Every thread about the G5 turns into a debate about storage capacity. \
Is this like some form of Godwin's law where the longer a discussion about the G5 goes on the greater the odds someone will reignite the expansion debate or would it be more correct to use a new term, "Matsu's Law".
I don't see how a dual 1.8 can be shoehorned in anywhere without seriously screwing up the whole line's pricing. $2,549 is barely low enough to justify not getting the 2x2.0, and what happens to the single 1.8? I can't imagine them reducing the price when they haven't even started shipping yet.
What I hope happens is the single 1.8 is completely replaced by the new dual and all existing single 1.8 customers can pay the extra $150 to move up, or be credited $400 to move down. I bet 95% of people would happily move up in that scenario, even with the extra cost.
I think what we are seeing with Apples supposed sales figures is that SMP is already killing off the 1.8GHz machine. It is pretty funny but Apple is apparently underestimating the value of SMP, which is ironic considering Apple have the best platform going for SMP at the moment. Well with in a reasonable price range that is.
Considering its price the, 1.8GHz machine should have been SMP all along. Since Apple customers literally have years of experience with SMP they are not likely to give it up. The experience is sort of overwhelming like moving into adulthood. Frankly; consideirng its price & specs, I really have no idea as to whom Apple expected to market the 1.6GHz machine.
Which brings up Apples marketing, just whom are they and od they have any contact whatsoever with there customer base? You feed your customers a diet of AMP for years then you expect them to give it up for the next shiny new processor. Come on now we are not all lemmings blindly following the RDF, knowledge learned can not be unlearned by the application of such a field. SMP is now and forever will be a key part of the Mac platform. It truely shows a marginal understanding of the customer base to try to walk away from it especially in the pro line. What Apple marketing should be doing, is figuring out how to get SMP into its consumer line.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Zapchud
Kill the SP 1.8, lower the price of the DP 1.8 slightly, and kill some price at the 1.6Ghz department too.
SP 1.8 sales will stagnate if Apple releases a DP model for only $150 more! An DP 1.8 would sell like hotcakes. The 2GHz model is a little too much for what people can afford, and as the 1.8GHz processor reportedly has significantly better yields, the DP1.8 would move alot of pressure to the right spot, reducing delays, and all in all, Apple would sell more, I think!
I'd definitely get the dual 1.8 instead of a dual 2ghz, if the price has a $500 difference. The purchase of a dual 2GHz is over my budget, really, but I'll just have to get it. I refuse to get another SP.
I think the mumbo jumbo is contained below. One must realize that pros come in many forms. Some are individuals that simply can not justify a NAS system. There is also the question of getting good value for you money. Expandable and upgradeable machines can often represent good value. Finally some of the expansion device people are interested in don't work well when attached to a server at the other end of the hall way.
As to the issue of the case, its called engineering. someone needs to take a look at what the got and come up with an economical solution.
Frankly the G5 reminds me of the old MacPlus I had. In the end I got so frustrated with its lake of expansion potential that I crossed over to the PC side. Immediately after started a long desire to get back on to a MAC system. But leasons learned the hardway are stick enforcers of a clear mind, nothing form Apple recently has left me with that warm feelling that this is good hardware.
That is until the G5 arrived. These machines have so much going for them that it is truely amazing. But I do have to look at them with a critical eye and wonder how they will handle future needs. Throwing all future expansion into a external box is ugly and unreliable.
Not to worry though as they bank account has to build up before I become attached to one of these.
Thanks
dave
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Don't count on it. How many people have 4 SATA drives. There's no room for SATA-PATA adapters. Adding 4 Internal bays would require massive Case changes. User need to realizee that Apple is not going to have more than 2 HD bays for the next 3-4 years. And don't give me that "Pro" mumbo jumbo. Pros uses Network Storage. Hell I'm not a Pro and I save my important files to the Server.
I like the idea of Killing the Single 1.8 and just making it a Dual. Apple should have done that in the first place.
I think you're missing a few points that many professionals are trying to get aired.
