<strong>You don't think there's a connection between Apple's inability to get faster hardware out the door and the high resale value of used Macs?
If Apple charges $2000 for a brand new machine that is only marginally better than a 3 year old machine, then yes, used Apple hardware will retain it's value quite well.
If clockspeeds were to double across the board tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the value of the 3 year old hardware?</strong><hr></blockquote>
the point was not simply about resale value, i was addressing the useful lifespan of the machines. re-read my original post. thanks!
the point was not simply about resale value, i was addressing the useful lifespan of the machines. re-read my original post. thanks!</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the same thing in terms of resale value and useful lifespan. The newer machines don't offer that much of an advantage over older machines. Why upgrade? Keep the older machines longer until there is a real advantage with a new machine. They hold value and demand a good price used because they are not really outdated by newer machines and are still very useable.
It's the same thing in terms of resale value and useful lifespan. The newer machines don't offer that much of an advantage over older machines. Why upgrade? Keep the older machines longer until there is a real advantage with a new machine. They hold value and demand a good price used because they are not really outdated by newer machines and are still very useable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the same thing in terms of resale value and useful lifespan. The newer machines don't offer that much of an advantage over older machines. Why upgrade? Keep the older machines longer until there is a real advantage with a new machine. They hold value and demand a good price used because they are not really outdated by newer machines and are still very useable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes they are really outdated...compared to a Dual 1GHz G4 with a GeForce 4MX, SuperDrive, ADC, 80 gig, 2MB L3 Cache, etc, a 3 year old 450MHz G4 is slow. Have you actually used one of the new machines then compared it directly with an old one?
Mhz is just clockspeed. Many tests between different Pentiums show that overall speed isn't derived from just how many cycles there are per second. The same goes for any CPU. So no, a Ghz worth of increase doesn't automatically translate into the same amount of speed increase. That's why they call it " The Mhz Myth ".
Yes they are really outdated...compared to a Dual 1GHz G4 with a GeForce 4MX, SuperDrive, ADC, 80 gig, 2MB L3 Cache, etc, a 3 year old 450MHz G4 is slow. Have you actually used one of the new machines then compared it directly with an old one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're talking about a $3k top of the line machine. Of course it is faster than a 450. It should be for $3K. I'd still save $800-900 and buy a leftover/used/refurb dual 800 to hold me over till G5 time if I had to buy another Mac though. If you're comparing the 450 to a new 800, it's a different story. Does the new 800 offer that much of an upgrade over a 450 to people who would buy a single processor machine? Throw a new video card in the 450 and it would still be a very useable machine compared to the 800. I can get a 450 for $700-800 or possibly less as well. I'd be willing to bet people aren't beating down Apple's doors to buy any of the latest pro towers.
I don't disagree that Apple computers hold their value longer. I feel though a lot of the reason is that there is not that much of a technology jump in 2-3 year old Macs and today's latest offerings. People can save alot of money buying a used Mac and still have much of the capability of the newer machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still say we will see a G5 soon. MWNY is likely the best bet.
Apple hasn't released a next gen PowerMac in over a year now. The Dual GHz high end is simply a stop gap, which I'm sure everyone knows. Steve Jobs wasn't even quoted in the press release if that tells you anything. Clearly the Dual GHz G4s were not meant to be a next gen machine, but instead to hold over the pro market until the next gen towers and keep sales afloat.
I still feel that there was just too many G5 reports for it to be such a farce. Like some have mentioned, most supported rumors that don't come true DO end up coming true, just 6 months later. True, that's not the best way of thinking, but Apple has had over a year to design this new logicboard, and the G5 processor itself has been under construction for over 2 years. The time is coming soon.... very soon. 2002 is going to be the year of the desktop. Apple has already kicked it off with the iMac, and now the next generation tower awaits...
Sure hope you're right. Is there anything to the rumor that Apple has been having trouble redesigning the motherboard for the towers? A lot of people would be pleased with faster bus speeds, etc. even if the G5 doesn't immediately emerge.
"And all this science I don't understand / It's just my job five days a week."
Apple seems quite happy with its current line, so I wouldn't expect anything soon. The more surprising fact is that reviewers seem to be pretty satisfied with the Dual GHz machines as well, even in non-tech publications. Is it me, or is the press beginning to
a) understand the differences in architecture a bit better
and
b) judge systems based more on how they "feel" than on raw specs?
