Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Xserve 2.3GHz Graphics Mistake?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Apple event on January 26th?
I dunno...I just screened the original ad, and it pretty clearly said 01/26/84.
Then I screened the new one, and the date looked like...01/26/84.
where did you get the information that it was changed? Doesn't look like it to me...
I dunno...I just screened the original ad, and it pretty clearly said 01/26/84.
Then I screened the new one, and the date looked like...01/26/84.
where did you get the information that it was changed? Doesn't look like it to me...
Its hard to tell if it says 04 or 84 but apple definatly has somthing planed for the 26th or the 24th which is the day that the macs were relaesed. Its odd thet it says the 26th on the screen but but the add was shown some time before the 24th at the superbowl.
On the 575MHz 1/2 FSB issue, it just rang a bell in my head as I think I read somewhere recently its the fastest DDR II or the only DDR II 
that you can get.
Im sure someone must know more about this than me? But could be interesting.
edited: typo
that you can get.Im sure someone must know more about this than me? But could be interesting.
edited: typo
Re: Re: Spec deflation
You are misunderstanding what I was saying. I don't believe that the Xserves themselves would be sold instead of G5 Towers, I'm saying it would make it obvious that greater than 2GHz G5 chips were out there, therefore people would wait for Apple to announce the speed bumped G5 Towers. Seriously, we all know they are due for a speed bump, who in their right mind wouldn't conclude it was to happen soon if the Xserve was churning along @ 2.3GHz?
With the expected ship date of 6-8 weeks for Xserves Apple would lose a lot of sales unless they really had enough 2.3GHz. chips to immediately speed bump the G5 Towers. I'm expecting that at this point they don't. Instead they will take all the pre-orders on 2.0GHz. Xserves, while continuing to sell G5 Towers with the average consumer oblivious to the impending speed increases. Once they speed bump the G5 Tower line (within 4 weeks I'm sure) they will send out emails to all the Xserve customers that the machine they are getting will be updated to 2.3GHz. (The speed that they were all along.) This salvages the 4 weeks of 2.0GHz G5 Tower sales they surely would have lost had they prematurely announced faster G5 CPU's, and makes Xserve customers who ordered early feel like they got a bonus.
As far as Apple waiting for IBM to announce the new chips, you have it backwards. IBM is the supplier, they have always deferred to Apple about the chips they are supplying to them. If anyone is calling the shots about announcements, it's Mr. Jobs.
You are misunderstanding what I was saying. I don't believe that the Xserves themselves would be sold instead of G5 Towers, I'm saying it would make it obvious that greater than 2GHz G5 chips were out there, therefore people would wait for Apple to announce the speed bumped G5 Towers. Seriously, we all know they are due for a speed bump, who in their right mind wouldn't conclude it was to happen soon if the Xserve was churning along @ 2.3GHz?
With the expected ship date of 6-8 weeks for Xserves Apple would lose a lot of sales unless they really had enough 2.3GHz. chips to immediately speed bump the G5 Towers. I'm expecting that at this point they don't. Instead they will take all the pre-orders on 2.0GHz. Xserves, while continuing to sell G5 Towers with the average consumer oblivious to the impending speed increases. Once they speed bump the G5 Tower line (within 4 weeks I'm sure) they will send out emails to all the Xserve customers that the machine they are getting will be updated to 2.3GHz. (The speed that they were all along.) This salvages the 4 weeks of 2.0GHz G5 Tower sales they surely would have lost had they prematurely announced faster G5 CPU's, and makes Xserve customers who ordered early feel like they got a bonus.
As far as Apple waiting for IBM to announce the new chips, you have it backwards. IBM is the supplier, they have always deferred to Apple about the chips they are supplying to them. If anyone is calling the shots about announcements, it's Mr. Jobs.
Yea, I had this thought, out of the blue, today. I thought I was rather cleaver till I read the thread
It would be very sneaky and paranoid, but not beyond the realm of posibility.
It does make sense.
