<strong>The question ultimately is: will Apple?s new hardware convince PC users to switch to a Macintosh?
Let?s take a look at the RUMORED Apple hardware for US $1699:
2 Motorola Processors
Memory
Hard Drive
Keyboard
Mouse
Macintosh OSX
Video Card
SuperDrive (DVD-RW)
Modem
Ethernet
Now, let?s take a look at a DELL Dimension 4500 for US $1247:
1 Intel Processor
Memory
Hard Drive
Keyboard
Mouse
Windows XP Home Edition
17? CRT Monitor
Video Card
DVD-RW Drive
Harmon Kardon speakers
Modem
Ethernet
6 Months Free Internet
Because of certain AMBIGUITIES regarding processor speeds and RAM types/speeds, I?ve eliminated any hardware references to SDRAM, DDR, MHz, etc. It?s also assumed that the video cards and Hard Drives are equivalent in both cases (pending tomorrow?s announcement).
Now, looking at these numbers, can someone tell me how Apple is going to convince a potential ?switcher? to pay US $452 more for Macintosh tower that does NOT include a CRT, speakers and internet?
Respectfully,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, from that point of view yes it looks a bit hard for a person considering a Switch. However, try this again with what I think is a fairer comparison (because it sounds like you're talking about the average consumer):
Rumored Superdrive eMac for US $1499
1 Motorola Processor
Memory
Hard Drive
Keyboard
Mouse
Mac OS X
17? CRT Monitor (built-in)
Video Card
DVD-RW Drive
built-in speakers
Modem
Ethernet
I don't consider internet access to be a point of comparison... if for some reason you don't have internet access by now, you save $60-$120, but most people who have a computer already likely have an ISP already.
So you're paying $250 more for an Apple consumer system with OS X. It's the premium you pay for an Apple product, and I think some would be willing to pay for it.
I don't know if anyone has already posted this because I didn't bother to check, but, doesn't a 1699 dollar dual 867 g4 seem a little cheap? I mean, I could get a single 800 MHz G4 iMac with a 17 inch screen for 1999 (not to mention the superdrive included). If I were to guess, I would say that it would be closer to 1999 than 1699.
<strong>My gut tells me we have a Powerbook type situation here. Like when the 550 and 667 Powerbooks were announced. the dual 867 will be 133MHz bus, the Dual GHz and Dual 1.2 will have ddr ram and ddr FSB, hence the difference in price between the new Dual GHz and the discontinued Dual GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>I want to repost this because I agree and Bodhi usually has very good instincts.
The only thing I would change is that I'm guessing it's not a DDR FSB, but rather a plain 166 FSB with (x-serve-style) DDR RAM in the top two models. I just doubt Apollo can use a DDR FSB, but I'd believe a 166 bus.
Overall, I think if that's true, it's a decent, but not fantastic, upgrade. I'm just annoyed at the price increase. They're trying to .mac their loyal user base to death through the downturn, not innovate.
New Power Mac G4 systems to be unveiled tomorrow with speeds up to 1.25GHz
August 12 - 16:33 EDT Apple will unveil new Power Mac G4 systems tomorrow, MacMinute has learned. Sources inform us that three configurations will be offered: dual-867MHz (US$1,699), dual-1GHz ($2,499), and dual-1.25GHz ($3,299). The dual-1GHz and dual-1.25GHz models will feature ATI Radeon 9000 series graphics cards; additional system-specific details are not available. The dual-867MHz configuration is slated to ship by the end of the week, while the new dual-1GHz model will ship towards the end of the month. Availability of the high-end dual-1.25GHz model is being pegged at sometime in September. Current Power Mac G4 systems will be reduced in price as follows: 800MHz ($1,299), 933MHz ($1,499) and dual-1GHz ($2,199). Additionally, Apple will introduce a SuperDrive-equipped eMac for $1,499, sources say, and will reduce the price of CD-RW and Combo Drive iMacs by $100 to $1,299 and $1,499, respectively.<hr></blockquote>
That's crap!