It's taken long enough, but compared to a year or two ago, I don't think I could personally ask for better reactions to Apple's current lineup.
Yes, the Pro line needs to improve and there's a lot of room for it, but at least word is getting out that actual Mac/PC performance differences aren't much to worry about as it is.
Mhz is just clockspeed. Many tests between different Pentiums show that overall speed isn't derived from just how many cycles there are per second. The same goes for any CPU. So no, a Ghz worth of increase doesn't automatically translate into the same amount of speed increase. That's why they call it " The Mhz Myth ".
For crying out loud, if you don't know what you're talking about, keep it to yourself. I am well aware of the MHz Myth. For CPUs that are otherwise identical, like the socket-478 and socket 423 P4s, the performance increase would be LINEAR. If I ran most benchmarks, going from 2 --> 3 GHz would mark a 50% increase. Look at <a href="http://www.distributed.net/speed/"; target="_blank">http://www.distributed.net/speed/</a>; Look at Ars Testbench results. Look at almost anything.
The guy above was comparing s P4 to a P4. Sheesh.
The guy above also claims a 2 GHz P4 is only 25% faster than a 1 GHz P4. The lowest speed P4 ever made available ran at 1.3 GHz. And he now supposes a 3 GHz P4 is going to be a mere 16% faster than a 2 GHz P4.
I don't really believe Apple is having problems with a next gen motherboard, I just think they are working hard with Motorola to get the G5 out the door and shipping in PowerMacs and a next gen motherboard with all the trimmings to go with it.
I think this is why we haven't seen any major mobo enhancements for over a year now.
Apple has about 6 to 9 months of time left to show something really new, ie a completely new motherboard and favorably also a new chip (read: G5). If they can't do it within this timespan, they're going to lose the pro market, and with some mroe bad luck in the other areas, also 50% of all the other sales (mainly PowerBooks will have trouble staying competitive).
For outsiders, Apple seems fine and doing well, but if you ask me, were quickly approaching 1996-1997 levels of despair.
<strong>I don't really believe Apple is having problems with a next gen motherboard, I just think they are working hard with Motorola to get the G5 out the door and shipping in PowerMacs and a next gen motherboard with all the trimmings to go with it.
I think this is why we haven't seen any major mobo enhancements for over a year now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the only problems Apple is having is figuring what is going to ready for the new UMA.
I think they are working on one for either a new G4, or maybe a G5 if it's ready in time, but there are some technologies that are almost finished, just not quite there yet. I think Apple does not want to release a new UMA, and then have to update it 1 year later if they can get everything in one shot.
This is not a rumor, or anything I got from anywhere else, but I personally thought that Apple (& CO.) may have skipped the first 800Mbps FireWire update, and continued on to develop the 1600Mbps version. It (1600Mbps) was rumored to be released within a year of the 800Mbps version anyways. USB 2.0 may have seemed too close at 460Mbps (or what ever it is) so they may have continued on with development.
It makes some sense to me because I was expecting a UMA update with FireWire v2, and USB 2.0 a long time ago, and now that there still is no update there are more available technologies to incorperate into a new UMA.
I don't kow that's my take.
BTW. I ordered a Dual GHz G4 w/ nvidia Ti, and you can all kiss my @ss. I had a 867Mhz G4, and loved it with out DDR, and all that other crap.
BTW. I ordered a Dual GHz G4 w/ nvidia Ti, and you can all kiss my @ss. I had a 867Mhz G4, and loved it with out DDR, and all that other crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you call innovation crap then,Now I understand why you are satisfied with the current Apple offer <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Comments
<strong>You don't think there's a connection between Apple's inability to get faster hardware out the door and the high resale value of used Macs?
If Apple charges $2000 for a brand new machine that is only marginally better than a 3 year old machine, then yes, used Apple hardware will retain it's value quite well.
If clockspeeds were to double across the board tomorrow, what do you think would happen to the value of the 3 year old hardware?</strong><hr></blockquote>
the point was not simply about resale value, i was addressing the useful lifespan of the machines. re-read my original post. thanks!
