or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Demand for PowerPC Macs slumps, iPods video sales strong
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Demand for PowerPC Macs slumps, iPods video sales strong

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
Slowing demand for Apple's PowerPC-based Macintosh computers appears to confirm the overall industry consensus: a significant majority of the company's customer base is withholding purchases of Mac models that have yet to be updated with Intel processors.

According to reseller channel data seen by AppleInsider, Apple's PowerPC-based Mac inventory levels are declining, but the demand for the older systems appears to be declining even faster. Meanwhile, sales of Apple's iPod digital music players have also slowed slightly from the unprecedented levels seen during the holiday shopping season, but overall appear healthy given the expected seasonal decline during the current quarter.

PowerPC Macs

Based on the data, demand for Apple's PowerPC iBooks, Mac minis and Power Macs has steadily declined over the last four weeks. Of the three product lines, demand for the Mac mini appears to have slumped the least and remains inline with supply. Inventory of Power Macs and iBooks appear to be exceeding demand.

Along with the decline in demand for Power Macs, data also shows declining customer interest in Apple's line of HD Cinema Displays. Sources have indicated that the company is working on a revision to its display offerings that will surface later this year, around the time Apple debuts its first Intel-based Power Macs. Whether the company will decide to discount the current Cinema Displays ahead of new models will likely depend on inventory levels at that time.

Last week, Apple officially discontinued its 17-inch PowerPC iMac in the United States (though it continues to sell remnant inventory to individual customers through its online store.) A $200 price reduction on the 20-inch model followed days later. In the coming weeks, Apple's PowerPC-based PowerBooks should follow similar trends as the company begins shipping the first MacBook Pro orders. Existing inventory of PowerPC PowerBooks appears to be lean, according to sources.

As previously reported, Apple is seeing strong consumer sales of its new Intel-based iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro.

iPods

Looking at iPod demand, it appears that it will be only a matter of weeks before Apple will revamp its iPod shuffle product line with new models. Demand for the 1GB shuffle is far exceeding supply and it seems that production of the player has halted (or slowed tremendously). At the same time, there appears to be declining interest in the 512MB model, with supply lingering well above demand.

Sales of Apple's iPod nano players have also begun to trailed off in recent weeks, with both the 2GB and 4GB models approaching a supply and demand balance, according to the data. However, orders to Apple's manufacturing facilities for the 4GB model appear to have remained consistent with levels seen during the holidays.

Perhaps the biggest, and most documented, surprise has been the performance Apple's fifth-generation iPod video players post holiday. Sales of both the 30GB and 60GB models remain strong entering into February, as consumers are likely seeing the added value in the player's larger storage capacity and video playback capabilities. Of the two models, data reveals that demand for the high-end 60GB model is the strongest, with orders to Apple's manufacturing facilities declining only slightly from the levels witnessed late last year.
post #2 of 46
.. so its possible we might see price cuts to the PPC G4 iBook and Mac mini before they are replaced with Intel versions.
post #3 of 46
You know Apple's in good shape when iPods "reaching supply/demand balance" is called "sales tailing off"

As for a slump in PPC sales... that certainly makes sense. It's temporary: the transition will be complete this year.

And I have a hole in my life that can only be filled by a dual-dual Conroe quad Mac Pro with 2nd-generation 30" Cinema Display, next-gen GPU that sneers at UnrealEngine 3, PhysX chip, and Blu-Ray Superdrive...
post #4 of 46
Ya a price decrease on the Mac Mini would be nice. Possibly down enough to make them good media center machines. The bluetooth, wireless one being dropped below 500 would be sweet. Hook up a remote to that baby, access your files remotely via AppleTalk or SMB and you are set.
post #5 of 46
This should be expected. I hope that Apple won't have its PPC sales dry up though.

It's possible we will see a new PM earlier than expected, as Conroe is running early as well.

I'm surprised the monitor lineup is suffering as much as it seems to be. But, Apple really must put an HDMI connector on these things, or we won't be able to use them with DRM'd Hi Def content.
post #6 of 46
I'm with ya on that desktop Mac, Nagromme. I briefly considered a Quad to replace my revA DP2.0G5, but I think it's fate that I get an "as yet unreleased" ProMac.