Macminute isn't right every time. Think Secret is as reliable as Mosr.com and maccn only hope for being right by copying that crap.
1,25 Ghz ?
How?
166 * 7,5=1,25 Ghz...166 SDRAM ?--> NO
333* 4=1333 / 333 * 3,75 seems very impossible for me....i dont think these multipiers exist..
166/333 DDR Hack? No! They could have released DDR Hack at Powermac line when they introduced XServe.
1,2 Ghz is also unlikely, cause 133 with a multiplier of 9 (remember the times when a multiplier of 5 was HIGH; remeber the 604 with 350 Mhz=50*7)is crappy. That won't be a performance gain over the 1GHz...
I think of 1GHz/333 true DDR, 1,333Ghz/333 DDR, Dual 1333Ghz/333...
Another good thing about the top speed being racheted up to ~1.2 GHz:
iMac GHz+
TiBook GHz-ish
iBook G4 (?)
1) iMac: Despite everyone (including Apple themselves) talking about how iMac is a marvel because of it's small design, it's still plenty big enough to include enough heat sinks and fans to power any chip Motorola has. I suspect that the price on the newest fast chips are quite high, so don't expect any 1.2 GHz iMacs, but I don't think 1 GHz is unreasonable.
2) TiBook: Apple uses a low-powered Powermac chip in TiBooks. If the standard powered ones go above 1.2 GHz, then certainly that means their fabs have improved. If so, their yields of low powered chips at greater speeds has improved. Since the fastest TiBook chip is 80% of the fastest Powermac chip at 1 GHz, then at 1.2 GHz you get chips in the 960 MHz range or so. This would be around 166.67x5.5 (917) or 166x6.0 (1000).
3) IF TiBooks get high speed G4's up near a GHz, then iBooks could conceivable get even lower power g4 chips around 700-800 MHz. I doubt that Apple will drop the G3 (it's any easy way of generating profit for and thus keeping goodwill towards IBM), but it could happen.
The SWITCH campaign takes place in iWorld, kids. And even faster iMacs and iBooks is where the rubber meets the road.
by gar [quote] I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.
They want a sort of value for money allthough they'll never use the entire value. 50 % at most, that means even a emac is to blassing fast for them and they stick to thier G4 400 for a couple of years.
<hr></blockquote>
Maybe you are right. I am a person who will probably stick with iMacs and laptops. Currently, however, I feel that until the powermac really turns into a POWERMAC, the whole lineup suffers.
The powermac needs to get way out in front of the iMac. (I'm only referring to speed here, BTW.)This will allow the powerbook to get a little more ahead as well.
While the your daily mac predictions are most probably way too optimistic, what looked good to me was the build to order options where the power user could just keep adding on and increasing the pro model gap.
I love macs, have no intention of switching, have ordered Jaguar and .mac. I just don't think that until the Powermac really gets an increase that the mac lineup will really kick the crap of out of the other side. Maybe that doesn't matter....
Seeing the article where the Apple rep states the next quarter being flat to breaking even leads me to believe that the hohum macminute specs are real.
Face it, this is what we're getting. 1.2 at the high end is the best we can hope for right now, and gains will continue to be dismal until IBM rescues the platform. An extremely depressing affair to be sure.
Also, with a Dell you're getting a computer that has been manufactured with the cheapest available parts. In other words, trouble is a coming to the user. Also the software bundle with the eMac is superior in every way for the average consumer. Dell is leveraging its future on numbers rather than profit margins. Eventually it will have to pay the piper, especially if HP-Compaq gets back into the race. Gateway? Forget it, they're outta here by the end of next year, 2004 at the earliest. Anyway, if you don't like Apple products you have plenty of other stuff to buy. Tomorrow iMacs will be cheaper.
The more I look at this, the more the 867 looks like a sweet deal...if it is $1699 my mind is made up...