The value in a tower design comes from future expansion potential. That may be SATA or PATA it really doesn't matter. Also at the point where you do expand the machine noise and other issues are really the expanders resposibility.
No it is not a question of using legacy drives, its a question of being able to add to your current storage capacity in a reasonable manner. This may be a week or a year after you buy the hardware. In any event the highest performance solutions are internal as opposed to network attached.
Yes I can see drives with that capacity in less than a few years. In most cases though one will not want to give up the current storage capacity. Even if you are willing to part with that capacity, you still have to transfer the data.
Apples approach was more than "bone headed" it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of their users needs. It not a matter of providing storage its a matter of provide growth potential which is a whole differrent issue. Not to mention is the issue with an externally accesible device.
Please understnad that I fully understand the concept and utility of a network attached storage system with Raid and the everything. But do understnad that such systems are not cheap, you can buy two G5's for the cost of one of Apples system. I also understand the possibilities with ethernet based storage running raid on a linux system. But even with the capability of Linux & raid on a cheap PC you still have the cost and maintenance of another PC and severla harddrives. Not to mention the cost of keeping a Linux raid system maintained.
Even with all of these possibilites, none of them are susbstitute for large storage on the local machine. They especially don't deal with the issue of externally accessible media. Nor do they deal with the fact that technology changes and someitmes it is required to bridge technology on a machine.
Apple isn't limniting us because we are not willing to blindly fall into technolgy traps such as firewire or external devices of any sort. It must be considered a marketing triumph by someone to see that they have convinced people that firewire is an acceptable interface for system drives. Those that are trying to maintain economical solutions to their computing needs see firewire in a differrent light.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Multiple Drives are just a bad idea for many reason.
1. Too many platters. You have more heat..more noise and more PS draw using multiple drives. The efficiency lies with reducing your multiple drives down to 1 or two.
2. Price- Penny wise pound foolish. You want Apple to engineer in 2 more Drive Bays which would cost more money so you can use cheap legacy drives. Sounds like a Wash to me.
Hey I agree with you Towers are for upgrading. But in the next few years we will have 500GB Drives for under $300. I mean what's the point of stuffing in a bunch of dinky drives?
The move was not Bone Headed. Professionals aren't screaming about it because they don't need a Terabyte of local storage despite your desire to toss in your legacy drives. You're failing to see the point. The Solution Apple is providing is "Can our users utilize 500GB of internal storage?" The answer is YES. Frankly Apple doesn't have to give a damn about your legacy drives they've provided room for ample storage.
Apple isn't limiting you. What you are asking for is INTERNAL storage. All the more reason to have RAID, SAN or NAS. If you have someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to set up a NAS for Fileserver then they shouldn't be in charge of 100s of Gigabytes of Data.
The end story here is that Networks have ruled for Decades. Local storage is simply not as important to perhaps the majority of computer users. I haven't heard ONE Professional bitch about drive bays other than the optical. FW drives rule the roost for Digital Video and Audio .
I like the rumor, but not the price. If the rumor is true however, then thy would essentially be admitting that a single 1.8 proc machine is overpriced. Apple would rather buy Steve another jet than lower a price on a new product.
I have to disagree here. Apple has been feeding their pro line a SMP diet for a couple of years now. It will be very difficult for them to wean people from this very real benefit. It is not the absolute power of the processor that is a concenr to pros ( well not all of us) but the overall response of the systems. Once one has had SMP one is not likely to go back to being a virgin.
As far as a dual 1.8 goes you may be right. There is such a pent up demand for better peformance out of the Mac line that I bet many people are simply going for the most they can get even though unbiased real world performance information is not available. The other issue is that economy is bad and you need to maximize the performace of your computing hardware in order to obtain jobs and be cost competitive. So I'm not even truely sure that a dual 1.8 GHz machine would solve the problems, the demand for cost effective computing pwoer has never been greater in Apples pro markets.
