Stardate 20021026.1212

(On Screen via long range sensors): A couple of months ago, after the announcement of the latest top-end Macs by Apple, I used the term "overclock" to refer to the processors in the newest systems, and was roundly reviled for it.

It's interesting to see that a Mac-advocacy site is now also referring to the current systems as "overclocked". Yes, it's true that one meaning of "overclock" is "to run a part beyond the clock rate printed on its label" and by that definition they aren't.

But the other, more general definition is to take a processor, deliberately run it at a higher voltage, using more power, so as to run the clock faster, and Arcintosh states that this is indeed what Apple's doing in the so-called "Wind Tunnel" Macs, which is why they need so much cooling.

They also report information that suggests that Moto actually had working samples of a blazingly fast G5, but cancelled it. To some that may seem foolishness; if it was working, why not produce them?

But there's a major distance between working samples, produced with very low yield in custom engineering wafer runs and the ability to produce large numbers of the parts and test them. It would have required a major investment by Motorola, and if they didn't think they'd actually make the money back solely on sales to Apple then they would have been foolish to make that commitment. Given Apple's continuing decline in unit sales and the general price pressure on the market overall, I think it likely that when Moto decided they had to cut projects in the semiconductor division anyway (as part of their massive overall cuts in the last couple of years) that this one was near the front of the line for the chopping block.

If what Arcintosh reports overall is correct, the next 15 months for Apple are going to be bleak indeed. (I'm not even sure I believe their guesses for incremental speed gains in the G4.) The recent 167-MHz bus kludge is looking increasingly like a desperation move.