Also, assuming the specs are right, and the 1.25 does ship 'sometime' in Sept, it doesn't bode well for an update at MWSF. 3 months...seems like the IBM 'holy grail' Mac could be further away than we think...
The SWITCH campaign takes place in iWorld, kids. And even faster iMacs and iBooks is where the rubber meets the road.
Jet</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, thats one of the best points made on here all day long. Potential switchers are more likely going to be focused on the iBooks and iMacs, not these new PowerMacs. Sure some people will go straight to the power line, I did when I switched, but most people that they're targeting aren't worried about pure power as much as they are ease of use, and reliablity.
[quote]Potential switchers are more likely going to be focused on the iBooks and iMacs, not these new PowerMacs. Sure some people will go straight to the power line, I did when I switched, but most people that they're targeting aren't worried about pure power as much as they are ease of use, and reliablity.
<hr></blockquote>
That is a good point. Which is also exactly why the powermac must gain distance on the iMac. It is dragging down (holding back) the rest of the lineup in terms of speed.
Ease of use, etc can surely help make someone switch. But speed and ease of use and reliability will make it even more of a no brainer. Crank up the powermac so the rest of the platform can fly!
I can't seem to understand why people cannot critize Apple. I can't seem to understand why people fail to accept that the Wintel side is out competition. I can't seem to understand why people constantly pull out the argument "it does what I want I need it do fast enough." OS X isn't that great you know. Sure it's UNIX but everything than you can do on OS X can be done on NT based Windows XP. Sure you get iApps, and what not, but there are freeware apps on the Windows too you know, and believe it or not, they get the same things done that the iApps do. Sure a 1 GHz G4 got most people's work done, but a 1GHz P3 got everyone's work done about the same too. Why do people buy the latest and greatest technology when most of the power goes over their head? Oh, now I know, it's because some of that power trickles down to making their mundane tasks a bit faster. The performance gap between Macs and Wintels is very real. And merely purporting that a 1 GHz G4 is as good as a 2.53 GHz P4 based on the "MHz Myth" is complete bull sh1t that only serves to make people more comfortable with their performance inferior computers. People wake up, if OS X were on x86s we'd all move like one big herd starving for meat. Why is that? Oh because the x86 architecture is much better. OS X only gives you so much. Sure it's nice to look at, and works smoothly, but when it comes down to getting actual work done, Windows XP gets the job done too, and faster--simply, faster. That's the cold hard truth. Because of Motorola we're not even putting up a fight against the Wintel Goliath. Sure there is good news about a 64-bit IBM chip, but that's still long ways down the road. What happens in the mean time? Pro users get the shaft, simple as that. Just because they want to use OS X. Why didn't Apple start working with IBM earlier? They're a big corporation that could have easily handled OS X transitioning and processor transitioning. This is a classic "Give me a break" scenario. Seriously, Apple has to get their act together. Until then, I'm going to go to platform that isn't in a rut.
<strong>Also, assuming the specs are right, and the 1.25 does ship 'sometime' in Sept, it doesn't bode well for an update at MWSF. 3 months...seems like the IBM 'holy grail' Mac could be further away than we think...
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Marcus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It only means Motorola is having problems again, and right now, Apple really needs to fight hard to break financial even.
I dont think they will move the chip to 0.13micron if those specs are the real deal. The 7470 is a yet-another-fictional-product-from -MacOSRumors.com (tm), and I really doubt we will see a _new_ Motorola PPC design in an Apple product ever again.
The fact that for the last 2 years, Motorola havent talked about any mac-related PPC technology at the Microprocessor Forum, is a proof good enough for me. The very last thing Motorola talked about was a SOI G4e (2 years ago).. Thats the chip in the inside current Powermacs.
Those of you having discussions about the specs and what may be released, thanks for your input. The others who are insulting each other cause they disagree..let it go man.
<strong>I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe that's true for others, but not for me.