Thanks
DAVE
Quote:
Originally posted by Addison
It seems to me that you could argue that Apple has had a huge sucess because they have created hugh demand for their most expensive machine, which is a nice position to be in. However, if they can't ship them because there are not enough chips to go around and they have sufficent 1.8's then it might make some sense. Apple is likely to make more money selling 1.8 sp than 1.8 dp machines and if they have 26,000 backorders I wouldn't want to half the capacity by doubling the processor requirement.
Apple has not yet shipped any machines and the chances of them re-configuring their lineup before they are aboe to me demand for any product seems unlikely. In hindsight they should have probably brought out a 1.6 sp , 1.8 dp and a 2ghz dp but at a higher price until the supply/demand curve is ballanced. With a brand new processor like this it must have been difficult to assess demand as I expect that having tested the machines Apple have assumed that a single 1.6 or 1.8 is such a speed improvement over what we alreadfy have that more people would have been satisifed with their performance. We the public havn't so naturally gravitate towards the best machine. I am willing to be that the 1.8 sp with Panther is still going to blow most of us away, it's just that we don't know it yet.
More random thoughts: For the record, Apple has jiggered post-announced, pre-released products before. (details hazy in my poor, abused brain).
The B&W's were altered shortly after they were announced, and of course we all remember the 350/400/450/500 fiasco of a rollout of the original G4.
If this rumor is just one piece of a larger price rejiggering and configuration change*, then maybe it's a little more plausible.....after all, nothing has rolled off the assembly lines, so it's not like they'd have to do any serious changing around. Sure, the re-ordering process would be a bit annoying, but a couple of overtime shifts at 1800MYAPPLE should fix that.....
It still seems far-fetched to me, but I'm a little bit more inclined to buy it, as part of a larger change we don't yet know about.
* - since no AIFH post is complete without a proposed spec sheet:
1.6 sp PCI - $1800
1.8 sp PCIX - $2200
1.8 dp PCIX - $2550
2.0 dp PCIX - $3000
the theory being that Apple believe the orders for the lower end models are low because they cost too much, and that by lowering the prices, they'll entice more orders, while keeping orders strong in the dp category and adding more with the 1.8 dp.
I like the rumor, but not the price. If the rumor is true however, then thy would essentially be admitting that a single 1.8 proc machine is overpriced. Apple would rather buy Steve another jet than lower a price on a new product.
All the more reason to replace the single 1.8 with a dual 1.8 at $150 more. All current single 1.8 customers would have the choice of moving up or down. Most would gladly move up.
Then when the machines actually hit the street, you'd have this:
Single 1.6 $1999
Dual 1.8 $2549
Dual 2.0 $2999
Basically, Apple realized they made a mistake not making the mid range dual, so this way they can fix it and increase prices at the same time.
What can I say...I highly doubt this claim. I can't remember a single time in Apple's history when a product was updated before shipping to the general publis. This would confuse many people, and present further logistical problems for Apple. For example...the Powermac Dual 2.0's cooling system was designed specifically for the Dual 2.0, and the powermac 1.8's system for the 1.8. Changing the already-butild models wouldn't be worth the struggle, unless some patch could be released before shipping.
This sounds plenty ulikely. Anyway, Apple will be able to use up the 1.8's on Rev. B's low end model.
Um remember when apple bumbed the G4 down to 450MHz after initially releasing it at 500MHz? I seem to remember something about that.
the Powermac Dual 2.0's cooling system was designed specifically for the Dual 2.0, and the powermac 1.8's system for the 1.8. Changing the already-butild models wouldn't be worth the struggle, unless some patch could be released before shipping.
I don't think this cooling technology as advanced as they'd you'd like to think.....besides, anything that could keep a 2x2.0 cool could keep a 2x1.8 cool, since they will most likely throw off the same amount of heat OR LESS.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Being a pro machine, would it really be that confusing if the lineup went to:
SP 1.8 - $1999
DP 1.6 - $2599
DP 2.0 - $2999
If they have an over abundance of 1.8 GHZ chips, they can now be used in the bottom two machines while the top stays the same.
