be TOTALLY supported in the next OS rev (just like a Mac), and they will flock to it.

> PC manufacturers have to be more careful,
> because the product has to be supported by
> other hardware

Macs also have to be supported by other hardware ... Mac users have printers, scanners, MP3 players, CD/DVD burners, USB devices of every description, FireWire this and that. USB and FireWire and PCI and AGP are in both Macs and PC's. Connectivity is king these days, and Apple has plenty of that ... even the little $1299 subnotebook-sized iBook has modem, Ethernet, FireWire, USB, VGA out, TV out, audio out, and AirPort (802.11) wireless. It also includes high-quality software for actually using these hardware features. If you need more capabilities, you can easily install third-party software by dragging a single icon from a CD or similar to your hard disk. "Uninstalling" means dragging that same single icon to the Trash. There is a huge Mac community to continue to support with each new Mac, and that includes third-party software and hardware makers. Even hardware makers that don't make Mac drivers ... you can plug a FireWire hard disk into a Mac and it just works, even if the hard disk was made for a PC and is formatted with FAT32.

> and *all* the different OSes (which usually
> means M$ Windows).

A new box from Gateway is no more guaranteed to run Linux than a new box from Apple. They both run Linux, and you generally have to get the go-ahead from your distro's author before you know it is going to work on a brand-new box. Only Windows and Mac OS are fully supported, on Microsoft and Apple PC's, respectively. Anything else has turned into repurposing hardware, and that's why Linux and BSD face such a hard time ... Linux boxes are generally Microsoft PC's that won't run the latest Microsoft OS (XP is not recommended on anything pre-2000 due to BIOS issues). Many Mac users are now running Linux for the first time on old Macs that won't run OS X (1997 and earlier).

Talking about "generic PC's" or "open PC's" these days is just being a Microsoft apologist. They own it, and have owned it for a while. Soon, they will actually put their name on the front door (on the box) instead of just on the deed (their contracts with PC manufacturers).

Re:Good Thing.

[gig]

It's pretty widely acknowledged that Intel couldn't get USB off the ground because of lack of support from both Microsoft and their box-makers. Intel put USB on their motherboards (starting with Pentium Pro systems, I believe), so the ports showed up on boxes from many manufacturers, but they were non-functional without software support. That is almost worse than not including them at all, because they caused a lot of confusion. Apple's iMac not only had functioning USB ports, it also lacked legacy ports, so every iMac purchase also counted as a person who was "in the market for USB peripherals". They sold millions of iMacs, and that's why the first generation of USB peripherals were all iMac-colored. I recall buying a USB hub in 2000 and having a choice of "Mac colors" (translucent blue, red, green, etc.) or (for the first time in my experience) "PC style" (solid beige) which made me laugh thinking of all the translucent blue peripherals I'd seen around beige boxes lately.

I bought an IBM workstation in 1998, and it had USB ports on it, but had rubber plugs in the ports and a sticker next to them that said something like, "Use pending OS support". The mouse and keyboard that came with the system were both PS/2-style, and it also had a "joystick" port somewhere, and the modem hooked up to a COM port, and the printer to a parallel port. In early 1999 I replaced that machine with a PowerMac G3 (the blue iMac-styled one) that had USB ports that worked, a USB keyboard and mouse, and the printer and scanner hooked up via USB as well. The printer I bought had USB, PC-parallel, and Mac-serial connections, but it only worked at that time on USB if you were using a Mac. The Mac box also had FireWire ports, even then.

The transition from Mac-serial to USB was so much easier on the user on the Mac side than the transition from PC-serial to USB was for PC users. When Apple introduced USB, they killed on-board serial; when they introduced FireWire, they killed on-board SCSI. Both times, third parties stepped right in with serial-to-USB and SCSI-to-FireWire converters for users who bought new Macs and wanted to use old peripherals. Users knew to make their next external hard disk a FireWire model and their next joystick a USB model because those were the "new" ports, each having over 10 times the bandwidth of the built-in ports they replaced, and both being hot-pluggable, too.

Re:Good Thing.

[gig]

> So whoever had hardware first is irrelevent,
> unless it's apple, right :)? FWIW, the 1997-era
> deskpros came with Win9x stock. NT was an
> upgrade.

Only a geek would care who had USB hardware first. Yes, obviously, Intel did; they created USB. To get from there (dead ports on PC's) to here (vast USB peripheral market) they needed somebody to say "I second that". Who bet the farm on USB other than Apple? Even Intel's mobos just added USB without removing even the PS/2 port. Apple showed off the iMac in early 1998 and it had a USB keyboard and mouse and no legacy ports. USB peripherals came in iMac colors for years.

You can add PC-style serial or parallel ports to a Mac, by the way, through USB or PCI. There is an iMac stand that plugs into USB and features all kinds of geeky ports.

If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[Shivetya]

I don't think Apple supporting USB 2.0 is going to make the technology be worth the effort. Realistically if Ms doesn't add the support to the OS what manufacturers are going to create USB 2.0 items?