As a side note, has anyone ever heard of Conroe, other than the little town north of Houston, Texas, that I went to High School in?

impatiently waiting for Feb21 when I'm supposed to get my MBPro....

Z
I build things, I break things, I catch things on fire. I love my job.
Reply
I build things, I break things, I catch things on fire. I love my job.
Reply
post #7 of 46
I guess this proves people aren't concerned about recent benchmarks showing that Intel Mac's aren't really all that much faster.
post #8 of 46
i was on the fence with a 30 vs. 60 gb ipod with video, but recently, seems like everybody is playing with making video podcasts available, and i've been downloading them left and right. certainly more enjoyable than downloading a clip in realplayer on some website and then get to see it only there, and sometimes clunkily so.

i think if apple really makes podcasting/video-podcasting really easy via imovie, garageband, etc. (i refuse to call it "vodcasting"...), the video ipod will have created its own addictive media market.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #9 of 46
Given the unresolved audio and screen problems with the latest 15 and 17 PBs (audio problem only) - no surprise these aren't flying off the shelves!
post #10 of 46
The problem I have with AppleInsider's "data" is that they've pulled this stunt before. Tell us how comprehensive your data is and then I might believe the story. Anecdotal evidence should not be relied on.

I highly doubt that sales of PowerMacs have decreased all that significantly; since it is going to be many months before the Intel PM comes out. Intel iBooks and Mac minis should be coming out sometime this spring; but are people really willing to wait for 3-4 months if they need a new one now? I doubt it.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that AI is looking for an Osborne affect that might not be actually happening. Or, if it is finally occurring, then it won't turn out to be as earth-shattering a deal as some people seem to think.

People said that the slowdown would happen last fall. Umm, no. How about over the winter. Nope! As we progress into spring? Maybe. Methinks that analysts and tech writers are going to attempt to make much out of little.

I predict that this transition is going to be one written about in tech history books; as being the smoothest, least problematical changeover ever accomplished.
post #11 of 46
This whole slow down was to be expected, people don't want to buy a PPC machine today and find out tomorrow Apple has launched it's Intel replacement. While the idea of migrating within a year sounds nice, it's going to hit the sales for both, on one hand you have an absolete architecture and on the other you don't have many native binaries.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
post #12 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm surprised the monitor lineup is suffering as much as it seems to be. But, Apple really must put an HDMI connector on these things, or we won't be able to use them with DRM'd Hi Def content.

I think Dell Monitors are taking a bite out of the Apple Display Market (WoW big news). While I and most anybody would much prefer a 20"+ Apple Cinema Display ($799, 20"), I chose a Dull ($499, 20"). I haven't been following the screens too closely but I think they are still the same LCD screens with different shell/industrial design. That price I got was 6 months ago (I've seen the Dull 2005FBW 20.1" for $400 since then).

So..... Free marked. My Dual 2.0 Ghz Powermac and ATI x800 don't know the difference, just my soul and pocketbook (pocketbook won out in this case).

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #13 of 46
May only be a temporary slump until buyers realize the reality of the situation...

Given that Adobe has just publicly announced that it won't be releasing Universal Binaries of Creative Suite products until the next upgrade cycle (CS3), anyone involved with this type of design work would still be better off buying a PowerPC-based Mac for use during the next 12-18 months.

Even though I had one of the very first orders in for an iMac Core Duo (which I'm happy with) and will likely buy a "Mac Pro Conroe Quadro" went it is announced in a few months, I know that realistically my PowerMac G5 dual 2.5 will be my primary machine over the next year.

Face it, in Adobe CS2, a PowerMac G5 Quad is going to annihilate anything running under Rosetta!
post #14 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by tink
I think Dell Monitors are taking a bite out of the Apple Display Market (WoW big news). While I and most anybody would much prefer a 20"+ Apple Cinema Display ($799, 20"), I chose a Dull ($499, 20"). I haven't been following the screens too closely but I think they are still the same LCD screens with different shell/industrial design. That price I got was 6 months ago (I've seen the Dull 2005FBW 20.1" for $400 since then).

