That last post was so utterly exagerated. In all reality, IBM has had G3s at 1+Ghz for about a year or two, but Apple never wanted to have their low-end computers with larger numbers than those of their high-end computers. A good stragegy if you can convince the public that the other billion PCs out there that are doing tons more sucessful than the macs are just hoxes. Apple cares about quality and keeping peoples minds in a set perspective (never selling old models for long so people are forced into new technology). Dell and the like are worried more about sales minipulation of buyers' minds.
Ok, I went on a huge tangent there. Anyway, did you know that the G3s actually perform better than same Mhz G4s on almost any type of process when the G3 is put on a similar system configuration (Same graphics cards, bus speeds, ram speeds, etc...) Only in vector processing do G4s actually beat the G3s (no surprise considering it is doing 4x the work per cycle). With the release of the G5, there would truely be an overall advantage of the high end system to the low-end one. The G5 would do about twice the work per-cycle Mhz for Mhz. The G4's vector processing would no longer hold much of an incentive, so the G4 would probably be booted with the G3s taking much larger leaps in speed for each update. Apple is not dumb enough, though, to do this all of the sudden. They would have way too much left-over inventory of G4 chips. I would almost expect to see some quad-processor models w/G4s for a while until they can systematically eliminate them (current generation G4s exempted b/c they can only work in sets of two b/c of an archetecture flaw). That or they may do a quad processor G3 to get rid of the slow chips they have had to store. A 4x G3 @ 500Mhz would be an ideal server, for servers do not require much processing of vectors. I still want to see someone do a 32 processor G3 system (home-made with exposed parts of course). This would be the ultimate OSX BadAss! Even better, use the previous generation G4 (the 450 and 500Mhz ones) because they ARE able to work in more than pairs and OS X is disigned to more effectively utilize the 128bit vector processing unit. OS X can support up to 32 processors simultaniously (as anyone who knows much about the insides of OS X's would already know). OSX would basically give each open program its own processor to use, unless the person is disorganized enough to have over 31 active applications.
Well, I am just sort of rambling, so I will leave you to your now bloodshot eyes and fried brains. Sorry for any unorganized use of subject changes.
Adeú. Adeú.