2004 truly SUCKS so far
I have waited since Fall 2003 for new Powermacs, iMacs, displays and iPods. So far, Apple has done nothing but disappoint me.
Powermacs got updated with one new model and higher prices. Displays got updated and kept their same high prices and there's no new low-end model. On top of that, iMacs and iPods are still outdated and still expensive.
Does Apple truly think that the way to expand their market-share is to wait a year between updates and never lower prices? I truly don't know what Steve is thinking.
This is common sense here! I have wanted to buy either a Powermac or iMac and an iPod for a long time now but have been waiting for updates. WWDC has come and gone and all we have is a year-old iMac and more expensive Powermacs. Powermacs and the new displays are now out of my price range unless prices are lowered.
A Dell tower for $1300 less than a G5 tower with the same specs is looking more and more appealing if Apple doesn't do something.
This is what I'm looking for in a new iMac that I would buy in an instant:
at least 1.6 Ghz G5
512 Mb RAM
160 HD
ATI Radeon 9600 w/ 64 Mb RAM
8X Superdrive
17" LCD
$1799-1999
Is that too hard to ask for???
Powermacs got updated with one new model and higher prices. Displays got updated and kept their same high prices and there's no new low-end model. On top of that, iMacs and iPods are still outdated and still expensive.
Does Apple truly think that the way to expand their market-share is to wait a year between updates and never lower prices? I truly don't know what Steve is thinking.
This is common sense here! I have wanted to buy either a Powermac or iMac and an iPod for a long time now but have been waiting for updates. WWDC has come and gone and all we have is a year-old iMac and more expensive Powermacs. Powermacs and the new displays are now out of my price range unless prices are lowered.
A Dell tower for $1300 less than a G5 tower with the same specs is looking more and more appealing if Apple doesn't do something.
This is what I'm looking for in a new iMac that I would buy in an instant:
at least 1.6 Ghz G5
512 Mb RAM
160 HD
ATI Radeon 9600 w/ 64 Mb RAM
8X Superdrive
17" LCD
$1799-1999
Is that too hard to ask for???
Comments
I'd also want PCIe graphics card such as an ATI x300 or x600. Core Image/Video will need more birectional bandwidth for the GPU to be truely used as a second processor.
Originally posted by dferigmu
I have waited since Fall 2003 for new Powermacs, iMacs, displays and iPods. So far, Apple has done nothing but disappoint me.
Powermacs got updated with one new model and higher prices. Displays got updated and kept their same high prices and there's no new low-end model. On top of that, iMacs and iPods are still outdated and still expensive.
Does Apple truly think that the way to expand their market-share is to wait a year between updates and never lower prices? I truly don't know what Steve is thinking.
This is common sense here! I have wanted to buy either a Powermac or iMac and an iPod for a long time now but have been waiting for updates. WWDC has come and gone and all we have is a year-old iMac and more expensive Powermacs. Powermacs and the new displays are now out of my price range unless prices are lowered.
A Dell tower for $1300 less than a G5 tower with the same specs is looking more and more appealing if Apple doesn't do something.
This is what I'm looking for in a new iMac that I would buy in an instant:
at least 1.6 Ghz G5
512 Mb RAM
160 HD
ATI Radeon 9600 w/ 64 Mb RAM
8X Superdrive
17" LCD
$1799-1999
Is that too hard to ask for???
I too HAD been waiting since last summer, but you know what? I'm stoked. My dual 2.5 will be here in about 30 days, and if you think that it's not enough processor for you then you shouldn't be buying one. It's every bit as fast and faster than dual Xeons, and more stable than any Dell box could hope to be. Whine all you want, but we've been through the exact same 9 months or so, and I'm happy, and you're not. I promise you you'll be happy with what products Apple has to offer. Also, if you've had this long to wait, you should have been working and saving money so that price wouldn't be such a huge factor. </lecture>
Originally posted by ipodandimac
It's every bit as fast and faster than dual Xeons, and more stable than any Dell box could hope to be.