<strong>
the point was not simply about resale value, i was addressing the useful lifespan of the machines. re-read my original post. thanks!</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the same thing in terms of resale value and useful lifespan. The newer machines don't offer that much of an advantage over older machines. Why upgrade? Keep the older machines longer until there is a real advantage with a new machine. They hold value and demand a good price used because they are not really outdated by newer machines and are still very useable.
<strong>
It's the same thing in terms of resale value and useful lifespan. The newer machines don't offer that much of an advantage over older machines. Why upgrade? Keep the older machines longer until there is a real advantage with a new machine. They hold value and demand a good price used because they are not really outdated by newer machines and are still very useable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Was going to say exactly the same thing.
<strong>
It's the same thing in terms of resale value and useful lifespan. The newer machines don't offer that much of an advantage over older machines. Why upgrade? Keep the older machines longer until there is a real advantage with a new machine. They hold value and demand a good price used because they are not really outdated by newer machines and are still very useable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes they are really outdated...compared to a Dual 1GHz G4 with a GeForce 4MX, SuperDrive, ADC, 80 gig, 2MB L3 Cache, etc, a 3 year old 450MHz G4 is slow. Have you actually used one of the new machines then compared it directly with an old one?
Mhz is just clockspeed. Many tests between different Pentiums show that overall speed isn't derived from just how many cycles there are per second. The same goes for any CPU. So no, a Ghz worth of increase doesn't automatically translate into the same amount of speed increase. That's why they call it " The Mhz Myth ".
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Yes they are really outdated...compared to a Dual 1GHz G4 with a GeForce 4MX, SuperDrive, ADC, 80 gig, 2MB L3 Cache, etc, a 3 year old 450MHz G4 is slow. Have you actually used one of the new machines then compared it directly with an old one?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're talking about a $3k top of the line machine. Of course it is faster than a 450. It should be for $3K. I'd still save $800-900 and buy a leftover/used/refurb dual 800 to hold me over till G5 time if I had to buy another Mac though. If you're comparing the 450 to a new 800, it's a different story. Does the new 800 offer that much of an upgrade over a 450 to people who would buy a single processor machine? Throw a new video card in the 450 and it would still be a very useable machine compared to the 800. I can get a 450 for $700-800 or possibly less as well. I'd be willing to bet people aren't beating down Apple's doors to buy any of the latest pro towers.
[quote]Originally posted by AsahiToro:
<strong>
I don't disagree that Apple computers hold their value longer. I feel though a lot of the reason is that there is not that much of a technology jump in 2-3 year old Macs and today's latest offerings. People can save alot of money buying a used Mac and still have much of the capability of the newer machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Not what you said before:
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please explain.
Apple hasn't released a next gen PowerMac in over a year now. The Dual GHz high end is simply a stop gap, which I'm sure everyone knows. Steve Jobs wasn't even quoted in the press release if that tells you anything. Clearly the Dual GHz G4s were not meant to be a next gen machine, but instead to hold over the pro market until the next gen towers and keep sales afloat.
I still feel that there was just too many G5 reports for it to be such a farce. Like some have mentioned, most supported rumors that don't come true DO end up coming true, just 6 months later. True, that's not the best way of thinking, but Apple has had over a year to design this new logicboard, and the G5 processor itself has been under construction for over 2 years. The time is coming soon.... very soon. 2002 is going to be the year of the desktop. Apple has already kicked it off with the iMac, and now the next generation tower awaits...
[QB]I still say we will see a G5 soon.
Sure hope you're right. Is there anything to the rumor that Apple has been having trouble redesigning the motherboard for the towers? A lot of people would be pleased with faster bus speeds, etc. even if the G5 doesn't immediately emerge.
"And all this science I don't understand / It's just my job five days a week."
-Bernie Taupin
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
a) understand the differences in architecture a bit better
and
b) judge systems based more on how they "feel" than on raw specs?
It's taken long enough, but compared to a year or two ago, I don't think I could personally ask for better reactions to Apple's current lineup.
Yes, the Pro line needs to improve and there's a lot of room for it, but at least word is getting out that actual Mac/PC performance differences aren't much to worry about as it is.
-S
<strong>Eugene,
Mhz is just clockspeed. Many tests between different Pentiums show that overall speed isn't derived from just how many cycles there are per second. The same goes for any CPU. So no, a Ghz worth of increase doesn't automatically translate into the same amount of speed increase. That's why they call it " The Mhz Myth ".