I think the bigger effect here might be seeing real processing power from the G5s and DDR. Its been way to long for the powerpc to remain so far back in the "apparently important" mhz race.

Still, I don't think faster interfaces mean diddly when it comes to upgrading PCs, my PCs get upgraded when the components inside, meaning processor and memory, cannot be upgraded to sufficient levels for what I need to run... (stuff outside the computer has a tendency to get upgraded when it developes legs of its own)

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[Refrag]

Apple supporting USB is what made USB what it is today. So, yes they can do the same with USB 2.0. Like it matters, FireWire is where it's at!

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[tshak]

Apple supporting USB is what made USB what it is today.

You wish - as much as you may hate it, it wasn't mainstream until M$ caught on. And you're right, firewire is where it's at. We don't need TWO external busses anyway.

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[Ryano]

You wish - as much as you may hate it, it wasn't mainstream until M$ caught on.

Given that Microsoft represents such a large share of the market, it's true to say that USB couldn't be described as "mainstream" until Windows supported it. However, neither could it become mainstream without a large pool of useful hardware being developed for it. This latter category was very visibly driven by Apple, and specifically the iMac.

Intel will tell you that the introduction of the iMac led to an explosion in the demand for and development of USB devices, from hubs to floppy drives, CD burners etc. USB usage on the the PC took off more slowly, but it would have taken off a lot more slowly had it not been for an existing pool of useful hardware. Intel hadn't been having much luck promoting the technology on their own, and although I'm sure they could have pushed it into the mainstream with Microsoft's help, USB was given a serious shot in the arm by Apple.

Apple may have a tiny market share compared to Microsoft, but they still sell machines in enough volume to spearhead new technologies like this.

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[n3m6]

given the huge base of products with usb 1.0 .. and all the pc's that are currently sold with usb ports, forwards and backwards compatibility of usb 2.0 is one feature that will make a difference in this "battle" .. all the devices that are usb 2.0 capable can also be used on the current usb 1.0 ports..

we'll see how it turns out right ..

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[Matthias Wiesmann]

To convince yourself about the influence of Apple on USB devices, look at their look. Most USB devices can be recognised because of their iMac look. Those devices where not designed with a beige PC in mind.

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[Lally Singh]

We don't need TWO external busses anyway.

Actually, multiple external busses makes perfect sense. One for high speed mass transfer of data, and another for low latency low bandwidth data. Firewire mice make no sense, and neither do USB disk drives (when you actually care about performance...). Bus & protocol design requires tradeoffs - cost vs performance, latency vs bandwidth, etc.

Besides, how many busses does the PC have? Serial, PS/2, USB, Parallel, etc. Two ain't too bad :-)

Re:If MS doesn't support USB2.0 is Apple enough?

[gig]

I think Microsoft's hardware people aren't really behind USB 2 ... XBox has USB 1.0 and FireWire on it and it won't even ship until November, so putting USB 2 into Windows XP might suggest that XBox's USB is not state-of-the-art. I presume that Microsoft's new set-top boxes have FireWire like most TiVo-style stuff ... they may have an interest in slowing USB 2 down in order to keep convergence centered around FireWire.

We used to think that Microsoft would like USB 2 because it (unlike FireWire) requires that a PC be present in order for it to operate. Microsoft's answer was to start building set-top boxes, game consoles, and handhelds ... now they want FireWire interoperability as much as anybody. (Or so they would like us to think ... )

It's not a minor point

[Uttles]

The speed of the bus in a computer is a big point these days. Processors and RAM are getting so fast that now the limiting factor on overall speed is the device that moves data around in a computer: the bus.

Re:It's not a minor point

[Midnight Thunder]

It should also be mentioned that your average non-techie computer user is likely to feel more comfortable plugging in cable than a card. As the computer becomes a comodity item, then more and more of your stuff will be plugging in from the outside, unless you are a techie and then you will insist on putting everything inside because it takes less room and because there are less wires.

If I could get a computer with the form factor of a Sun Classic and stackable HDs using the same form factor, using a simple bus extender, then I would go for it.

Re:It's not a minor point

[ncc74656]

The speed of the bus in a computer is a big point these days. Processors and RAM are getting so fast that now the limiting factor on overall speed is the device that moves data around in a computer: the bus.

Indeed. Gigabit Ethernet is close to the theoretical maximum bandwidth for 32-bit 33-MHz PCI. IEEE-1394b is more than triple that speed, which would put it well beyond what ordinary PCI can deliver. Does this mean that this new flavor of FireWire will require 64-bit 66-MHz PCI (rarely seen outside servers and workstations), or will it sit on some other bus (such as HyperTransport)?

Re:It's not a minor point

[znu]

Apple's current Firewire implementation isn't on the PCI bus, so I doubt any future implementation would be. And Apple has joined the HyperTransport consortium.

Re:It's not a minor point

[Spruitje]

One area which is specifically ugly on Macs is the communication wit PMU (power management unit microcontroller, includes battery control on laptops), which uses an horrid protocol.