Screw Intel and there processors...
If you want a fair comparison, compare the PowerPC 970 against AMD's 64-bit offerings. The only real thing letting the PPC 970 is Integer performance.
Anyhow, the G5s are very impressive! m.
wonder what the numbers would be if you pitted two xeon or itanium boxes against eachother, one running *nix and the other running xp, My instinct tells me that the unix box would win.
for a fair test you should try, say darwin on itanium v osx on G5
or just load linux on both of them for a fair hardware centric showdown.
Originally posted by Existence
Agreed. Though I'd up the iMac speed to at least 2GHz. A 1.6GHz G5 simply cannot compete with modern x86 processors.
Yeah, and "modern x86 processors" (and the OS they are most likely used with) cannot compete with OS X, iLife 04, Final Cut Pro/Express, Keynote, etc.
So it all kinda balances out, IMO.
If I have to choose between "blazing speed" with an OS and apps I can't do anything with, or "more-than-acceptable speed" with an OS and apps that trumps everything else out there in terms of slickness, integration, ease-of-use, actual real-life usability, stability, etc., guess which one I'm going to opt for?
I'd be more worried about the "performance gap" if there was anything remotely close to OS X and the iApps on the other side. There doesn't seem to be, so I'm not.
Ever see a typical consumer-level person try to use a digital camera with a PC, creating, say, an online gallery or picture sheets (not to mention just getting the photos transferred to the PC where they're actually usable)? It's scary as hell...
If Apple ever creates another Windows-based iApp (a la iTunes), please do those poor schmos over there a favor and give them iPhoto for XP. They'll really appreciate it, I'm sure! I know my Mom and sister would...
Originally posted by dferigmu
I have waited since Fall 2003 for new Powermacs, iMacs, displays and iPods. So far, Apple has done nothing but disappoint me.
Powermacs got updated with one new model and higher prices. Displays got updated and kept their same high prices and there's no new low-end model. On top of that, iMacs and iPods are still outdated and still expensive.
I do not understand the gloomy undertone in your post.
All laptops, Powermacs, the new displays, iPods, etc. represent the best the market has to offer. The only thing obviously missing is the low end desktop. No matter how bad that deficiency is, it is not a good reason to diss the rest of the product lineup.
On a related note, seeing how they dropped the 17" display, I am afraid we will not see a headless iMac or mini-Powermac anytime soon.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
I too HAD been waiting since last summer, but you know what? I'm stoked. My dual 2.5 will be here in about 30 days, and if you think that it's not enough processor for you then you shouldn't be buying one. It's every bit as fast and faster than dual Xeons, and more stable than any Dell box could hope to be. Whine all you want, but we've been through the exact same 9 months or so, and I'm happy, and you're not. I promise you you'll be happy with what products Apple has to offer. Also, if you've had this long to wait, you should have been working and saving money so that price wouldn't be such a huge factor. </lecture>
on the one hand i agrre with you but on so many other things i disagree with you.
yes, at the high end apple is a strong performer. they usually are. the problem the last few years has been the low->mid range performance. that still sucks. these never get compared in bake offs and everything because they would get sluaghtered. it's also one of the reasons the iMac 2 is tanking so badly. You used to be able to get a nice bang for your buck performance wise with the iMac.....and now it's so far behind the Powermac and the PC world that it's almost laughable.
and another thing, despite waiting "so long" many people are still not willing or still CANT sink 4000 dollars into a computer. it's ignorant to think that. I've been waiting to get a new PowerMac since I purchased my PowerMac G4/400. I have a lot of money saved. Probably more so than I would have had a seen something that caught my eyes last year. But I'm not going to sink 4000 dollars when what I need should only be around 2000 and preferably less.
Originally posted by Gon
I do not understand the gloomy undertone in your post.
All laptops, Powermacs, the new displays, iPods, etc. represent the best the market has to offer. The only thing obviously missing is the low end desktop. No matter how bad that deficiency is, it is not a good reason to diss the rest of the product lineup.