- The new 970 is half the size of the previous
- The G5 xserve has lots of cooling yet it's using a significantly smaller verson of the desktop processor that already produced less heat than the Xeons people put into dual 1U machines. (hope that makes sense)
- xServes hadn't been bumped for so long they NEEDED to be bumped. The anouncement also provided at least one hardware release (other than ipod) for the show. preannounceing xServers won't hurt sales.. it will just surge pre-orders. This isn't a big deal though since these pre-orders will display probably only dozens or scores of potential G4 Xserve orders.
- pre-announcing a desktop G5 is stuipid now.. they are still selling well. Apple couldn't pre-announce a new desktop, it must be announced when it ships.
- announcing a G5 xserve that was faster than the current towers WOULD clue everyone into the fact that faster towers were indeed eminent and Sales would totally dry up.
I was really surprised that Apple would only put in a 2GHz chip especially since the chip has 512MB L2 and is only 65^2mm. I'm not surprised that there would be a 2GHz sort of the .09 970 but it would be bottom of the barrel.
Here's what I expect around the end of the month..
Apple announces new G5 towers at maybe up to 2.6 GHz.
Apple actually ships a faster xServe.
Apple shocks everyone and ships the 2GHz 970 in the larger iMacs and they sell like hotcakes.
These shrunk 970s are tiny. The costs are going to be quite a bit less than before. Expect price cuts on the tower with the speed increase.. and the ability to move more of the line to the G5. Not only that, sales will pick up as the Rev.2 buyers kick in... and the pro-sumers start buying G5 iMacs. IBM will sell gobs of them and prices will continue to fall. We'll see 3GHz G5s and the whole line of iMacs on the G5 by WWDC... and the eMac will follow in the fall.. before the fall school semester starts if at all possible so Apple can sell budget numbercrunchers to Edu. I think we'll see xGrid and lower end G5 macs marketed this fall as cheap labs that double as computational clusters.. and distributed rendering farms (as Apple moves their pro apps to support xGrid distributed computing).
How cool would it be for a cash strapped design department to get a pitch like this...
'buy some new G5 towers for your video work and some new G5 emacs for your lower end work (fresh-soph design) and office work. Enable multi-head monitor support on a G5 eMac and it would be a very nice cheap design box. Turn on xGrid in screensaver mode and your entire lab becomes a rendering farm. Heck even the secretarys computers can help render those video projects when they are idle.
But what do I know, I'm just a stupid ffakr.
I'm redundant
Sorry Interiority and mustang_dvs, you already made all my points. I didn't read past wizard's post.
Sorry Interiority and mustang_dvs, you already made all my points. I didn't read past wizard's post.
It's 1/26/84...
Alright, the important dates:
1/22/84: Superbowl. When the ad aired.
1/24/84: The introduction of the Macintosh. Alluded to in the scrolling text at the end of the ad. "On January 24..."
1/26/84: The date on the 'big brother' screen. I have no idea why it says this date. Maybe when Apple commissioned the ad, they had planned on releasing the Macintosh on the 26th, only to roll it back to the 24th after the ad was done.
1/24/04: Twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh.
2/1/04: Superbowl. Not even in January, so any change can't be referring to it.
Okay, and to hopefully cool this 'controversy', take another look at the new ad. Pause it when you can clearly see the date. Look right below the date, and you'll see the time as "03:14" (a Pi joke, but important because it has what is unmistakably a zero.) The zero in the time looks hollow. The tens digit in the date is unmistakably an 8 by comparison.
Conclusion: The date was not changed from original ad to new ad. Don't specifically expect anything on the 26th of this month.
Alright, the important dates:
1/22/84: Superbowl. When the ad aired.
1/24/84: The introduction of the Macintosh. Alluded to in the scrolling text at the end of the ad. "On January 24..."
1/26/84: The date on the 'big brother' screen. I have no idea why it says this date. Maybe when Apple commissioned the ad, they had planned on releasing the Macintosh on the 26th, only to roll it back to the 24th after the ad was done.