I was ready to leap at something like a dual 1.4 GHz with full DDR support. I might not even wait until after work to go buy (or reserve one, at least) -- I'd take a long lunch break and head to the local Apple store, credit card in hand.
But for only a speed bump to 1.2 or 1.25 GHz, especially if it's only Xserve-style DDR (or no DDR at all) -- that's not enough to get me excited.
Dual 1.25, if it has full DDR support, is on the borderline to get me to buy a new Mac. But I'd take my time about it, wait for some reviews, see how much of a measured performance increase there was, see how happy new buyers were.
Why does 0.15 GHz matter that much? It's just a threshold-of-excitement thing, I guess. If you imagine all complainers here are cheapskates who wouldn't be buying anything new anyway, consider this:
January: Purchased 667 MHz TiBook. Sold my 11-month old 500 MHz TiBook on eBay.
May: Purchased 800 MHz TiBook -- mainly because it had a DVI video port -- and a 22" Cinema Display. Sold my 4-month old 667 MHz TiBook on eBay.
Early August: Purchased 20 GB iPod.
Apple is getting a fairly big chunk of my disposable income this year!
I don't need a faster Mac because I think it will increase my productivity 25% or help me earn $X/hour more than I do now. Chances are even the most hyper video and graphics artists aren't going to see a noticeable change in their balance sheets from anything less than a doubling of computing power.
Maybe 5% of computer users have legit reasons for claiming they need a really, really fast computer. I think most of upgrade only because we either haven't upgraded in so long that what we currently have is woefully antiquated... or we just want an exciting new toy.
My current TiBook already covers all my legit needs for having a computer. If I don't buy a new Mac tomorrow it's not because I'm switching to Wintel or because I'm not ready to buy anyway. It's because, if the rumors are true, the new Power Macs simply don't excite me enough to buy them. Believe me -- I'd rather be excited and buying something new. I consider the MacMinute/Think Secret news disappointing.
To me, buying a new Mac would be saying "Way to go, Apple!" These specs that are predicted aren't, however, the way Apple should be going.
I really like OS X, and Jaguar sounds like it's going to be even better. I have no complaints with Apple on the software front. But if they can't do better than 1.25 GHz, they're falling terribly behind on the hardware front. If that's all they can do for now -- maybe because it's the best they could get out of Motorola -- I'll stick with my TiBook for now and hope for some Power4-related spin-off next year.
[Edited because I had a brain lapse vis-Ã*-vis UBB Code vs. HTML]
Lol, I just got more proof that there are going new powermacs tomorrow. I was looking at macmall and I saw that their powermac free ram thing expires today, the 12th---not available on the 13th. hmmmm.... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Were I to consider buying some Macs for my company to run shake on, the performance Apple offers simply doesn't make it viable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Over the recent years, Apple has been clearly ahead in terms of performance. However, depending on the application, the gap is much narrower now and there is no clear winner.
Your post might signal to others that performance equals megahertz. Don't fall into that trap. While it might be true for some, this is a very shallow indicator.
Some say that Windows caught on years ago... well... LOL... I am a Windows LAN administrator, I have seen the hype and I have to deal with the crap.
Comments
<strong>
Hey! Don't knock the G4/400, man. I love my 3 year old Sawtooth!
that's what I mean, you're to contended
<strong>The question ultimately is: will Apple?s new hardware convince PC users to switch to a Macintosh?
Let?s take a look at the RUMORED Apple hardware for US $1699:
- 2 Motorola Processors
- Memory
- Hard Drive
- Keyboard
- Mouse
- Macintosh OSX
- Video Card
- SuperDrive (DVD-RW)
- Modem
- Ethernet
Now, let?s take a look at a DELL Dimension 4500 for US $1247:- 1 Intel Processor
- Memory
- Hard Drive
- Keyboard
- Mouse
- Windows XP Home Edition
- 17? CRT Monitor
- Video Card
- DVD-RW Drive
- Harmon Kardon speakers
- Modem
- Ethernet
- 6 Months Free Internet
Because of certain AMBIGUITIES regarding processor speeds and RAM types/speeds, I?ve eliminated any hardware references to SDRAM, DDR, MHz, etc. It?s also assumed that the video cards and Hard Drives are equivalent in both cases (pending tomorrow?s announcement).Now, looking at these numbers, can someone tell me how Apple is going to convince a potential ?switcher? to pay US $452 more for Macintosh tower that does NOT include a CRT, speakers and internet?