But only on Powerbooks.
And the bus they are using is I2C.
Yep, that's another industry standard.
Dito for the protocol they are using.
For powermanagement the I2C bus is perfect and don't forget that contrary to most PC-laptops Apple uses a dedicated 68C09 processor with some ram and rom to manage the power, clock and nvram.
The thing is, Apple uses this concept in all their powerbooks.
Which makes it very simple to support it in for instance linux.

Re:It's not a minor point

[gig]

> If I could get a computer with the form factor of a
> Sun Classic and stackable HDs using the same form
> factor, using a simple bus extender, then I would
> go for it.

This exists today. A stack of FireWire hard drives connects to a computer with one cable, because each hard drive is connected to the next one with a short cable. To add a drive, place it on top of the stack and plug a short cable between it and the last drive. Or plug a camcorder into the last drive to capture video.

Some FireWire hard drives also have a third port on top, designed to plug into another similar drive stacked on top of it. The popularity of FireWire as a standard (many manufacturers) and its cheap cables and hot-plugging takes some of the steam out of the stackable plug, though.

Re:It's not a minor point

[larkost]

Apple already has the solutions mapped out on their G4, and has now for 2 product revisions. The Gigabit Etherenet port is on the Uni-North Bridge chip (approximates a North bridge Chip in the standard PC layout), and if that were not enough, they have 64Bit PCI slots on the motherboard. Sounds like you can go either way with that one...

Combine this ....

[Compulawyer]

...with the 1.6 GHz, 64-bit G5 PowerPC processor due out in January or February, and you have a VERY formidable machine.

Remember too that SuSE and some others have PowerPC versions of Linux for these boxes as well. Imagine Linux on this? Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?

Re:Combine this ....

[whjwhj]

Why wreck a perfectly excellent machine by installing Linux on it when you can run OS X?

Re:Combine this ....

[Compulawyer]

I agree. OS X would be my first choice. However, I rant and rave about M$ trying to impose their way of computing on me, so I am not about to do the same. If someone prefers Linux with KDE or GNOME to OS X, and that's what works best for them, that's fine with me.

Re:Combine this ....

[gig]

I don't know whether the G5 rumors are true, but it's worth noting that The Register ran almost the exact same stories about Motorola last year, except that it was the G4e taping out and going first silicon and set to ship in PowerMac's "this January". The G4e-based PowerMacs were announced in January 2001 and shipped a month later.

The 64-bit part is not surprising and not hard to believe because the Power architecture was 64-bit from the beginning. They always planned to go to 64-bits in a timely fashion with the PowerPC. The 64-bit PowerPC apparently runs 32-bit code natively, and nothing in OS X touches the hardware except the kernel (a modified Mach kernel), so maybe a new kernel is all that's needed to go 64-bit initially, with developers shipping apps with 64-bit binaries in them later to optimize things (Mac apps can contain multiple binaries, and the OS chooses the right one depending on the machine).

I also heard somewhere that Apple has been very involved with the design of the G5, and I'm sure that pumping up the MHz, even at the cost of some performance per clock, was a pretty high priority. You can't expect to educate the world about Intel's empty MHz, so you have to get your numbers in line with their numbers, unfortunately. The G4 is a truly amazing chip, doing many common media tasks in no time at all, but the problem is that you basically have to use one to know that, because the MHz sounds small next to an x86 chip, and many people don't care that the pipelines and power consumption is also correspondingly small. Also, many people seem to think that Altivec is a band-aid like MME or something, or that Altivec is rarely used, when in reality, if your app needs CPU power (graphics, video, audio, etc) then it has long since started using Altivec, and long since supported dual CPU's. If every Intel mobo had an MPEG decoder on it, apps would use that, too.

You believe the register?

[lythari]

Although I'd like to believe the story and wish it were true, I don't think we'll be seeing any G5s until this time next year at the very earliest.

Moto have a topnotch chip design unit, but their fabs suck big time and can't produce the chips in large enough quantities

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

[sigh] This is a borderline troll, and I probably shouldn't waste my time replying to it, but on the off-chance it's legitimate, I'll make an honest answer.

The "massive Apple layoffs" thing seems to be a massive rumor, and no more. In fact, all the legitimate news indicates that Apple is weathering the storm much better than PC makers such as Dell. If someone has information to the contrary, please let me know.

And where the hell were you pricing laptops (and if so, why were you looking at iMacs anyway?) IMO the iBook offers the absolute best price-performance ratio of any laptop on the market. Yes, the standard 64 MB RAM sucks, but you can bump that up cheaply enough. In every other way, the iBook is the best low- to mid-range laptop you'll find for your money.

Exagerration of the truth

[Maktoo]

Yes, it's most likely that Apples next revision of hardware will include USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394b (Firewire 2.0?). However, 3.2Gbs is not the number.

The next step for Firewire is actually 800Mbs. 1.2Gbs, 2.8Gbs and 3.2Gbs speeds are possible with this new protocol though, given the use of copper and fiber for the physical connection.