On a related note, seeing how they dropped the 17" display, I am afraid we will not see a headless iMac or mini-Powermac anytime soon.
You mean most expensive the industry has to offer. Powerbooks might be pretty but they are behind Windows laptops technologically.
Powermacs might be powerful, but are way too expensive. Displays are nice but start at $1299!!! Who has that kind of money?
And iPods are again, expensive, and the battery wears out after 18 months.
I love Apple, I love OSX, I hate Windows and MS, but Apple isn't trying very hard to make their products more affordable, accessible and up-to-date with the rest of the industry. This is no way to improve market-share.
Powermacs might be powerful, but are way too expensive. Displays are nice but start at $1299!!! Who has that kind of money?
Statements like these make it hard to take you serious. Professionals have this type of money. Hell Gamers will pay $3000+ on an Alianware or FalconNW computer. I understand you want value for you dollar, we all do but keep in mind those profits from the high end sales should allow Apple to price their midrange a bit better. We're all awaiting the iMac. It's very important and honestly I'm worried because Apple right now needs less "cool" and more "wow what a great deal I'll buy one right now" responses from it.
And iPods are again, expensive, and the battery wears out after 18 months.
come on if this was a PC site we'd actually be ignorant enough to actually believe this. You're really offending our sensibilites here. Your post is laden with hyperbole and far to much emotion. Just relax man, you don't have to cut and draw blood on Apple to make your point.
Originally posted by dferigmu
Powermacs might be powerful, but are way too expensive. Displays are nice but start at $1299!!! Who has that kind of money?
people who work and SAVE their money.
1. It certainly was disappointing that they didn't reach 3 Ghz. What else can be said about that?
2. The whole new line of iPods was introduced at the beginning of 2004. It sucks that they've done so poorly with the getting minis out, but I don't think you can legitimately argue that there's something wrong with 2004 and iPod releases. If you're waiting for new releases, that's your decision, but I wouldn't blame Apple for that one.
3. The iMac situation is really, really bad. Given the lapse, I think it can be safely assumed that they're working on a really cool new G5 revision, and the problems with the 970fx are what caused the delay. But 3 months ago they should have upgraded to 1.5 Ghz G4s, 8x superdrives, etc.
4. You're right about prices. We can debate about whether Apple's machines are good value. Maybe they are, given the quality of their products. But Apple needs to consider absolute price. Computers are heavily depreciating assets. I'm a big Mac fan, and I'm not poor, but I don't want to spend $4000 on something that I'm going to want to replace in 2 or 3 years.
Originally posted by dferigmu
You mean most expensive the industry has to offer. Powerbooks might be pretty but they are behind Windows laptops technologically.
This is a rediculous statement. I have a brand new 15inch 1.5GHz PB with 1gig of RAM and a Superdrive. I also have a brand new Dell D600 with all the bells and whistles and the same amount of RAM. The Dell cost more and still does not have a DVD burner! The PB kills the Dell and the IBM in what it offers for the money. Oh, and I don't have to reboot 5 times a day on the mac which makes it even more valuable time wise. Hell, today I had to take a vitual class that would only work on a Windows unit. I had so many problems getting it set up that finally gave up and tried to run it on VPC and it was fine. As far as I am concerned the Dell is now a very pricey paperwieght!
Originally posted by hmurchison
Statements like these make it hard to take you serious. Professionals have this type of money. Hell Gamers will pay $3000+ on an Alianware or FalconNW computer. I understand you want value for you dollar, we all do but keep in mind those profits from the high end sales should allow Apple to price their midrange a bit better. We're all awaiting the iMac. It's very important and honestly I'm worried because Apple right now needs less "cool" and more "wow what a great deal I'll buy one right now" responses from it.
come on if this was a PC site we'd actually be ignorant enough to actually believe this. You're really offending our sensibilites here. Your post is laden with hyperbole and far to much emotion. Just relax man, you don't have to cut and draw blood on Apple to make your point.