All duals baby:
DP 1.6 - $1999
DP 1.8 - $2499
DP 2.0 - $2999
All they need to do is make the performance/price ratio constant, or slightly, and I mean slight, increasing with increasing performance if they want more margin.
Comments
Originally posted by msantti
How in the hell did this thread go from processor configurations to storage capacity?
Every thread about the G5 turns into a debate about storage capacity.
Originally posted by jante99
Every thread about the G5 turns into a debate about storage capacity.
Is this like some form of Godwin's law where the longer a discussion about the G5 goes on the greater the odds someone will reignite the expansion debate or would it be more correct to use a new term, "Matsu's Law".
I don't see how a dual 1.8 can be shoehorned in anywhere without seriously screwing up the whole line's pricing. $2,549 is barely low enough to justify not getting the 2x2.0, and what happens to the single 1.8? I can't imagine them reducing the price when they haven't even started shipping yet.
What I hope happens is the single 1.8 is completely replaced by the new dual and all existing single 1.8 customers can pay the extra $150 to move up, or be credited $400 to move down. I bet 95% of people would happily move up in that scenario, even with the extra cost.
Considering its price the, 1.8GHz machine should have been SMP all along. Since Apple customers literally have years of experience with SMP they are not likely to give it up. The experience is sort of overwhelming like moving into adulthood. Frankly; consideirng its price & specs, I really have no idea as to whom Apple expected to market the 1.6GHz machine.
Which brings up Apples marketing, just whom are they and od they have any contact whatsoever with there customer base? You feed your customers a diet of AMP for years then you expect them to give it up for the next shiny new processor. Come on now we are not all lemmings blindly following the RDF, knowledge learned can not be unlearned by the application of such a field. SMP is now and forever will be a key part of the Mac platform. It truely shows a marginal understanding of the customer base to try to walk away from it especially in the pro line. What Apple marketing should be doing, is figuring out how to get SMP into its consumer line.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by Zapchud
Kill the SP 1.8, lower the price of the DP 1.8 slightly, and kill some price at the 1.6Ghz department too.
SP 1.8 sales will stagnate if Apple releases a DP model for only $150 more! An DP 1.8 would sell like hotcakes. The 2GHz model is a little too much for what people can afford, and as the 1.8GHz processor reportedly has significantly better yields, the DP1.8 would move alot of pressure to the right spot, reducing delays, and all in all, Apple would sell more, I think!
I'd definitely get the dual 1.8 instead of a dual 2ghz, if the price has a $500 difference. The purchase of a dual 2GHz is over my budget, really, but I'll just have to get it. I refuse to get another SP.
Perhaps we will see a dual 1,8 ghz in january, if IBM produce a lot of PPC 970.
PS : for those who are not happy with the G5 : i suggest that they cancel their order. In this way i will have chance to get my G5s sooner i expected.
As to the issue of the case, its called engineering. someone needs to take a look at what the got and come up with an economical solution.
Frankly the G5 reminds me of the old MacPlus I had. In the end I got so frustrated with its lake of expansion potential that I crossed over to the PC side. Immediately after started a long desire to get back on to a MAC system. But leasons learned the hardway are stick enforcers of a clear mind, nothing form Apple recently has left me with that warm feelling that this is good hardware.
That is until the G5 arrived. These machines have so much going for them that it is truely amazing. But I do have to look at them with a critical eye and wonder how they will handle future needs. Throwing all future expansion into a external box is ugly and unreliable.
Not to worry though as they bank account has to build up before I become attached to one of these.
Thanks
dave
Originally posted by hmurchison
Don't count on it. How many people have 4 SATA drives. There's no room for SATA-PATA adapters. Adding 4 Internal bays would require massive Case changes. User need to realizee that Apple is not going to have more than 2 HD bays for the next 3-4 years. And don't give me that "Pro" mumbo jumbo. Pros uses Network Storage. Hell I'm not a Pro and I save my important files to the Server.
I like the idea of Killing the Single 1.8 and just making it a Dual. Apple should have done that in the first place.