What I find more interesting, though, is that the next revision of PowerMac should sport some form of DDR SDRAM... and either the new "Apollo" G4 at around 1.2GHz or the brand new 64bit capable G5! Both Bandwidth Hungry CPUs... that should give the P4 and Palomino (?) a run for their money.

RSN

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[alfredo]

The layoffs were in the sales force. With the Apple Stores and the online store, FtF sales are not as essential.

There are several reasons we pay a little extra, quality of hardware, tight integration between hardware and software, and it is not Windows. If you are into the creative arts, Apple is the first choice. The Mac has always been geared to the Artist, publisher, teacher, and scientist. These people will tend to buy from those who care about their concerns.

I don't mind paying extra for quality. I know people that are still using the original Mac II. One uses his for fonts, another for HyperCard.
One lady bought a new Compaq, but went back to her 6200, citing the difficulty of using Windows for making class projects. It didn't have HyperCard.
BTW the 6200 line is probably the worst Apples made.

Upgrading

[bribecka]

It may seem a minor point, but the more and faster connections are built in, the less frequently the upgrade gremlins have to strike. 3.2Gbps!

Yeah, I remember back in '89 when I upgraded to a 40MB hard drive and said the same thing. The upgrade gremline will never stop striking!

Re:Macs are for loosers

[Slad]

Flame will get you no where...

Despite the fact that you are comparing Apples to Oranges (no pun intended), your case is weak and flaccid.

Windows 2000 is a business OS; built on NT. Mac OS 9.x and before were more consumer operating systems. You should compare Windows 9x with Mac OS 9.x, and Win 2000/XP to Mac OS X.

On those levels, both have advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I favor the Mac OS, but I can't condemn someone for using Windows.

As far as your comment about Macs crashing all the time - that is due to Mac OS 9.x not having protective memory, something corrected in OS X. I have had OS X since its initial release. Since that time, it has not crashed. My Win 2K box has crashed three times - in a year. Does that mean that the Mac is more stable? Probably not, but it does further diminish your argument.

Re:The importance of USB 2.0

[Midnight Thunder]

One advantage of USB is that it is designed for 'dumb' devices that don't do much work and thus cheap to implement. For these sort of devices the master-slave approach works well. As the connected devices become 'smarter' then there is a great need for FireWire to interconnect the devices.

BTW, don't the 3Gb transfer rates depend on an optical connection?

I doubt it

[frankie]

I'm sure most Mac fans would love to have gigahertz G5s with DDR and FireWire 2. But there really is not a clamor of interest in USB 2, and I don't see a reason to include it.

USB 2's entire purpose is to compete with Apple's own 1394 standard. USB2 is slower, uses more CPU resources, and has done surpisingly poorly in the marketplace. FireWire devices outnumber USB2 by huge proportions.

Apple knows that iMac (which had no legacy ports) is the event that got USB 1.x rolling. That was a good move, since Apple needed to get with standards. But in FireWire, Apple has set the standard. Adding USB2 would have little benefit and a lot of risk for Apple.

Re:I doubt it

[Polo]

As a customer, I can see no logic in your reasoning.

USB is already used in the mac keyboard and mouse. If adding USB2 is only marginally more expensive and provides access to more devices, I don't see *any* reason not to add it.

As a matter of fact, not providing USB2 functionality might decrease market share.

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[TheAJofOZ]

I heard from a co-worker late last week that Apple was laying off quite a few employees. Can anyone confirm this? It seems rather odd that a company that (according to some Mac/iMac users that I know) releases "such a great product" would be cutting their work force by so much.

I tend to go to a lot of Apple seminars and follow the Mac world pretty well and I would be exceptionally surprised if Apple was laying off employees at this stage. They are really working hard to get OS 10.1 out the door on time and make sure it's really polished. I have certainly seen no indication that they are slowing down at all. I would say if there are any lay offs they'd be in marketing/management positions rather than the research and development areas.

I can't understand is how Apple can stay in business when their computers cost a hell of a lot more than the Intel based PCs?

There have been a large number of studies which suggest that the total cost of ownership of owning a Mac is significantly less than owning a Windows based PC. Admitedly, people and business' don't tend to notice these things, and go for the immediate lower price. Apple stay in business by actually making a profit on their systems rather than trying to continuously undercut the competition - note how many PC manufacturers are going out of business.

The number of units you ship is far less important than whether or not you make enough profit to cover your development, production, management and other costs. Apple's pricing does this, Gateway Australia's pricing didn't (hence they've gone out of business). Apple has made a profit for something like 11 out of the last 12 quarters which is better than most PC manufacturers.

Apple also has a very dedicated (fanatic) installed user base which helps a lot. Mostly though they have innovation. They put firewire and USB in their computers, they popularise wireless networking and "Apple ignited the desktop publishing revolution" (to take their marketing speel).

was pricing laptops a couple weeks ago, and for the money it would have cost me to buy a moderately loaded iMac, I could have gotten a Thinkpad for roughly half the cost, comparably equipped.

