Apple's consumer desktops need a right royal sortin'. (I can understand your frustration led you to a Dell... Apple needs to address this kind of thing if they are serious about desktop growth...)
I'm hoping that the 'anniversary year '04' will put that right.
It's a shame that the team that designed the stunning G5 Tower can't do a more flexible consumer Mac.
There's still plenty of time left in '04 though.
I'm waiting for the dual 3 gigs. I'd be mad not to wait a mere 6 months.
It'll soon pass. In the mean time, I'm enjoying my wife's iBook and my Athlon remains 'off'.
I have just gone Homebrew PC as well after being a stanch Powermac user for the last 10 years...
There is just not the flexibility I need in the current line up... they are also way, way overpriced in todays market, G5 or no G5.
I need 2 Optical drive bays...
I need more than 2 HD Bays...
I want IDE as well as SATA...
I'm not concerned about dualies, a single 2 ghz G5 would do the job well.
Also I want flexability as to Graphics cards etc.
As it currently stands Apple just can't offer any of this.
I have just built a new PC in a chieftec blue dragon case to the following specs:
Athlon XP2800+
1 Gig RAM
2 x 80 Gig HD
1 x 120 Gig HD
Combo Drive
DVD+/- RW Drive
Firewire
USB 2
SATA connection
Radeon 9600 Pro (Waiting for a 9800 XT)
It has cost me just £550. The 1.6 G5 without any of the features I need is £1300.
My machine still has 2 spare optical drive bays and/or 3 spare HD bays.
Performance wise, in Photoshop and indesign it is waaaayy better then my 'old' dual 867, and also better than a 1.6 Ghz G5 I have used extensively...
Something is wrong somewhere along the line. Apple needs another line of truely flexible machine in the mid range... at 'reasonable prices'.
I'll be back to the PowerMac platform, (and I still have my iBook) but maybe not for the next few years until Apple release a true Prosumer tower....
2*80 Gig and a 120 Gig HD, Combo Drive, and SuperDrive and SATA and 9600Pro for 550 ? what's that in us dollars?
I think it is about $800-900...
I got most of it off component websites here in the UK, although I confess I did have the case and the 120 Gig drive laying about the house... However, from my time in the US, I recon you could get a much, much better system for the same kind of money in US component stores...
SATA support is built into the board, so all I needed was a SATA connector PCI card which cost £20...
All in, it broke down like this:
Motherboard (ePox, nForce 2) - £75 (sale item)
Processor (XP2800+) - £75
RAM (Crucial 2 x 512MB)- £120
GFX (3D Connect DVI, 128MB) - £100
2 x 80 Gig HD (Maxtor) - £75
Combo Drive (Lite-On 48X CD-RW, 16x DVD) - £30
Superdrive £50
Modem (Hardware) - £10
SATA Card - £20
Total - £555
As I said, I already had the 120g drive and the case which would have been about £75 complete with 360w Powersupply... I also have a copy of XP, but I run Linux most of the time so I didn't factor it in. (OEM £60).
All in a it seems to be a great system for my needs, but it all looks quite bizarre running XP on my 17" Studio Display!...
I have no doubt that your computer is great. But you canno't compare an assembled PC with a regular manufactured one like a Mac.
The price of the current tower is high, but there is great chances to see a new powermac G5 2 ghz at 1500 $
Why ? : SATA drives are less expansives than before, the chip will be less expansive even at 2 ghz because of the smallest die size. All others componements of the computer will follows the way, excepting the memory where the price are subjects to great variations.
I have no doubt that your computer is great. But you canno't compare an assembled PC with a regular manufactured one like a Mac.
The price of the current tower is high, but there is great chances to see a new powermac G5 2 ghz at 1500 $
Why ? : SATA drives are less expansives than before, the chip will be less expansive even at 2 ghz because of the smallest die size. All others componements of the computer will follows the way, excepting the memory where the price are subjects to great variations.
I agree entirely, the products are totally different, and quality wise I would take a Mac any day of the week over something that I have cobbled together!
It was just that in this case, there was £1000 difference... if the difference was about £500, or a single 2 ghz for about £1000 or even £1500, cool, I'll pay the Apple premium, I'd be typing this on a new Powermac, not Windows...
But, to me as it stands, the differential is just too much, especially when you consider that I get better performance from the PC.