So..... Free marked. My Dual 2.0 Ghz Powermac and ATI x800 don't know the difference, just my soul and pocketbook (pocketbook won out in this case).

From this story (and remember, we never really know if it's true until a while later), this is something that has just happened, ostensibly, because of a slowdown in PM sales.
post #15 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I guess this proves people aren't concerned about recent benchmarks showing that Intel Mac's aren't really all that much faster.

They're probably focussing more on the recent benchmarks that show the Cure Duo iMac IS much faster with native apps than the G5 iMac See Anandtech for pages of tests and analysis of that: having two cores does make a difference. And the Core Duo PowerBook vs. the G4 will be no contest. Even in Rosetta, Core Duo tends to beat a G4. No one number can measure all situations, of course.

But the article is about people "withholding purchases of Mac models that have yet to be updated with Intel processors."

That means the G4 Macs (iBook, Mini, more PowerBook sizes)--and Core Duo is clearly worth waiting for vs. a G4. If you've got benchmarks showing that a G4 is better than a Core Duo for most people's tasks--now and in the coming years of ownership--then you may wish to investigate a broader range of tests A G4 is a good choice for some (if you need Photoshop and work with really big documents, and need these things right NOW). But not for most people.

And it means PowerMacs. Obviously, there ARE no benchmarks for pro towers--those Intel Macs don't exist yet. (Nor do the chips that will be IN the pro towers: Conroe.)

The G5 is a great chip, among the best and tests show it--a single G5 core is actually (a little) faster for most things than a single Intel Core (although no Mac currently uses Sore Solo). But better IS coming this summer or fall, and more choice of Intel Core Macs is coming even sooner. A lot of people can survive a few months wait. Be it for Conroe, or more laptop choices, or a faster Mini, or simply more native apps.
post #16 of 46
PowerMac sales started falling off when the iMac G5 shipped last October. Apple said so back in Jan 2005, and again in Apr 2005. People were shifting to notebooks (general trend across the industry) and to iMacs (as a desktop alternative).

WIth the iMac Core Duo, most people will find that it is fast enough for their needs (looking forward to Universal Binary software). Only creative or specialty shops, or high-performance labs will need the quad G5. The quad is probably maintaining sales levels but the dual G5s are falling off the cliff. And probably even more now that the 20" 2.1GHz G5 is being sold for $1349 by Amazon.

As for HDMI, Apple is working with Intel on UDI to replace both HDMI and DVI; UDI will be backward compatible with DVI displays. UDI is expected to be in a product during the 2nd quarter. Since displays don't account for much revenue, and since most of them are sold with PowerMacs, I think Apple is just holding on until this next generation with UDI. And it's probably looking as much as possible to maintain its current price points for that next generation. Once you go from 799 down to 499, it's awfully difficult to move back up in pricing.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #17 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
But the article is about people "withholding purchases of Mac models that have yet to be updated with Intel processors."

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm holding off purchasing a G4 iBook until sales have dropped off enough for Apple to reduce their prices.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #18 of 46
I was planning on buying a Quad after macworld, if there were no Intel machines coming out. But, now that the schedule has been moved up by a year, I'm waiting for the equivalent PM (or whatever it will be called).
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Robin Hood
I guess this proves people aren't concerned about recent benchmarks showing that Intel Mac's aren't really all that much faster.

Intel's laptop chip is faster than a g5 and you don't think conroe will dust current ppc macs?
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by nagromme
You know Apple's in good shape when iPods "reaching supply/demand balance" is called "sales tailing off"

As for a slump in PPC sales... that certainly makes sense. It's temporary: the transition will be complete this year.

And I have a hole in my life that can only be filled by a dual-dual Conroe quad Mac Pro with 2nd-generation 30" Cinema Display, next-gen GPU that sneers at UnrealEngine 3, PhysX chip, and Blu-Ray Superdrive...