This surprises me, though it obviously depends largely on what you want from your laptop. I went out pricing laptops about 6 months ago (long time in IT I know) and found that Apple's laptops were far and away better value than the PCs. Not that they were cheaper, but they were clearly sturdier, more feature packed and most significantly had better screens and battery life. The cheap PC laptop world makes a lot of sacrifices in functionality. Either they have ridiculously small screens or poor quality screens and two or three hour battery life was normal. Then you tended to give up a CDROM to make the laptop smaller and many PC laptops (nowhere near as many these days though) don't have ethernet as standard. Then there's the lact of dual head ability (most do video mirroring) or a lack of video output options (note that the iBook does not do dual head either, which is why I type this on a Titanium PowerBook). Now, for some people these trade offs are worth the cost savings - for some people they aren't even trade offs, but just remove unwanted features. For many people (including me) these features are invaluable.

The final big advantage that I find with Apple is the OS. Mac OS X is a joy to use (I look forward to the reported responsiveness improvements of 10.1 naturally), there are rough edges and it is not perfect but the combination of UNIX and a solid, simple, clean, user friendly GUI is an absolute God send. I can happily use vim to hack away my perl scripts, test them with apache and postgresql and follow the design document which was written in Word. The lack of responsiveness that is currently in OS X is more than made up for by the fact that I don't have to reboot between Linux and MacOS anymore (for the record I don't remember the last time I booted into OS 9).

The morale: sometimes paying more in the short term is worthwhile in the long run, but it all depends on what you want to do.

Re:The importance of USB 2.0

[Jeff DeMaagd]

One advantage of USB is that it is designed for 'dumb' devices that don't do much work and thus cheap to implement.

That's the theory but it isn't all that easy to implement for the small guys, or all that cheap unless you go high volume. It makes Apple's old ADB look simple. To sell a USB device it requires a $2000+ (or something like that) per year membership to get unique manufacterer & device IDs and get compatibility testing in order to use the logo. I love the idea of compatibility testing but it hasn't worked, there are still flakey USB products being sold.

BTW, don't the 3Gb transfer rates depend on an optical connection?

I wouldn't know. 1000bTX is said to use several voltage states on a 125MHz clock rather than two voltage states on a 1GHz clock.

Plugging and cabling.

[Christopher Thomas]

It should also be mentioned that your average non-techie computer user is likely to feel more comfortable plugging in cable than a card. As the computer becomes a comodity item, then more and more of your stuff will be plugging in from the outside, unless you are a techie and then you will insist on putting everything inside because it takes less room and because there are less wires.

Actually, I'd suspect integration would be the order of the day. Joe User neither knows nor cares what a hard drive is, or a graphics card. The more things that are "just *there*", the more comfortable the average user will likely feel.

The average user probably won't ever upgrade any one part of the machine; they'll just dump the old machine and buy a new one, especially when computers come closer to being commodity items. The only cables needed would likely be for things that the user doesn't consider part of the computer.

And no one will like them for it.

[supabeast!]

"It may seem a minor point, but the more and faster connections are built in, the less frequently the upgrade gremlins have to strike."

Yet another reason the industry hates Apple. They build their computers to last, even moreso than other manufacturers.

Re:And no one will like them for it.

[Howie]

They build their computers to last

Good troll! I nearly ended up exhaling 7-up.

P1394b standard

[rakerman]

http://www.zayante.com/p1394b/
As I read it, the new spec provides for speeds up to 1.6 Gbps (with room to grow to 3.2 Gbps), 100 Mbps on UTP out to 100m, 200 Mbps on Plastic Optical Fibre (POF) to 50m, 1.6 Gbps on MultiMode Fibre (MMF) out to 100 m.
So I don't know where they got this "room to drive data at up to 3.2Gbps over copper cabling" thing.

Networking over FireFireWire?

[BroadbandBradley]

anyone know if this will/already supports networking over firewire?
and if so...Imagine a beow...

Re:Networking over FireFireWire?

[znu]

The current Firewire spec only supports cables of about 15ft between devices, which isn't exactly ideal for networking. And anyway, why would you use 400Mbps Firewire (or 800, which is what the first implementations of 1394b will actually be) for this when the G4 towers have Gb ethernet on the logicboard?

Re:The importance of USB 2.0

[ncc74656]

That's the theory but it isn't all that easy to implement for the small guys, or all that cheap unless you go high volume. It makes Apple's old ADB look simple. To sell a USB device it requires a $2000+ (or something like that) per year membership to get unique manufacterer & device IDs and get compatibility testing in order to use the logo.

So much for rolling your own USB devices, unless you intend to just grab some (hopefully) unused ID and hope for the best. With that kind of roadblock, is it any wonder that serial and parallel ports are still with us? At least you can still roll your own parallel-port EPROM burner without getting bent over.