The range just doesn't make sense to people after a machine they can use for work, but also upgrade or add to later on, and more importantly use their own monitor with.
I'm sure Apple will do something to remedy this sooner or later, but in the mean time people like me, and I'm sure quite a few others, will have to look elsewhere for our computing needs...
It is a real pitty as I have been with Apple for my desktop/work machine for over 13 years now, and in my heart never want to change...
At least I stll have my laptop though to get my OS X fix...
Well if all they got out of this revision is a process shrink then yes I have to say that sucks. It sucks especially in light of an expected ramp in processor operating speed. If this is the processor that is expected to take us to 3GHz and beyond, a lack of improvements to the cache and other parts of the processor will prevent the realization of the full benefit of that clock rate increase.
I'm not sure that the server currently has heat issues, I would not be surprised if it isn't re-released, or another model added, after IBM has had an opportunity to release their informaiton on the processor.
I geuss though that many people, after years with Motorola, are happy just to see a process shrink. That is all well and good but it really doesn't drive the processor (not the process) design forward. You are correct that new designs will come but I do have to wonder about this chip, I'm begining to think that its primary application will be in the low cost end of things.
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Oh i see, IBM suck because only 6 monts after introducing the G5 on 130 nm, they produce the G5 on 90 nm.
The chip will scale in Mhz much higher than 2 ghz. It's one of the first 90 nm of the market (the production of Prescott is very low for the moment).
The server has heat issue, and the process just started.
We'll see what IBM did when they roll out the chip later this month.
Since you have to revisit a design for a process shrink anyway, it's not unusual to add or change a few things, correct a few errata.
Actually, if IBM corrects the apparent bug that doesn't no-op the AltiVec prefetch instructions there will be dancing in the streets (well, among AltiVec programmers anyway). But anyway, we'll see. IBM seems to have really thrown weight behind this project, so I don't expect them to get complacent any time soon.
Actually you can compare an assembled yourself computer with a manufacture one. The only difference is the final assembler. This is one part of the argument that does not hold water. When it comes right down to it a manufacture like Apple should have a huge advantage when it comes to the cost of the final product.
While I agree that he cost of the Tower is high, I'm not to sure the price of the 970's has anything to do with it. Just look at what Apple did with the 1.8GHz unit a few months after release. The price of the PowerMac is high to allow Apple to obtain maximum profits, the cost of the actual underlying hardware has little impact on the selling price.
For me all of the above has little impact with respect to a purchase decision. Mr Placid did hit upon some of the issues that will keep people from purchasing this hardware. For the market the PowerMac is targeted at, the lack of expansion capabilities is appalling. Say what you want about external expansion, but the preferred avenue for expansion is internal to the box. A case that does not atleast offer the opportunity to add a optical drive and a 6 in 1 reader is of little use to me. The lack of internal harddisk space is also and issue, along with fixing that they need to offer the option of hardware RAID.
The point is that the PowerMac does not offer much more than one of the all in one units. That is with respect to expansion capabilities. Yeah they have PCI but that is not what I'm concerned about.
To a certian extent I can deal with the price of a PowerMac. It does mean budgetting concerns one would not have with PC hardware but that is not what will keep many from buying the hardware.
The problem is that no matter how much $$$$$ you have you can't buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilites as a run of the mill PC in a generic case. Nor can you buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilities as the HP, Emachine, and other hardware sold down at the local electronics store. Since these PC's are often sold right next to Apple hardware it is no wonder that Apple has a hard time increasing market share. It is like Apple does no market research at all.
So we are in a situation where the only thing Apple has going for it is its operating system. Now MAC/OSX is a wonderful thing, but so is Linux. Given that OS/X is differrent I do have the expectation that Apple hardware will also be different. But the issue seems to be that Apple spent 2 years developing the G5 Tower and associated electronics; and then forgot to keep in touch with the real world. In the real world people have all sorts of devices that take Compact flash and a host of other expansion cards. They have huge image and video libraries that they would like to keep safe. When attempting to do so with Apple hardware they run into unneeded obstructions to using these things.
thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have no doubt that your computer is great. But you canno't compare an assembled PC with a regular manufactured one like a Mac.
The price of the current tower is high, but there is great chances to see a new powermac G5 2 ghz at 1500 $
Why ? : SATA drives are less expansives than before, the chip will be less expansive even at 2 ghz because of the smallest die size. All others componements of the computer will follows the way, excepting the memory where the price are subjects to great variations.