Respectfully,
-theMagius</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, from that point of view yes it looks a bit hard for a person considering a Switch. However, try this again with what I think is a fairer comparison (because it sounds like you're talking about the average consumer):
Rumored Superdrive eMac for US $1499
- 1 Motorola Processor
- Memory
- Hard Drive
- Keyboard
- Mouse
- Mac OS X
- 17? CRT Monitor (built-in)
- Video Card
- DVD-RW Drive
- built-in speakers
- Modem
- Ethernet
I don't consider internet access to be a point of comparison... if for some reason you don't have internet access by now, you save $60-$120, but most people who have a computer already likely have an ISP already.So you're paying $250 more for an Apple consumer system with OS X. It's the premium you pay for an Apple product, and I think some would be willing to pay for it.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: MCQ ]</p>
? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Bioflavonoid ]</p>
<strong>My gut tells me we have a Powerbook type situation here. Like when the 550 and 667 Powerbooks were announced. the dual 867 will be 133MHz bus, the Dual GHz and Dual 1.2 will have ddr ram and ddr FSB, hence the difference in price between the new Dual GHz and the discontinued Dual GHz.</strong><hr></blockquote>I want to repost this because I agree and Bodhi usually has very good instincts.
The only thing I would change is that I'm guessing it's not a DDR FSB, but rather a plain 166 FSB with (x-serve-style) DDR RAM in the top two models. I just doubt Apollo can use a DDR FSB, but I'd believe a 166 bus.
Overall, I think if that's true, it's a decent, but not fantastic, upgrade. I'm just annoyed at the price increase. They're trying to .mac their loyal user base to death through the downturn, not innovate.
New Power Mac G4 systems to be unveiled tomorrow with speeds up to 1.25GHz
August 12 - 16:33 EDT Apple will unveil new Power Mac G4 systems tomorrow, MacMinute has learned. Sources inform us that three configurations will be offered: dual-867MHz (US$1,699), dual-1GHz ($2,499), and dual-1.25GHz ($3,299). The dual-1GHz and dual-1.25GHz models will feature ATI Radeon 9000 series graphics cards; additional system-specific details are not available. The dual-867MHz configuration is slated to ship by the end of the week, while the new dual-1GHz model will ship towards the end of the month. Availability of the high-end dual-1.25GHz model is being pegged at sometime in September. Current Power Mac G4 systems will be reduced in price as follows: 800MHz ($1,299), 933MHz ($1,499) and dual-1GHz ($2,199). Additionally, Apple will introduce a SuperDrive-equipped eMac for $1,499, sources say, and will reduce the price of CD-RW and Combo Drive iMacs by $100 to $1,299 and $1,499, respectively.<hr></blockquote>
That's crap!
Macminute isn't right every time. Think Secret is as reliable as Mosr.com and maccn only hope for being right by copying that crap.
1,25 Ghz ?
How?
166 * 7,5=1,25 Ghz...166 SDRAM ?--> NO
333* 4=1333 / 333 * 3,75 seems very impossible for me....i dont think these multipiers exist..
166/333 DDR Hack? No! They could have released DDR Hack at Powermac line when they introduced XServe.
1,2 Ghz is also unlikely, cause 133 with a multiplier of 9 (remember the times when a multiplier of 5 was HIGH; remeber the 604 with 350 Mhz=50*7)is crappy. That won't be a performance gain over the 1GHz...