The value in a tower design comes from future expansion potential. That may be SATA or PATA it really doesn't matter. Also at the point where you do expand the machine noise and other issues are really the expanders resposibility.
No it is not a question of using legacy drives, its a question of being able to add to your current storage capacity in a reasonable manner. This may be a week or a year after you buy the hardware. In any event the highest performance solutions are internal as opposed to network attached.
Yes I can see drives with that capacity in less than a few years. In most cases though one will not want to give up the current storage capacity. Even if you are willing to part with that capacity, you still have to transfer the data.
Apples approach was more than "bone headed" it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of their users needs. It not a matter of providing storage its a matter of provide growth potential which is a whole differrent issue. Not to mention is the issue with an externally accesible device.
Please understnad that I fully understand the concept and utility of a network attached storage system with Raid and the everything. But do understnad that such systems are not cheap, you can buy two G5's for the cost of one of Apples system. I also understand the possibilities with ethernet based storage running raid on a linux system. But even with the capability of Linux & raid on a cheap PC you still have the cost and maintenance of another PC and severla harddrives. Not to mention the cost of keeping a Linux raid system maintained.
Even with all of these possibilites, none of them are susbstitute for large storage on the local machine. They especially don't deal with the issue of externally accessible media. Nor do they deal with the fact that technology changes and someitmes it is required to bridge technology on a machine.
Apple isn't limniting us because we are not willing to blindly fall into technolgy traps such as firewire or external devices of any sort. It must be considered a marketing triumph by someone to see that they have convinced people that firewire is an acceptable interface for system drives. Those that are trying to maintain economical solutions to their computing needs see firewire in a differrent light.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by hmurchison
Multiple Drives are just a bad idea for many reason.
1. Too many platters. You have more heat..more noise and more PS draw using multiple drives. The efficiency lies with reducing your multiple drives down to 1 or two.
2. Price- Penny wise pound foolish. You want Apple to engineer in 2 more Drive Bays which would cost more money so you can use cheap legacy drives. Sounds like a Wash to me.
Hey I agree with you Towers are for upgrading. But in the next few years we will have 500GB Drives for under $300. I mean what's the point of stuffing in a bunch of dinky drives?
The move was not Bone Headed. Professionals aren't screaming about it because they don't need a Terabyte of local storage despite your desire to toss in your legacy drives. You're failing to see the point. The Solution Apple is providing is "Can our users utilize 500GB of internal storage?" The answer is YES. Frankly Apple doesn't have to give a damn about your legacy drives they've provided room for ample storage.
Apple isn't limiting you. What you are asking for is INTERNAL storage. All the more reason to have RAID, SAN or NAS. If you have someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to set up a NAS for Fileserver then they shouldn't be in charge of 100s of Gigabytes of Data.
The end story here is that Networks have ruled for Decades. Local storage is simply not as important to perhaps the majority of computer users. I haven't heard ONE Professional bitch about drive bays other than the optical. FW drives rule the roost for Digital Video and Audio .
As far as a dual 1.8 goes you may be right. There is such a pent up demand for better peformance out of the Mac line that I bet many people are simply going for the most they can get even though unbiased real world performance information is not available. The other issue is that economy is bad and you need to maximize the performace of your computing hardware in order to obtain jobs and be cost competitive. So I'm not even truely sure that a dual 1.8 GHz machine would solve the problems, the demand for cost effective computing pwoer has never been greater in Apples pro markets.
Thanks
DAVE
Originally posted by Addison
It seems to me that you could argue that Apple has had a huge sucess because they have created hugh demand for their most expensive machine, which is a nice position to be in. However, if they can't ship them because there are not enough chips to go around and they have sufficent 1.8's then it might make some sense. Apple is likely to make more money selling 1.8 sp than 1.8 dp machines and if they have 26,000 backorders I wouldn't want to half the capacity by doubling the processor requirement.