(Yes, I know that two large isn't a big deal for an established hardware vendor...but what about someone who just does this stuff as a hobby? Oh, I forgot...the average Joe isn't expected to actually create stuff; he's only expected to consume whatever is made available, and to be grateful for it.)

Re:1394b Implementation

[ahknight]

No optical, not this time; same old port with backwards compatability a la USB 2.0. Two plugs can be on the same channel, if that's what you mean, but it seems like you're asking for a dual-mode plug/port which there will be none (nor can there be; copper != fiber).

We don't need your steenkin' buttons!

[iNik]

One button?! ONE BUTTON! The new mice are NO BUTTON mice!

Geez, get it right if you're going to bait Macolytes.

Re:do they have a 64 ppc linux ?

[Compulawyer]

Well, the source code is available for PPC Linux, so I would think in the worst case scenario, you could compile your own.

iBook con Linux

[iNik]

Linux-PPC and iBook are two great tastes that go great together. You get a snappy looking laptop (a matching ice-type Enlightenment skin completes the GUI-goodness) which is light as can be, and the power of Linux at your disposal. (Naturally, all typical problems with Linux-PPC are evident in this model -- namely a slight lag time in releases.)

At the same time, you can also play around with MacOS X, which is honestly the one OS which has made me ditch Linux entirely. I get the same robust server applications (Samba, Apache, MySQL and PHP, namely), a much better integrated GUI than any window manager has managed (pun intended) to build, and access to thousands of useful day-to-day applications.

Really, as a part-time Linux geek (and platform agnostic -- which means I like Macs because they're better **grin**), MacOS X is the best OS since sliced bread, and if you want a Linuxy laptop, get an iBook just for the chance to try it out!

In all other regards, an iBook is going to be comparable to a PC laptop when running Linux, but for standard configuration differences. Linux-PPC runs lightning quick on it, though.

Author's note: I'm experienced with running Linux on an original iBook, but I'm assuming device support for the latest models. Let the buyer beware and check the documentation.

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[firewort]

Well, there's the benefits of PPC architecture- consider that IBM uses a similar chip for their RS/6000 servers that run AIX. The chip in the iBook is a mobile IBM PPC. You could do a LOT worse than to get the iBook and dual boot Linux (one of the many PPC distros) and OS X (which is a mach kernel with FreeBSD around it, wrapped in a pretty and responsive GUI.)

Re:The importance of USB 2.0

[Howie]

is it any wonder that serial and parallel ports are still with us?

Just barely, in some cases. I just bought a new Toshiba Satellite 3000 that has no serial ports at all. 3 USB, firewire, smartmedia, parallel (still)... but no serial. I ended up buying a USB serial dongle, which actually gave me the benefit of RX/TX/CD lights on my serial port (why doesn't anyone do that normally? They're really useful!)

A (sexist) parable

[hey!]

I know a lot of Apple users, and I know a lot of Windows/Linux users, and each of them love their own systems, but the other thing that I can't understand is how Apple can stay in business when their computers cost a hell of a lot more than the Intel based PCs?

<disclaimer> I hardly use Macs any more because I have to work with and support Windows users </disclaimer>

If you actually worked for a while on a Macintosh you would probably be willing to pay a premium.

Neal Stephenson once compared OS vendors to car dealerships. He was concerned with the marketing of OSs rather than the user experience. Imagine instead a business where you go to have an experience -- say a dance hall which provided guests with professional dance partners.

The Apple-land dance hall had beautiful hostesses who danced so gracefully they made an ordinary jerk feel like Fred Astaire. The Microsoft-land dance hall had ugly hostesses who stepped on your feet unless you shouted directions to them for where to put their feet. The owners of the Microsoft-land had managed to prosper in business by convincing its customers that real men had loud voices, but they knew this couldn't last forever. So they replaced the ugly hostesses with prettier ones that also stepped on your feet. And it didn't matter, because in time people got so accustomed to this that they think it's normal to buy throat lozenges when you go dancing.

The Unix-land dance hall? It is chock full of ugly but muscular hostesses that will have sex with you if you know the right way to ask. The ones in the Linux and the BSD rooms will even do it for free (in the Solaris room, you have to pay if you want more than eight girls at once). The fact is that Unix started out as bordello and added dancing as a gimmick. As a result the dancing is a bit awkward, but you can get any kind of sex you can imagine, provided you can master the technique. As you might imagine, this has attracted a loyal customer base.

But the management's been trying bring in new business by dolling up the girls and teaching them a few new steps.

The Apple-land customers who wander in to the "new" Unix-land are dance snobs who look around, decide the dancing isn't up to snuff, and go back to Apple-land to cut a rug. This mystifies the regulars, who say, "Some of our hostesses look just as good as the Apple ones, maybe better! They'll even let you dress them up any way you like!" (This last point is a common fetish with the Unix crowd). Of course the Unix-land regulars really only come for the sex. These days most Unix-land customers spend a little time dancing, but they aren't very demanding about that and don't let it distract them from their real interests for long. For that reason they don't understand that for the Apple market segment, the core experience isn't about sex. The Apple experience is about gliding over an expanse of mirror polished bakelite floor with a responsive partner who can almost read your thoughts. It's a wonderful thing -- almost as good as sex (OK I'm a Unix guy). For the Apple-lander, it's nice that the girls are pretty, maybe even essential, but it is not enough.