I think of 1GHz/333 true DDR, 1,333Ghz/333 DDR, Dual 1333Ghz/333...
iMac GHz+
TiBook GHz-ish
iBook G4 (?)
1) iMac: Despite everyone (including Apple themselves) talking about how iMac is a marvel because of it's small design, it's still plenty big enough to include enough heat sinks and fans to power any chip Motorola has. I suspect that the price on the newest fast chips are quite high, so don't expect any 1.2 GHz iMacs, but I don't think 1 GHz is unreasonable.
2) TiBook: Apple uses a low-powered Powermac chip in TiBooks. If the standard powered ones go above 1.2 GHz, then certainly that means their fabs have improved. If so, their yields of low powered chips at greater speeds has improved. Since the fastest TiBook chip is 80% of the fastest Powermac chip at 1 GHz, then at 1.2 GHz you get chips in the 960 MHz range or so. This would be around 166.67x5.5 (917) or 166x6.0 (1000).
3) IF TiBooks get high speed G4's up near a GHz, then iBooks could conceivable get even lower power g4 chips around 700-800 MHz. I doubt that Apple will drop the G3 (it's any easy way of generating profit for and thus keeping goodwill towards IBM), but it could happen.
The SWITCH campaign takes place in iWorld, kids. And even faster iMacs and iBooks is where the rubber meets the road.
Jet
They want a sort of value for money allthough they'll never use the entire value. 50 % at most, that means even a emac is to blassing fast for them and they stick to thier G4 400 for a couple of years.
<hr></blockquote>
Maybe you are right. I am a person who will probably stick with iMacs and laptops. Currently, however, I feel that until the powermac really turns into a POWERMAC, the whole lineup suffers.
The powermac needs to get way out in front of the iMac. (I'm only referring to speed here, BTW.)This will allow the powerbook to get a little more ahead as well.
While the your daily mac predictions are most probably way too optimistic, what looked good to me was the build to order options where the power user could just keep adding on and increasing the pro model gap.
I love macs, have no intention of switching, have ordered Jaguar and .mac. I just don't think that until the Powermac really gets an increase that the mac lineup will really kick the crap of out of the other side. Maybe that doesn't matter....
Seeing the article where the Apple rep states the next quarter being flat to breaking even leads me to believe that the hohum macminute specs are real.
Also, assuming the specs are right, and the 1.25 does ship 'sometime' in Sept, it doesn't bode well for an update at MWSF. 3 months...seems like the IBM 'holy grail' Mac could be further away than we think...
Peace,
Marc
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Marcus ]</p>
[QB]
That's crap!
rest of post edited for being stupid<hr></blockquote>
Lesson 1: DDR means Double Data Rate over the FSB. In PC land, DDR 266 is on a 133 bus. DDR 333 is on a 166 bus.
Lesson 2: Multipliers work in .5 increments.
Lesson 3: Half of 166 is 83.
Lesson 4: It's actually 133.33 and 166.67, to be more precise.
Therefore:
1250/166.67=7.5
A 1.25 GHz chip is a chip with a 166.67 MHz FSB with a 7.5 multiplier. It's simple math, plus just the tiniest bit of understanding of DDR and FSB.
Jet
<strong>
The SWITCH campaign takes place in iWorld, kids. And even faster iMacs and iBooks is where the rubber meets the road.
Jet</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know, thats one of the best points made on here all day long. Potential switchers are more likely going to be focused on the iBooks and iMacs, not these new PowerMacs. Sure some people will go straight to the power line, I did when I switched, but most people that they're targeting aren't worried about pure power as much as they are ease of use, and reliablity.
<hr></blockquote>
That is a good point. Which is also exactly why the powermac must gain distance on the iMac. It is dragging down (holding back) the rest of the lineup in terms of speed.
Ease of use, etc can surely help make someone switch. But speed and ease of use and reliability will make it even more of a no brainer. Crank up the powermac so the rest of the platform can fly!