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
For crying out loud, if you don't know what you're talking about, keep it to yourself. I am well aware of the MHz Myth. For CPUs that are otherwise identical, like the socket-478 and socket 423 P4s, the performance increase would be LINEAR. If I ran most benchmarks, going from 2 --> 3 GHz would mark a 50% increase. Look at <a href="http://www.distributed.net/speed/"; target="_blank">http://www.distributed.net/speed/</a>; Look at Ars Testbench results. Look at almost anything.
The guy above was comparing s P4 to a P4. Sheesh.
The guy above also claims a 2 GHz P4 is only 25% faster than a 1 GHz P4.
I think this is why we haven't seen any major mobo enhancements for over a year now.
Processeurs Intel®Â* Pentium®Â* 4-M 1,6 and 1,7 GHz
512 Ko cache Pipeline Burst L2
Front side bus 400Mhz
Bus AGP 4X 266 MHz
Nvidia Geforce 4 Go
Firewire
Ata 100 60Go hardrive
No this is not a desktop computer but the latest Dell LAPTOP specifications.....
And we are still crying to get DDR in the PowerMacs.
There is a big problem with Apple!!! And they say that they are satisfied with their current line up??
Please give me a break, Apple hardware is a joke.
[ 03-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]</p>
<strong> <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
Processeurs Intel®Â* Pentium®Â* 4-M 1,6 and 1,7 GHz
512 Ko cache Pipeline Burst L2
Front side bus 400Mhz
Bus AGP 4X 266 MHz
Nvidia Geforce 4 Go
Firewire
Ata 100 60Go hardrive
No this is not a desktop computer but the latest Dell LAPTOP specifications.....
And we are still crying to get DDR in the PowerMacs.
There is a big problem with Apple!!! And they say that they are satisfied with their current line up??
Please give me a break, Apple hardware is a joke.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then why are you here? You are obviously a PC enthusiast. Don't you have a UBB somewhere that you can go be PC guy at?
<strong>
Then why are you here? You are obviously a PC enthusiast. Don't you have a UBB somewhere that you can go be PC guy at?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Poor Onlooker it is with people like you, always enclined to accept whatever Apple has to offer, that the situation is so bad.
I'm a real mac lover and it is for this reason that this situation hurts me so much.
It is so easy to say if you are not happy go and buy a PC. It is the answer of the losers, people that cannot argue or face the reality.
And the reality is that Apple hardware suck big time, and I'm not the only one to think that.
For outsiders, Apple seems fine and doing well, but if you ask me, were quickly approaching 1996-1997 levels of despair.
G-News
<strong>I don't really believe Apple is having problems with a next gen motherboard, I just think they are working hard with Motorola to get the G5 out the door and shipping in PowerMacs and a next gen motherboard with all the trimmings to go with it.
I think this is why we haven't seen any major mobo enhancements for over a year now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the only problems Apple is having is figuring what is going to ready for the new UMA.
I think they are working on one for either a new G4, or maybe a G5 if it's ready in time, but there are some technologies that are almost finished, just not quite there yet. I think Apple does not want to release a new UMA, and then have to update it 1 year later if they can get everything in one shot.
This is not a rumor, or anything I got from anywhere else, but I personally thought that Apple (& CO.) may have skipped the first 800Mbps FireWire update, and continued on to develop the 1600Mbps version. It (1600Mbps) was rumored to be released within a year of the 800Mbps version anyways. USB 2.0 may have seemed too close at 460Mbps (or what ever it is) so they may have continued on with development.
It makes some sense to me because I was expecting a UMA update with FireWire v2, and USB 2.0 a long time ago, and now that there still is no update there are more available technologies to incorperate into a new UMA.
I don't kow that's my take.
BTW. I ordered a Dual GHz G4 w/ nvidia Ti, and you can all kiss my @ss. I had a 867Mhz G4, and loved it with out DDR, and all that other crap.
<strong>
BTW. I ordered a Dual GHz G4 w/ nvidia Ti, and you can all kiss my @ss. I had a 867Mhz G4, and loved it with out DDR, and all that other crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you call innovation crap then,Now I understand why you are satisfied with the current Apple offer <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Thank you for the explanation!!!