1/24/04: Twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh.
2/1/04: Superbowl. Not even in January, so any change can't be referring to it.
Okay, and to hopefully cool this 'controversy', take another look at the new ad. Pause it when you can clearly see the date. Look right below the date, and you'll see the time as "03:14" (a Pi joke, but important because it has what is unmistakably a zero.) The zero in the time looks hollow. The tens digit in the date is unmistakably an 8 by comparison.
Conclusion: The date was not changed from original ad to new ad. Don't specifically expect anything on the 26th of this month.
As of today (January 10) the alt tags for 2.3 are STILL up
<img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0" alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz">
[mod. edit - cleaned up unnecessary HTML]
<img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0" alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz">
[mod. edit - cleaned up unnecessary HTML]
Re: Re: Re: Spec deflation
Either they have a 2GHz machine for sale or they don't. Since Apple is offering them on their web site, I'm of the opinion that they better ship them as described. The alternative is to have some ambulance chasing lawer down their throat trying to collect his boat payment.
Please don't interpet that as an indication that I don't want to see faster XServes or PowerMacs, this is not the case at all. I jsut want to see the company make ethical offerings and try to avoid poor business practices.
The reality is that IBM will be attending a conference to talk up this technology very soon. I do not think the timings are random events, rather I see a plan unfolding that we don't all have access to.
Thanks
Dave
I'm not saying what you propose above isn't impossible, but would you really want to do business with a company ran like that? At the simplest it is deceptive advertising, unless they release an additional model as you describe. The legality of such proactices is even a concern, though I do have to admit that most people in the USA do no really care about the law anymore.
Either they have a 2GHz machine for sale or they don't. Since Apple is offering them on their web site, I'm of the opinion that they better ship them as described. The alternative is to have some ambulance chasing lawer down their throat trying to collect his boat payment.
Please don't interpet that as an indication that I don't want to see faster XServes or PowerMacs, this is not the case at all. I jsut want to see the company make ethical offerings and try to avoid poor business practices.
Well this is really a two way street IBM's 90 nano meter process is jsut that a process. It is something the 970 is built upon. So I think it is safe to say that IBM does have some say in when and how they release information on processes and to some extent the chips delivered on them. It is a mixed bag, as a foundry IBM very much has to repsect the wishes of its customers when it comes to custom chips. The issue them becomes how custom is this chip, public availability points to it not being wholley owned by Apple. A tangled web if you ask me.
The reality is that IBM will be attending a conference to talk up this technology very soon. I do not think the timings are random events, rather I see a plan unfolding that we don't all have access to.
Thanks
Dave
The original poster is correct, although for most things the small technical difference doesn't matter.
575/1150 may seem odd/wacky, but then most system busses don't actually run at the exact rate specified. The difference is usually far less than 1% of what is advertised, but the reality of it is that pretty much each computer is unique wrt its exact bus speed. For example the 133Mhz bus on my PBG4 is actually 133.32Mhz and as a result my CPU is actually buzzing around at 999.94Mhz - so a 575Mhz bus on a 2.3Ghz CPU isn't quite so strange when you think about it
Re: Re: Re: Re: Spec deflation
Hell yea I want to do business with a company like that. You're arguing that Apple would face lawsuits if they shipped faster than advertised machines for the same price? I'd LOVE to see that.
Could you funish one single example where you wouldn't like to order something and find out that the company fullfilled your order with a superior product? How about you order a car and when it shows up, it's functionally the same, appointed the same, the same price.. but it had more horsepower and better fuel economy. Would there be suits about that? People would be writing about ford saying how amazing they were, that they were shipping vehicles that were superior than originally quoted.
I'm fairly certain (as someone who is not a lawyer) that there wouldn't be a leg to stand on for a lawsuit if this happened. This is the type of thing that would be [LITERALLY] laughed out of court.