Supply only affects price of a product, it does not indicate level of sales or interest so the fact that demand is in balance with supply is immaterial to whether sales are tailing off. Demand has still dropped regardless of where supply is. I think overall, this was to be expected. Apple quarter results may suffer a bit but if they can bring their other products over to intel quickly, they may not suffer sales at all (ie, sales in later part of year will more than offset loss of sales this quarter).
post #21 of 46
The biggest problem they seem to have now, is that Adobe has confirmed that, except for Lightbox, we won't see an Intel version of any of their software, including, it seems, that from Macromedia, until 2007.

That is holding back sales right now, and might restrict them even further. It's the reason the stock came down again, starting late yesterday. It had been rising .
post #22 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The biggest problem they seem to have now, is that Adobe has confirmed that, except for Lightbox, we won't see an Intel version of any of their software, including, it seems, that from Macromedia, until 2007.

That is holding back sales right now, and might restrict them even further. It's the reason the stock came down again, starting late yesterday. It had been rising .


Now I'm wondering if 2006 will be the year Apple Strikes Back with real challengers to the Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator throne...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Now I'm wondering if 2006 will be the year Apple Strikes Back with real challengers to the Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator throne...

Other than Aperture, I can't see what they could come up with. It's difficult coming up with a new program or compete with something that has been around for a long time, that has hundreds of features, has been honed, and works with many high-end hardware and software packages. When that program is part of the workflow of many companies, it's hard to dislodge it. When everyone is also trained to use that program, they are VERY reluctant to learn another one that might not make it, and that no one is asking for.

Look at Quark. Indesign has been around for quite a while now. People just HATE Quark as a company, and it's disregard for its customers. They failed to come out with an OS X version for years, etc., etc. InDesign has been regarded as having better overall design, usability, features, etc. But Quark is still king of the hill, even though those who don't really know the industry have been predicting its demise for years. While inDesign has gathered more users, it's still far behind. I use both, and prefer inDesign. But when customers demanded Quark files, you had to supply them. Too many publishing systems use Quark as their central piece of software.

The same thing is true of PS, though to a somewhat lesser extent, as Adobe made their plug-in architecture available to anyone. Which Quark didn't.

But, it would still be a long haul. Apple would pretty much have to match feature to feature, and have some compelling technologies that Adobe couldn't use as well. Version 1 would have to be a distance runner right out of the box. This is almost impossible for anyone to do.
post #24 of 46
Don't even get me started on Quark... the bane of designers everywhere.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Don't even get me started on Quark... the bane of designers everywhere.

That will always be the biggest difference between the two apps, and probably why InDesign will never win over Quark.

InDesign is for Graphic Designers who care most about design. InDesign gives you almost every tool you need to do whatever you want. Even if it means breaking rules, like being able to copy and paste directly from Illustrator or offering "effects" for any object.

Quark is for the printing industry which really doesn't care about design, and is just focused on the workflow of printing huge jobs. They don't want objects in the page which where "pasted" from somewhere else, or crazy effects that will crash the RIP.

If Apple wanted to take on Photoshop, I think it would be a much easier task because they already have quite a bit of respect in the design community, and have a good reputation with Final Cut Pro and such.
post #26 of 46
Good thread, meandering and curious.

It's hard to say what the next few years will bring. I'm waiting for a Quad Woodcrest, but if you need and can afford the speed, the G5 Quad will be rock solid for years.

Has anyone seen Microsoft's ad for its "Expression" software? Redmond is trying to throw a mudball at Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but unless Adobe pulls a Quark, they'll be fine.

As much as I like to see competition, Expression may be Microsoft's Windows-only way of headging its bets against an Apple-owned Adobe. I know that Microsoft has a presence in the web and imaging (with FrontPage and Digital Image Pro, or whatever the hell it is), but there is something pathetic and pestilent about seeing such a bloated company stroll up to the design table at this hour. Microsoft built its riches on business applications and a copycat OS, essentially snubbed its nose at designers and artists and other "creative types," and now it wants in the game? What game do they not seek to dominate?
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by Sybaritic
Good thread, meandering and curious.

It's hard to say what the next few years will bring. I'm waiting for a Quad Woodcrest, but if you need and can afford the speed, the G5 Quad will be rock solid for years.

Has anyone seen Microsoft's ad for its "Expression" software? Redmond is trying to throw a mudball at Photoshop and Dreamweaver, but unless Adobe pulls a Quark, they'll be fine.