Having good looking hostesses is not core to the Unix-land experience either -- it's more of a competitive bullet-mark. The Unix-land crowd's a pretty relaxed judge of pulchritude. For years the standard management trick was to stick a polka dot dress and yellow bow on a one-eyed bull dog. Many of the customers judged the results to be "real purty.."

Of course, those days are over (except for a few incorigble retrograde types who cannot be persuaded to give up their dogs). Now when the Microsoft customer wanders in,he looks around and is maybe impressed by how much better the hostesses look than he expected. But he also sees that by in large his usual crowd isn't there, and usually heads out. The Unix-land regulars are puzzled by this. Why would anyone walk out on sex, especially when you can get fairly sophisticated sex for free? Again, it is because the core experience for the Windows-land market segment is not about sex; nor is it about dancing. It is akin to the schooling instincts of fish. There is safety in numbers -- the sharks won't be able to eat all of us at once etc. Everyone has a little bit of this instinct in them. This is why the Microsoft-land dominated press likes to spread rumors about the imminent closing of Apple-land. But by now the remaining Apple-land regulars have heard this story so much they're pretty much immune. In fact the clever ones probably start buying Apple stock when the rumors reach fever pitch.

So, there you have it. Why the typical Apple customer is willing to pay some premium for Apple hardware.

Re:A (sexist) parable

[hey!]

That's weird and rambling, but surprisingly good. I liked it.

I hear that a lot from the girls at Unix-land...

how can it hurt?

[mblase]

Apple has something like 5% market saturation. The widespread use of USB means that peripheral makers can FINALLY make the same mouse, keyboard or what have you for Macs and PCs without Mac users getting all irate. FireWire has the same ambitions, and while it has a little ways to go, the growing popularity of 1394-enabled digital video cameras bodes VERY well for this interface. That's really what it was meant to accomplish; hard drive connectivity is an added bonus.

And now competitors are looking to release USB 2.0. If, and that's still an IF, other manufacturers decide to move to it, then Apple stands to lose royalties from FireWire. But if they do, it makes sense for Apple to already have it installed on their popular machines. It makes the Mac more marketable, because they can say it will connect with any USB 2.0 peripherals no matter when they arrive. If PCs have these additional ports and Apple doesn't, it's one more strike against the Mac market.

Yes, Apple will lose royalties from FireWire if developers move to it. But do you seriously think that Apple refusing to support USB 2.0 will stop developers from wanting it? "Oh no, a tiny sliver of the peripheral-buying public won't be able to use our stuff! Whatever shall we do?" Exactly what they usually do, which is not care about Apple users one way or the other.

FireWire has a huge head start on USB 2.0, especially in the digi-vidicam market. And while that doesn't guarantee anything, it does mean that USB has to promise a lot more to beat it out. Meanwhile, Apple stands to lose more in lost hardware sales by NOT supporting USB 2.0 than it stands to gain in royalties. Economically, it's a sound and sensible move.

Re:Jobs does have pretty good taste in technology.

[DrXym]

He (or his UI design team) have made good decisions and some absolutely fucking stupid decisions.

The biggest and most annoying thing they've done is to persist in promoting the 1-button mouse. This is no longer a usability feature but a millstone around the Mac's neck.

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[TotallyUseless]

not only are they just laying off 50 people, but with all the new people they are hiring for the apple stores, they will end up with MORE employees AFTER the layoff. hardly a sign of struggle if you ask me

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[TotallyUseless]

yes, i have a 6220, which was often considered the worst PowerPC machine ever made. It served me just fine for a few years tho, and i occasionally still use it for the tv card, which was quite a big deal back then. When I got my first playstation, I didnt have an adapter i needed to hook it up to my tv, and didnt realize till I got home. Not wanting to go back out that day, I simply plugged it into the tv card and played on the 6220 :)

Apple longevity.

[saintlupus]

My own experience of Apple is that by the time the thing comes down to a sensible price, it's no longer supported, and will not run current OSes or software.

I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but --

I assume by "current OSes" you mean the lickable goodness that is Mac OS X. The oldest supported machine for this, as far as I know, is the desktop model G3 powermac.

Available from a reseller, macofalltrades.com, this unit costs $499 and includes a USB card. So there's all the legacy ports, USB -- pretty much everything you need except FireWire. 128 megs of RAM and a 4 gig drive, not huge, but definitely usable.

(And these guys aren't that cheap compared to the Pricewatch fodder people usually post here. I just thought of them because my main machine is a refurbed iMac I bought from them last year and they do splendid work.)

On ebay, on the other hand, a G3 desktop goes for about half that. (As I write this, there is an auction for the same machine with 64 meg of RAM ending in four hours, currently at 202.50)

Throw in some standard memory (say, an extra 256 megs for 40 dollars or so) and a bigger drive if you want one, and you've got a machine that runs anything Apple sells.