Apple is selling a product with a certain feature set, at a certain performance level. Releasing that xServe faster than advertised would be like shipping xServes and putting in an extra hard drive module. I'm sure no one would sue them if they tosed an extra hard drive in.
that said, I think there's about a 25% chance that this is actually what is going on here...
;-)
Hell yea I want to do business with a company like that. You're arguing that Apple would face lawsuits if they shipped faster than advertised machines for the same price? I'd LOVE to see that.
Could you funish one single example where you wouldn't like to order something and find out that the company fullfilled your order with a superior product? How about you order a car and when it shows up, it's functionally the same, appointed the same, the same price.. but it had more horsepower and better fuel economy. Would there be suits about that? People would be writing about ford saying how amazing they were, that they were shipping vehicles that were superior than originally quoted.
I'm fairly certain (as someone who is not a lawyer) that there wouldn't be a leg to stand on for a lawsuit if this happened. This is the type of thing that would be [LITERALLY] laughed out of court.
Apple is selling a product with a certain feature set, at a certain performance level. Releasing that xServe faster than advertised would be like shipping xServes and putting in an extra hard drive module. I'm sure no one would sue them if they tosed an extra hard drive in.
that said, I think there's about a 25% chance that this is actually what is going on here...
;-)
XGrid and Video Editing
ffakr, I've had the same idea with video editing.
If XGrid could combine with FCP4, you could have an extremely cheap HD video editor. Avid currently sells HD NLEs for over $100k. A friend of mind has been pushing an Apple FCP4 HD NLE for "only" $40k. You have to have some kind of acceleration hardware to run realtime HD.
Although using a secretary's computer at night for animation rendering would work, for actual video editing you need the power available now. Which would mean XServe clusters or at least dedicated PMs. HD typically runs at 100 mbps and you would want to run multiple layers. It seems to me that lets say one PM dual 2GHz (3000), dual monitors (1000), about a Terabyte of storage (6000), Video Monitor (1000). Thats still $29,000 to buy Xserve Clusters. If you could harness XGrid and distributed processing efficently there, you would be talking about serious real time capability.
Actually ffakr, if you're talking about rendering, Shake for Mac currently includes free rendering licenses. Any school (or production house) can use all of its Macs for animation rendering without any cost beyond the original Shake license.
W
PS: As of 1/14/2004 3:23PM the main apple.com website lists 2.3 Xserve as the title of the graphic.
ffakr, I've had the same idea with video editing.
If XGrid could combine with FCP4, you could have an extremely cheap HD video editor. Avid currently sells HD NLEs for over $100k. A friend of mind has been pushing an Apple FCP4 HD NLE for "only" $40k. You have to have some kind of acceleration hardware to run realtime HD.
Although using a secretary's computer at night for animation rendering would work, for actual video editing you need the power available now. Which would mean XServe clusters or at least dedicated PMs. HD typically runs at 100 mbps and you would want to run multiple layers. It seems to me that lets say one PM dual 2GHz (3000), dual monitors (1000), about a Terabyte of storage (6000), Video Monitor (1000). Thats still $29,000 to buy Xserve Clusters. If you could harness XGrid and distributed processing efficently there, you would be talking about serious real time capability.
Actually ffakr, if you're talking about rendering, Shake for Mac currently includes free rendering licenses. Any school (or production house) can use all of its Macs for animation rendering without any cost beyond the original Shake license.
W
PS: As of 1/14/2004 3:23PM the main apple.com website lists 2.3 Xserve as the title of the graphic.
2.3 GHz Xserve
No, hold your mouse over the Xserve graphic, text pops up that says: "Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 processor single or dual 2.3GHz"
It mirrors the text in the graphic, except the 2.3 GHz part.
W
No, hold your mouse over the Xserve graphic, text pops up that says: "Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 processor single or dual 2.3GHz"
It mirrors the text in the graphic, except the 2.3 GHz part.