As much as I like to see competition, Expression may be Microsoft's Windows-only way of headging its bets against an Apple-owned Adobe. I know that Microsoft has a presence in the web and imaging (with FrontPage and Digital Image Pro, or whatever the hell it is), but there is something pathetic and pestilent about seeing such a bloated company stroll up to the design table at this hour. Microsoft built its riches on business applications and a copycat OS, essentially snubbed its nose at designers and artists and other "creative types," and now it wants in the game? What game do they not seek to dominate?

This WAS available for the Mac. They seem to have discontinued it. I have the older betas they were giving out.
post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
This WAS available for the Mac. They seem to have discontinued it. I have the older betas they were giving out.

I suppose that this is really off topic, but Expression 3 (in that odd period when it was free) is a pretty good application. It certainly provides an interesting platform for Microsoft to push their whole Vista Expression software line.

Expression will include bitmap & vector graphics, Visual Studio GUI tools (imagine, Windows applications that actually look good!), and a web design application (that is supposed to provide handy hooks between their browser and Visual Studio code).

If it all works as advertised, this could drive adoption of Vista. On the other hand, Microsoft's attempts to create an internet that only works on Windows Vista computers may be doomed to failure. I'm afraid that the world probably won't sit still for a host of proprietary web standards. Also, Visual Studio will have to magically get a lot better than it is now for anybody to seriously devote the time and energy that this new platform will require.

Unless Adobe makes some serious mistakes in the next few years, I don't see Microsoft Expression going anywhere.

The Microsoft website devoted to MS Expression sure is pretty, but MS has had a long history of promising the moon and stars and delivering much less than their snazzy ad campaigns show.
post #29 of 46
Quote:
originally posted by dws:
The Microsoft website devoted to MS Expression sure is pretty, but MS has had a long history of promising the moon and stars and delivering much less than their snazzy ad campaigns show.

My feelings entirely. I also think you're absolutely right about Expression's being a means of driving Vista sales. They'll have something of a winner in that regard, but we'll see if it's anything more than that. The thought of a proprietary Vista internet makes me want to retch ...
post #30 of 46
MS is very concerned right now that things are spiraling out of control, from their perspective.

This new $100 computer initiative, now also being sponsored by the UN, has upset things in an unexpected way.

Remember, if you didn't already know, that Jobs offered OS X for the machine. That was rejected, as was MS's offer of Windows, in favor of the version of Linux that Red Had provides.

I don't know if there is anything that Apple will be doing to counter this, but MS has come up with a cockeyed scheme to provide cell phones with windows Mobile on them.

The idea that as many as 100 million $100 Linux machines will be circulating amongst the children of the third world is something that Bill, and I suppose Steve, as well, are becoming upset about.

If MS can do something to prevent that from discouraging the use of Windows, I can understand their stance.

Look at the new news.

Both AOL and Yahoo are planning to charge for the sending of e-mail to anyone on their services from outside!

supposedly this is to discourage spam, and such, but is it really?

Are we going to see the beginning of the closed IP networks that we've been reading about?

These are the things I'm concerned about. A Vista IP is just one part of it.
post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I was planning on buying a Quad after macworld, if there were no Intel machines coming out. But, now that the schedule has been moved up by a year, I'm waiting for the equivalent PM (or whatever it will be called).

Why hold off? The Quad G5 is apparently very fast, especially for anything written for Altivec. Adobe applications won't even be released until next year, and there's no certainty that the Intel Macs will be faster running them than the G5. Apple's own applications presumably are smart about Altivec.

It seems to me that Apple is deliberately discouraging sales of its G5 computers. They didn't promote the Quad much on its release, and they have not, for example, promised to release new OS X versions or new Apple applications for the G5 for years into the future. Thus, a buyer might wonder about his investment's long-term value.
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
Why hold off? The Quad G5 is apparently very fast, especially for anything written for Altivec. Adobe applications won't even be released until next year, and there's no certainty that the Intel Macs will be faster running them than the G5. Apple's own applications presumably are smart about Altivec.