Traditionally, things haven't been this way, so I do understand the "Apples are expensive" knee-jerk response. But the pace of speed bumps and upgrades from Apple in the last couple of years has really made items on the used and refurb markets very attractive from a price point of view.

--saint

Re:USB 2.0 devices ARE compatible with USB 1.x por

[cgleba]

As a former USB 1.x developer, OHCI vs UHCI has nothing to do with the compatabilty of end devices. A keyboard will work the same for both implementations.

The difference lies in how the chip handles the USB "packets" in reagrds to DMA. OCHI slapps the "packets" into memory in a different fashion then the UHCI controllers -- much like different ethernet cards handle DMA differently. The main difference is in parsing the data streams.

BTW UHCI is the "intel" implementation, and ohci was the implementation of a consortium led by Compaq.

OHCI vs UHCI is much like the DEC 21143 vs the 3com 3c905b for ethernet -- both work with any other ethernet device and the fact that there is more then one ethernet card out there has not doomed ethernet. Same with USB.

Re:Exceeding the PCI Bus?

[Graymalkin]

You fucking retard. FireWire chips just like all other periphrials are hooked up to the Southbridge of the fucking memory controller. The limits of the SB are the limits of the periphrial interface for the computer. Since the SB is running at 33MHz with either a 32 or 64 bit bus your onboard FW chip isn't going to have any better throughput than a periphrial card.

Re:Jobs does have pretty good taste in technology.

[Phroggy]

He (or his UI design team) have made good decisions and some absolutely fucking stupid decisions.

Couldn't agree more.

The biggest and most annoying thing they've done is to persist in promoting the 1-button mouse. This is no longer a usability feature but a millstone around the Mac's neck.

The only thing they could possibly do better here is offer a multi-button mouse as an OPTION from their online store, and support it better in their OS*. I would be rather upset if they started shipping multi-button mice by default. You have no idea how many computer users are idiots - I've spent too many years in tech support to be able to recommend multi-button mice to anyone who isn't willing to go out of their way to get one.

Remember that the Mac OS is specifically designed to only require a single mouse button. Windows is designed for two, and X is designed for three. The Mac OS emulates a right-click with a control-click, so even with a single button, you can still get the same functionality, just not quite the same convenience.

Apple's Human Interface Guidelines (which the vast majority of Mac developers actually follow) specifically state that everything that can be done with a control-click should be doable another way - you should never be required to control-click (or right-click). This philosophy does not hold true for any other OS.

By the way, shortly after buying my iMac, I bought a Logitech Wingman Gaming Mouse, which has three buttons. I bought it for Unreal Tournament, but use it for everything. The original Apple mouse is in a drawer somewhere. I should probably sell it on eBay; I'm sure there's someone out there with a hockey puck mouse that would prefer the Apple Pro optical mouse.

* Apple's OS needs to recognize that some of us have multiple mouse buttons. Applications should be able to check for a right-click, instead of checking for a control-click. The OS should take a control-click and make it behave as a right-click as far as the app is concerned, instead of taking a right-click and making it emulate a control-click.

Re:Motorola don't use PPC desktops

[DavidRavenMoon]

This is where obviously you don't know the story. They used to use Macs and Moto built Mac clones. When Apple ended cloning, Moto lost a bunch of money and got pissy... so out went the Macs... I have heard Intel uses Macs in their labs however.

Also, IBM makes PowerPC chips too, and uses them for things other than Macs, like in the Game Cube. Same with Moto... they use PPC chips in a lot of embedded applications.

Re:What's Apple's Future Like?

[gig]

> 2. The trackpad has only one button. You can map
> other keys (e.g. function keys) to emulate additional
> buttons, but it's annoying.

Note that Macs have more keyboard modifier keys than most PC's. You can map all kinds of Command key shortcuts in Linux without changing the function of Shift and Control and Option (alt). Your standard three-button USB mouse will work fine, of course, even in Mac OS.

> 3. Battery life is 50% longer than the competition.

Actually, it's more like 100% longer ... 5 hours on the iBook and 2.5 on most PC notebooks.

Re:I Agree, iBooks Are Good Value

[gig]

> For once, an Apple product is actually a better
> value than its competition.

Actually, what's exceptional in this case is that the Apple product has a lower STICKER PRICE than the competition. Their products are often a greater VALUE than the competition for many users (features, TCO, quality, ease of use, support).

Re:1394b Implementation

[larkost]

The 800mBps connectors will be exactly the same as the current ones found on desktop computers. In fact you will can plug existing 100, 200, or 400 connectors in to them (assuming you are not going from Sony's iLink connector, then you need the cheap adaptor cord). There will be no optical cabling involved. The 3.2 version however requires an optical connection (rf gets nasty at that speed), and uses a connector similar (identical?) to a g-bic interface (why re-invent a perfectly good wheel... especially when it is already running a SCSI family protocol).