W
I sit corrected
<td width="170"><a href="/xserve/" onClick="adclick('/xserve/01062004','Promo - Xserve G5 - 01062004')"><img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0" alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"></a></td>
<td width="170"><a href="/xserve/" onClick="adclick('/xserve/01062004','Promo - Xserve G5 - 01062004')"><img src="http://a772.g.akamai.net/7/772/51/0f8e263ebaa725/www.apple.com/home/images/2004/01/xserveg5_01062004.gif" width="170" height="125" border="0" alt="Xserve G5. 1U, 64-bit, G5 Processor Single or Dual 2.3GHz"></a></td>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spec deflation
I really don't believe that it could ever be considered good business pratice to offer a item you have no intention of shipping. It would be even worst to take orders for something that you never intended to market.
A customer could very well end up with a faster machine, which as you point out is hard to argue with. But what if something you wanted got deleted.
A company engaging in such practices loose a little bit of credibility. As to law suits I'm not a lawer nor do I pretend to know much about the law, what I do know is that Apple is the object of atleast a couple of lawsuits. Frankly some of these lawsuits just boggle my mind at there pettiness. So if Apple does have the intention of doing what has been described I have to ask why. Why open yourself to mor potential litigation?
Dave
I really don't believe that it could ever be considered good business pratice to offer a item you have no intention of shipping. It would be even worst to take orders for something that you never intended to market.
A customer could very well end up with a faster machine, which as you point out is hard to argue with. But what if something you wanted got deleted.
A company engaging in such practices loose a little bit of credibility. As to law suits I'm not a lawer nor do I pretend to know much about the law, what I do know is that Apple is the object of atleast a couple of lawsuits. Frankly some of these lawsuits just boggle my mind at there pettiness. So if Apple does have the intention of doing what has been described I have to ask why. Why open yourself to mor potential litigation?
Dave
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spec deflation
This isn't about Apple giving people faster cpus because they announced FW800 but couldn't deliver.
No one is claiming, or thinks that Apple will up the CPU speed and remove some other features.
The rumor, and the argument, is simply that Apple intentionally understated the CPU speed in order to prevent a lag in Desktop sales.
Like I said, I think this possibility is very slim (even 25% is a generous guess) but I don't think anyone would complain if they got the exact machine with a faster processor.
This isn't about Apple giving people faster cpus because they announced FW800 but couldn't deliver.
No one is claiming, or thinks that Apple will up the CPU speed and remove some other features.
The rumor, and the argument, is simply that Apple intentionally understated the CPU speed in order to prevent a lag in Desktop sales.
Like I said, I think this possibility is very slim (even 25% is a generous guess) but I don't think anyone would complain if they got the exact machine with a faster processor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Spec deflation
I wouldn't complain either about a faster machine. The problem I have is if this is an additional offering I would say fine. However if the present offering is there to manipulate the amrket I would say that is a prety bad move on Apples part.
I'm really hoping that Apple would not engage in such practices. But that really doesn't bother me as much as the impression some have tried to pass off that any sales of the G5 XServe would impact the G5 PowerMac. I don't see how this is posible given that the new XServe is optimized for its role as a server. Plus I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people looking at a G5, don't even know that the XServe even exists or understands its usage. The two markets are just to differrent for significant interaction to take place.
Dave
I wouldn't complain either about a faster machine. The problem I have is if this is an additional offering I would say fine. However if the present offering is there to manipulate the amrket I would say that is a prety bad move on Apples part.
I'm really hoping that Apple would not engage in such practices. But that really doesn't bother me as much as the impression some have tried to pass off that any sales of the G5 XServe would impact the G5 PowerMac. I don't see how this is posible given that the new XServe is optimized for its role as a server. Plus I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people looking at a G5, don't even know that the XServe even exists or understands its usage. The two markets are just to differrent for significant interaction to take place.
Dave
PM vs Xserve
I don't think the arguement is that a XServe would compete with a PM, its that a faster XServe G5 processor would indicate that apple has a faster PM G5 Processor, and people would wait to buy a PM until the faster/smaller processor came to it. PMs are a professional product, anyone who is interested in buying one would know that there is a faster (2.3Ghz) and smaller (.90) processor which will eventually come to the PM. And if its already out in the XServe, it will be in the PM soon.