It seems to me that Apple is deliberately discouraging sales of its G5 computers. They didn't promote the Quad much on its release, and they have not, for example, promised to release new OS X versions or new Apple applications for the G5 for years into the future. Thus, a buyer might wonder about his investment's long-term value.

Because, it's something I don't need. Just something I want. I no longer do much professional work ,only if I can't get out of it. So, I'd rather wait for the new unit.

Apple will be promoting the Quad in March, during the show, when they show off their Universal Binaries of their Pro editing programs. Supposedly, there will be a requirement for the Quad for something, I foreget what it is.
post #33 of 46
It does seem to me that Apple is unenthusiatic about the G5's. As the AppleInsider review shows, the Intel iMac is good for some things. Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration. Apple's speed claims, their enthusiasm for the Intel products, and their rapid phasing-out of the G5 iMac should make anyone think twice about buying a G5 Power Mac. Apple's failure to make clear commitments to continue developing G5 software in the future is a serious problem, given that Apple has a history of abandoning technologies before their customers are ready to do so. In promoting the Intels, Apple is promoting products that they don't actually sell yet, except for the iMac.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration.

Not sure why people think the SPECint and SPECfp rate benchmarks aren't accurate. They are about in line with what you'd expect based on other specint and specfp tests.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
It does seem to me that Apple is unenthusiatic about the G5's. As the AppleInsider review shows, the Intel iMac is good for some things. Apple, having suddenly developed an affinity for SPECint benchmarks, claims it's a thousand-fold faster than the G5 (OK, maybe they said 3X), and this is evidently an exaggeration. Apple's speed claims, their enthusiasm for the Intel products, and their rapid phasing-out of the G5 iMac should make anyone think twice about buying a G5 Power Mac. Apple's failure to make clear commitments to continue developing G5 software in the future is a serious problem, given that Apple has a history of abandoning technologies before their customers are ready to do so. In promoting the Intels, Apple is promoting products that they don't actually sell yet, except for the iMac.

Despite what some may say, Apple's claims are not exaggerated. Tests have shown that the cpu test marks are correct. That's what was claimed.

The machine itself is different, as it depends upon the software to be optimised for the architecture.

When you look at the iLife test scores, you can see what I mean. The programs that were optimised for two cpus work much faster under the Intel machine than those that haven't been. Programs that are not optimised will run slower. But even the unoptimised ones ran at least 10% faster. The few cases of slowdowns are according to Apple apparently not working properly, and Apple is looking into them.

In addition to some not being designed to work with two cpus, none of the programs were otherwise optimised wery significantly for Intel, according to Apple.

Given that, I think performance was fine, and will only get better. You might notice that a couple of third party programs did even better that Apple's did.

That's encouraging.

Then, think about the fact that the OS itself isn't yet properly optimised either.

Also, remember that the Yonah chips are LAPTOP chips. Not designed to compete with desktop chips such as the G5. That makes the scores even more remarkable. How will the second generation laptop chip in the series, the Merom do?

Then think about the desktop Conroe. Power isn't as much as an issue there. Then Woodcrest.

I wouldn't worry about ti.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Despite what some may say, Apple's claims are not exaggerated. Tests have shown that the cpu test marks are correct. That's what was claimed.

The machine itself is different, as it depends upon the software to be optimised for the architecture.

When you look at the iLife test scores, you can see what I mean. The programs that were optimised for two cpus work much faster under the Intel machine than those that haven't been. Programs that are not optimised will run slower. But even the unoptimised ones ran at least 10% faster. The few cases of slowdowns are according to Apple apparently not working properly, and Apple is looking into them.

In addition to some not being designed to work with two cpus, none of the programs were otherwise optimised wery significantly for Intel, according to Apple.

Given that, I think performance was fine, and will only get better. You might notice that a couple of third party programs did even better that Apple's did.


I didn't mean to suggest that Apple's benchmarks were wrong, only that their claim that the machine is 3X faster based on those benchmarks is specious.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Then, think about the fact that the OS itself isn't yet properly optimised either.