Apple has not yet shipped any machines and the chances of them re-configuring their lineup before they are aboe to me demand for any product seems unlikely. In hindsight they should have probably brought out a 1.6 sp , 1.8 dp and a 2ghz dp but at a higher price until the supply/demand curve is ballanced. With a brand new processor like this it must have been difficult to assess demand as I expect that having tested the machines Apple have assumed that a single 1.6 or 1.8 is such a speed improvement over what we alreadfy have that more people would have been satisifed with their performance. We the public havn't so naturally gravitate towards the best machine. I am willing to be that the 1.8 sp with Panther is still going to blow most of us away, it's just that we don't know it yet.
The B&W's were altered shortly after they were announced, and of course we all remember the 350/400/450/500 fiasco of a rollout of the original G4.
If this rumor is just one piece of a larger price rejiggering and configuration change*, then maybe it's a little more plausible.....after all, nothing has rolled off the assembly lines, so it's not like they'd have to do any serious changing around. Sure, the re-ordering process would be a bit annoying, but a couple of overtime shifts at 1800MYAPPLE should fix that.....
It still seems far-fetched to me, but I'm a little bit more inclined to buy it, as part of a larger change we don't yet know about.
* - since no AIFH post is complete without a proposed spec sheet:
1.6 sp PCI - $1800
1.8 sp PCIX - $2200
1.8 dp PCIX - $2550
2.0 dp PCIX - $3000
the theory being that Apple believe the orders for the lower end models are low because they cost too much, and that by lowering the prices, they'll entice more orders, while keeping orders strong in the dp category and adding more with the 1.8 dp.
You can even buy rackable firewire 800 HD. You buy one rackable unit, and you put your old HD in racks.
Originally posted by I, Fred
I like the rumor, but not the price. If the rumor is true however, then thy would essentially be admitting that a single 1.8 proc machine is overpriced. Apple would rather buy Steve another jet than lower a price on a new product.
All the more reason to replace the single 1.8 with a dual 1.8 at $150 more. All current single 1.8 customers would have the choice of moving up or down. Most would gladly move up.
Then when the machines actually hit the street, you'd have this:
Single 1.6 $1999
Dual 1.8 $2549
Dual 2.0 $2999
Basically, Apple realized they made a mistake not making the mid range dual, so this way they can fix it and increase prices at the same time.
Originally posted by Placebo
What can I say...I highly doubt this claim. I can't remember a single time in Apple's history when a product was updated before shipping to the general publis. This would confuse many people, and present further logistical problems for Apple. For example...the Powermac Dual 2.0's cooling system was designed specifically for the Dual 2.0, and the powermac 1.8's system for the 1.8. Changing the already-butild models wouldn't be worth the struggle, unless some patch could be released before shipping.
This sounds plenty ulikely. Anyway, Apple will be able to use up the 1.8's on Rev. B's low end model.
Um remember when apple bumbed the G4 down to 450MHz after initially releasing it at 500MHz? I seem to remember something about that.
Originally posted by Placebo
the Powermac Dual 2.0's cooling system was designed specifically for the Dual 2.0, and the powermac 1.8's system for the 1.8. Changing the already-butild models wouldn't be worth the struggle, unless some patch could be released before shipping.
I don't think this cooling technology as advanced as they'd you'd like to think.....besides, anything that could keep a 2x2.0 cool could keep a 2x1.8 cool, since they will most likely throw off the same amount of heat OR LESS.
SP 1.8 - $1999
DP 1.6 - $2599
DP 2.0 - $2999
If they have an over abundance of 1.8 GHZ chips, they can now be used in the bottom two machines while the top stays the same.
EDIT: I know when they introduced the 733 & the Dual 533 things got 'confusing', but this lineup is far simpler than that previous mess.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by bunge
Being a pro machine, would it really be that confusing if the lineup went to:
SP 1.8 - $1999
DP 1.6 - $2599
DP 2.0 - $2999
If they have an over abundance of 1.8 GHZ chips, they can now be used in the bottom two machines while the top stays the same.
All duals baby:
DP 1.6 - $1999
DP 1.8 - $2499
DP 2.0 - $2999
All they need to do is make the performance/price ratio constant, or slightly, and I mean slight, increasing with increasing performance if they want more margin.