<strong>Also, assuming the specs are right, and the 1.25 does ship 'sometime' in Sept, it doesn't bode well for an update at MWSF. 3 months...seems like the IBM 'holy grail' Mac could be further away than we think...
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Marcus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It only means Motorola is having problems again, and right now, Apple really needs to fight hard to break financial even.
I dont think they will move the chip to 0.13micron if those specs are the real deal. The 7470 is a yet-another-fictional-product-from -MacOSRumors.com (tm), and I really doubt we will see a _new_ Motorola PPC design in an Apple product ever again.
The fact that for the last 2 years, Motorola havent talked about any mac-related PPC technology at the Microprocessor Forum, is a proof good enough for me. The very last thing Motorola talked about was a SOI G4e (2 years ago).. Thats the chip in the inside current Powermacs.
<strong>I think most of the people complaining about this speedbump never intended to buy a new Powermac in the first place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe that's true for others, but not for me.
I was ready to leap at something like a dual 1.4 GHz with full DDR support. I might not even wait until after work to go buy (or reserve one, at least) -- I'd take a long lunch break and head to the local Apple store, credit card in hand.
But for only a speed bump to 1.2 or 1.25 GHz, especially if it's only Xserve-style DDR (or no DDR at all) -- that's not enough to get me excited.
Dual 1.25, if it has full DDR support, is on the borderline to get me to buy a new Mac. But I'd take my time about it, wait for some reviews, see how much of a measured performance increase there was, see how happy new buyers were.
Why does 0.15 GHz matter that much? It's just a threshold-of-excitement thing, I guess. If you imagine all complainers here are cheapskates who wouldn't be buying anything new anyway, consider this:
January: Purchased 667 MHz TiBook. Sold my 11-month old 500 MHz TiBook on eBay.
May: Purchased 800 MHz TiBook -- mainly because it had a DVI video port -- and a 22" Cinema Display. Sold my 4-month old 667 MHz TiBook on eBay.
Early August: Purchased 20 GB iPod.
Apple is getting a fairly big chunk of my disposable income this year!
I don't need a faster Mac because I think it will increase my productivity 25% or help me earn $X/hour more than I do now. Chances are even the most hyper video and graphics artists aren't going to see a noticeable change in their balance sheets from anything less than a doubling of computing power.
Maybe 5% of computer users have legit reasons for claiming they need a really, really fast computer. I think most of upgrade only because we either haven't upgraded in so long that what we currently have is woefully antiquated... or we just want an exciting new toy.
My current TiBook already covers all my legit needs for having a computer. If I don't buy a new Mac tomorrow it's not because I'm switching to Wintel or because I'm not ready to buy anyway. It's because, if the rumors are true, the new Power Macs simply don't excite me enough to buy them. Believe me -- I'd rather be excited and buying something new. I consider the MacMinute/Think Secret news disappointing.
To me, buying a new Mac would be saying "Way to go, Apple!" These specs that are predicted aren't, however, the way Apple should be going.
I really like OS X, and Jaguar sounds like it's going to be even better. I have no complaints with Apple on the software front. But if they can't do better than 1.25 GHz, they're falling terribly behind on the hardware front. If that's all they can do for now -- maybe because it's the best they could get out of Motorola -- I'll stick with my TiBook for now and hope for some Power4-related spin-off next year.
[Edited because I had a brain lapse vis-Ã*-vis UBB Code vs. HTML]
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: shetline ]</p>
<strong>I think that a lot of people who are complaining don't even have a QuickSilver.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey there.
<strong>Were I to consider buying some Macs for my company to run shake on, the performance Apple offers simply doesn't make it viable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Over the recent years, Apple has been clearly ahead in terms of performance. However, depending on the application, the gap is much narrower now and there is no clear winner.
Your post might signal to others that performance equals megahertz. Don't fall into that trap. While it might be true for some, this is a very shallow indicator.
Some say that Windows caught on years ago... well... LOL... I am a Windows LAN administrator, I have seen the hype and I have to deal with the crap.