I recall hearing this argument on release of every previous chip by Apple.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Also, remember that the Yonah chips are LAPTOP chips. Not designed to compete with desktop chips such as the G5. That makes the scores even more remarkable. How will the second generation laptop chip in the series, the Merom do?

Then think about the desktop Conroe. Power isn't as much as an issue there. Then Woodcrest.

I wouldn't worry about ti.

I don't think that this is exactly a fair comparison. The Core Duo is the best currently available Intel chip suitable for the iMac. As such, it should be compared to currently available G5 chips. The Core Duo would almost certainly be significantly slower than a lower power dual core G5 that would probably be (or would have been) available in the same time frame as the Conroe or Woodcrest. (Prediction based on IBM's proven ability to deliver low power versions of their chips.)

As for the last part of my post, you appear to have reached the same conclusion that I would: What Apple computer would you buy today?

None.
post #37 of 46
dh87, you're making the mistake of treating Intel and Freescale as if they had equally-robust roadmaps for future chip development; which simply isn't the case. You might be confident that Freescale could have developed (and could keep developing) low-power G5 chips, but I have serious doubts that this was (or will be) the case. Freescale has put all of its eggs in the Xbox basket; which left Apple with enough uncertainty that they decided that the massive change needed to be made.
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
I didn't mean to suggest that Apple's benchmarks were wrong, only that their claim that the machine is 3X faster based on those benchmarks is specious.



The claim was that the machine was up to 2 x faster. the claim was that the chip was up to 3x faster.

But, The machine itself is over 3x faster with some software. That's all you can fairly expect.

Quote:
I recall hearing this argument on release of every previous chip by Apple.

And, it's true. It takes a while to optimize for new chips. When you change the architecture of the machine as well, such as moving from PCI to Express, that takes work also.

Some programs and OS's are so highly tied to a particular chip and architecture that it can take an almost complete rewrite before the benefits of the new design become fully apparent.

I've been using FCP since the beginning, at first, on G4's.

With a dual G4, it seemed to perform well. When Apple came out with the new dual G5, the difference wasn't exactly significant. In fact, because several areas of programming for the G4 and the G5 are diametrically opposed, certain functions of the program actually slowed down!.

When Apple announced that they had optimized the program for the G5, rendering, as well as other functions, were dramatically speeded uptwice as fast. That's optimization. But, it took several months after the new machines came out.

Quote:
I don't think that this is exactly a fair comparison. The Core Duo is the best currently available Intel chip suitable for the iMac. As such, it should be compared to currently available G5 chips. The Core Duo would almost certainly be significantly slower than a lower power dual core G5 that would probably be (or would have been) available in the same time frame as the Conroe or Woodcrest. (Prediction based on IBM's proven ability to deliver low power versions of their chips.)

I didn't make any unfair comparisons at all. I simply pointed out the truth of the matter. You can ignore it if you like.

But like it or not, when a laptop chip can sit on equal terms, core to core, so to speak with a desktop chip, that DOES say something significant.

The fact that it is also the slowest of Intels offerings this year, including that of what will be it's sucessor, the Merom, another laptop chip, says volumes.

IBM is not going to give the G5 a significant boost anytime in the near future, if at all. That also says volumes. IBM has little history of making low power chips available to the laptop, low power desktop market. If you want to use chips designed specifically for the embedded market, fine. But, certainly not in the G5 line.

What is also interesting is that the chips in the 17" iMac have already been replaced by enterprising souls. So, when the price of these chips falls significantly, as they will, the machine can be upgraded. Apple has abandoned us on this issue ever since the G5's debut.

Quote:
As for the last part of my post, you appear to have reached the same conclusion that I would: What Apple computer would you buy today?

None.

What I would buy, and what others would buy are different things. I highly recommend the iMac. The MacBook Pro will be a very good performer; equal to PC laptops, and far better than the Powerbook is now. I recommend that one as well.

It all depends on how much cash you have now. What programs you use, and whether your need for a new machine now, means that you can live with Rosetta until some program you need, turns Universal.

If you don't need a program that requires a G5, or one that runs too slowly under Rosetta to be practical for you, then don't hesitate.

Otherwise, get a G5 model that will give you what you need now.

Remember, "He who hesitates, is lost".