I don't think the arguement is that a XServe would compete with a PM, its that a faster XServe G5 processor would indicate that apple has a faster PM G5 Processor, and people would wait to buy a PM until the faster/smaller processor came to it. PMs are a professional product, anyone who is interested in buying one would know that there is a faster (2.3Ghz) and smaller (.90) processor which will eventually come to the PM. And if its already out in the XServe, it will be in the PM soon.
Apple and the "Bait and switch"
Ok, you guys discussing whether apple *might* advertise a certain machine and then ship another, I hope you are REALLY new to the Apple scene. It wasn't more than four months ago that apple was advertising Powerbooks on their web store, AND taking orders for them, at certain specs, and then shipped the customers an upgraded unit. I think they just email people and ask if they want to cancel the order or accept the upgrade, and apologize that the item they ordered is no longer available.
Now, cast your mind back into the past: When the G4s were new, Apple announced them running at 500mhz. They sold a whole bunch on preorder. Then they said, "Oops, we bit the big one, we can only ship 450s. Oh, and you still have to pay the same amount. Heehee." There probably were lawsuits then, but come on people, apple does this all the time. And they're not the only ones. Other businesses make mistakes on inventory and have to cancel orders.
Ok, you guys discussing whether apple *might* advertise a certain machine and then ship another, I hope you are REALLY new to the Apple scene. It wasn't more than four months ago that apple was advertising Powerbooks on their web store, AND taking orders for them, at certain specs, and then shipped the customers an upgraded unit. I think they just email people and ask if they want to cancel the order or accept the upgrade, and apologize that the item they ordered is no longer available.
Now, cast your mind back into the past: When the G4s were new, Apple announced them running at 500mhz. They sold a whole bunch on preorder. Then they said, "Oops, we bit the big one, we can only ship 450s. Oh, and you still have to pay the same amount. Heehee." There probably were lawsuits then, but come on people, apple does this all the time. And they're not the only ones. Other businesses make mistakes on inventory and have to cancel orders.
Re: Apple and the "Bait and switch"
As for the 500MHz issue, that really was Motorola's fault. It was determined, too late in the game, that the 7400 had erratta that made them less than perfectly stable at 500MHz. There is no indication that Apple realized this until after the machines were announced.. or at the very least that Apple was aware that Moto couldn't get it fixed by launch.
Also, Apple didn't simply fill 500MHz orders with 450s. They canceled the orders and appologized. It was, however, a bad move to keep the price points the same after decreasing the clock speed.
Nice job Apple.
True. Good points.
As for the 500MHz issue, that really was Motorola's fault. It was determined, too late in the game, that the 7400 had erratta that made them less than perfectly stable at 500MHz. There is no indication that Apple realized this until after the machines were announced.. or at the very least that Apple was aware that Moto couldn't get it fixed by launch.
Also, Apple didn't simply fill 500MHz orders with 450s. They canceled the orders and appologized. It was, however, a bad move to keep the price points the same after decreasing the clock speed.
Nice job Apple.
Originally posted by Stike
I don´t get it. Why don´t they change it?
Do the Apple guys not read Page 2 items?
Australian site is the same with the 2.3Ghz Xserve...
Re: .. Re: Re: Spec deflation By wizard
Every retailer manipulates their own market. And I would have to say Apple's methods are not illegal. As for not putting out 2.3Ghz XServes before the PowerMacs get them too is sound business sense. Apple knows from past experience what happens when a faster machine looms around the corner. Would you wait 2 months to order noticably faster machines? I think so. Enough said.
Every retailer manipulates their own market. And I would have to say Apple's methods are not illegal. As for not putting out 2.3Ghz XServes before the PowerMacs get them too is sound business sense. Apple knows from past experience what happens when a faster machine looms around the corner. Would you wait 2 months to order noticably faster machines? I think so. Enough said.