If Apple wants to increase market-share, it can't have its intro-level monitor being $1299. Why is it so hard for them to make a new 17" LCD and 17/19" flat CRT?
Also, what about people who want a tower but don't want to spend $2000?
I have $3000 to spend but I don't want to spend it all on something that will be outdated in 5 years.
Originally posted by dferigmu
If Apple wants to increase market-share, it can't have its intro-level monitor being $1299. Why is it so hard for them to make a new 17" LCD and 17/19" flat CRT?
Also, what about people who want a tower but don't want to spend $2000?
I have $3000 to spend but I don't want to spend it all on something that will be outdated in 5 years.
5 years is a long time in technology years. That may be a bit unreasonable on your part. How could *any* piece of technology purchased now not seem obsolete in 5 years?
Then there is the question of obsolete. For some the machine could be re-purposed and used for something less demanding if it does not support the very latest new thing.
I have $3000 to spend but I don't want to spend it all on something that will be outdated in 5 years.
Sage advice. When money is tight. Buy the best. People swimming in money can afford to make mistakes. Those on a strict budget cannot.
I'm suprised Apple doesn't have an offering below 20" as well. Perhaps they feel that 15" and 17" LCDs will be on the iMac completing the lineup albeit not as a seperate monitor.
As for towers. People have been conditioned over the years to want towers. Sure a few people will actualy toss in another hard drive or replace a card but the vast majority does not. Apple has simply tried to combat that strange culture.
Consumes tend to want expansion to be internal while Pros seem to like the flexibility of external components.
Originally posted by GreggWSmith
Mac people are funny. They keep their machines for a long time. I don't. 2years is the longest I have ever used a computer. My Powerbook will last for a long time though. 5 years is a very long time for a computer!
I have a rev. A iMac, a 700MHz iBook and a new 12" PowerBook. I can't see ever letting any of them go since they all work great and I have use for all of them. My point was only that in 5 years I do not expect my PowerBook to be able to go toe-to-toe with the latest machines out there. To purchase based on its projected performance 5 years out is a bit silly.
Originally posted by dferigmu
You mean most expensive the industry has to offer. Powerbooks might be pretty but they are behind Windows laptops technologically.
Sorry, I call bullshit.
Find a Wintel laptop with equal features. *EQUAL*. Not just 'a 15" screen' or 'a 17" screen' but one as crisp and clear. Not just 'a 1.25GHz CPU' but one that performs the same number of operations/sec *ON BATTERY*. Not just '128MB RAM' but the same amount with the same *bus speed*. Not just a CD-R, but a combo CD-R/DVD-R... slot-load. 802.11g. BlueTooth. Neither as an 'add-on', a PCCard, or a dongle.
G'wan. We'll be waiting.
It'll cost more than a comparable PowerBook. Period. I have *NEVER* seen a Wintel laptop that was comparable that cost less. Cost less? Sure. But you get less.
And lets not even get into the iBooks... they're simply the best value in a laptop today, for any platform.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sorry, I call bullshit.
Find a Wintel laptop with equal features. *EQUAL*. Not just 'a 15" screen' or 'a 17" screen' but one as crisp and clear. Not just 'a 1.25GHz CPU' but one that performs the same number of operations/sec *ON BATTERY*. Not just '128MB RAM' but the same amount with the same *bus speed*. Not just a CD-R, but a combo CD-R/DVD-R... slot-load. 802.11g. BlueTooth. Neither as an 'add-on', a PCCard, or a dongle.
Equality is not possible when the competition is clearly superior. That's the point. Pentium-M laptops compared to PowerBooks run faster even under battery operation, have greater total battery life (for equal battery capacities), more than 4 times the L2 cache, 400MHz (effective) bus speeds and are clock-for-clock faster than the G5 (that's right, G5) on many tasks.
PowerBooks are feature-rich, but all of these except for FW800 are available on the PC. It comes down to the system architecture.
You might be able to find a 1.2GHz P3 laptop from 2001 on a 133MHz bus. That's where the Powerbooks are right now (except for the Radeon 9700).