If you NEED a new machine, you are a fool not to get one.
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The claim was that the machine was up to 2 x faster. the claim was that the chip was up to 3x faster.

But, The machine itself is over 3x faster with some software. That's all you can fairly expect.


From what I read, the Intel iMac is both faster and slower. Some of the tasks for which it is faster, like booting or starting programs*, seem to me irrelevant, while the ones on which it's slower, like running Photoshop, seem more important. Clearly, the results reflect the underlying strengths of the two chips, and different people will find different costs and benefits.

*I was going to write "or typing in Word", but then I realized that a 3-fold improvement in the speed of Wordsay up to the level of Word 4.0 on a Mac IIciwould be a real benefit.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
And, it's true. It takes a while to optimize for new chips. When you change the architecture of the machine as well, such as moving from PCI to Express, that takes work also.

Some programs and OS's are so highly tied to a particular chip and architecture that it can take an almost complete rewrite before the benefits of the new design become fully apparent.

I've been using FCP since the beginning, at first, on G4's.

With a dual G4, it seemed to perform well. When Apple came out with the new dual G5, the difference wasn't exactly significant. In fact, because several areas of programming for the G4 and the G5 are diametrically opposed, certain functions of the program actually slowed down!.

When Apple announced that they had optimized the program for the G5, rendering, as well as other functions, were dramatically speeded uptwice as fast. That's optimization. But, it took several months after the new machines came out.

I can't comment from personal experience. When the G5 (or G4) came out, people said "It's fast now, but wait until the OS is really optimized for it." Months went by, new versions of the OS were introduced, but the great increases in speed never seemed to materialize.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I didn't make any unfair comparisons at all. I simply pointed out the truth of the matter. You can ignore it if you like.

But like it or not, when a laptop chip can sit on equal terms, core to core, so to speak with a desktop chip, that DOES say something significant.

The fact that it is also the slowest of Intels offerings this year, including that of what will be it's sucessor, the Merom, another laptop chip, says volumes.

IBM is not going to give the G5 a significant boost anytime in the near future, if at all. That also says volumes. IBM has little history of making low power chips available to the laptop, low power desktop market. If you want to use chips designed specifically for the embedded market, fine. But, certainly not in the G5 line.

What is also interesting is that the chips in the 17" iMac have already been replaced by enterprising souls. So, when the price of these chips falls significantly, as they will, the machine can be upgraded. Apple has abandoned us on this issue ever since the G5's debut.



What I would buy, and what others would buy are different things. I highly recommend the iMac. The MacBook Pro will be a very good performer; equal to PC laptops, and far better than the Powerbook is now. I recommend that one as well.

It all depends on how much cash you have now. What programs you use, and whether your need for a new machine now, means that you can live with Rosetta until some program you need, turns Universal.

If you don't need a program that requires a G5, or one that runs too slowly under Rosetta to be practical for you, then don't hesitate.

Otherwise, get a G5 model that will give you what you need now.

Remember, "He who hesitates, is lost".

If you NEED a new machine, you are a fool not to get one.

My parenthetical comment about IBM and low power chips was sarcastic.

The part of your comparison that I suggest is unfair is the comparison of existing chips to future chips. The iMac does have some limitations on the "desktop" chips that it can accept. Presumably a dual core G5, which would certainly be faster than a Core Duo, would overcook it. Whether a Conroe in its initial production runs will be suitable in cost or in heat for an iMac can't be known. Hence, the only real comparison is an existing Core Duo and a single G5.

My original point is that by promoting the Intels exclusively, Apple is persuading people to put off their computer purchases. Apple doesn't have to do this; the G5 is a good desktop chip, and Apple could be providing specific assurances that they will be providing high-quality support for it into the future. Instead, if I were in the market for a new computer, I'd be wondering and waiting.
post #40 of 46
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
*I was going to write "or typing in Word", but then I realized that a 3-fold improvement in the speed of Wordsay up to the level of Word 4.0 on a Mac IIciwould be a real benefit.

Personally, I contend that Word 5.1a was the pinnacle of MS's Mac achievement.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Demand for PowerPC Macs slumps, iPods video sales strong