Ok you assembled your machine for approx $900. What about marketing and support costs? apple has to factor these into their machine cost. I'm sure that if they had to price their machine with just the cost of the machine they could match the price of the assembled machine.
Actually you can compare an assembled yourself computer with a manufacture one. The only difference is the final assembler. This is one part of the argument that does not hold water. When it comes right down to it a manufacture like Apple should have a huge advantage when it comes to the cost of the final product.
Dave
Well as fresco mentionned there is no support. If there is incompatibilities between some componements, you can't send back the machine.
And i still claim that you canno't compare an assembled computer with a manufactured one. Do you know many companies who built their own assembled computer ?
What nobody has mentioned with the new 90nano and reduction is speed is that potentially there could be more drive bays in the current PowerMac G5 enclosure. I always hated all of that wasted space, just for the cooling vents. If they could get duals in a 1U enclosure, surely they'd be able to reduce the amount of space the processor takes up.
I doubt, they'll change the enclosure size, etc., but that would mean more room for additional drives, optical drives, etc. That's what I'm waiting for.
i thought summer 2004 was pessimistic and i have to conclude it was very realistic or even a little optimistic. 6-9 months i hope
[edited some spelling]
Hmm, well going back to that thread and reading through it, there was some discussion about the PBG5, but you're right on the bet that was offered - which I apparently would have lost, had you taken it up.
But you bottled it, same thread:
Quote:
what we can expect is something i would throw some cash in not "when" exactly because for me januari 2004 is still winter... and the same timeframe.
While I agree that he cost of the Tower is high, I'm not to sure the price of the 970's has anything to do with it. Just look at what Apple did with the 1.8GHz unit a few months after release. The price of the PowerMac is high to allow Apple to obtain maximum profits, the cost of the actual underlying hardware has little impact on the selling price.
This is just nonsense. Apple has relatively high-cost chips and components. If you compare their prices to "quality", high-end PCs you come up with similar prices. Apple isn't making 75% profit on a box.
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
[BThe problem is that no matter how much $$$$$ you have you can't buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilites as a run of the mill PC in a generic case. [/B]
Wrong again, because you can just buy a generic case and stick the Apple components in it. Then you have all the "expandability" you could want.
For me your argument is nonsense anyway. I would much rather have external Firewire/USB expansion, because that means I can use it with my desktop, and take it away and use it with my PowerBook too. If I had a built-in card reader I'd have to also buy a portable one for use with my PB.
You may as well argue that you can't buy a Mac with a built-in scanner or camera.
When it comes right down to it a manufacture like Apple should have a huge advantage when it comes to the cost of the final product.
It's truly amazing how many people think that Apple pays the same price for components that you and I do at a brick and mortar storefront. Truly.
Quote:
The problem is that no matter how much $$$$$ you have you can't buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilites as a run of the mill PC in a generic case. Nor can you buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilities as the HP, Emachine, and other hardware sold down at the local electronics store. Since these PC's are often sold right next to Apple hardware it is no wonder that Apple has a hard time increasing market share. It is like Apple does no market research at all.
I'd go one step further and state: if Apple computer put as much effort into market research and advertising as they do into technical innovation and case design, then they would be the number one computer/software solution in the world today.
Quote:
So we are in a situation where the only thing Apple has going for it is its operating system.
And this is the reason why Apple continues to produce award-winning products without increasing market share.
They spend SO much time developing hardware that LOOKS good without being functional, and marketing said products at OUTRAGEOUS prices, that they sacrifice HUGE amounts of cross-platform sales (to Windows users).
The cube is the perfect example of how Apple had the potential of selling the 'product of the millenium' to every PC user on the face of the Earth. And because of cosmetically-motivated-engineering and sloppy marketing, they managed to completely destroy any chances of selling said product to thousands of Wintel users who WANTED to switch to the MacOS.
Back on topic, the Xserve has in its brief lifetime shipped with technologies that subsequently ended up in PowerMacs. This time around, the Xserve got two interesting things: hardware RAID, and ECC RAM. So, imagine a PowerMac case with the heat zones rejiggered to take advantage of smaller, cooler G5 CPUs. It has three SATA drives with support for RAID 0, 1, and 5, and 2 channels of 4 slots each of ECC RAM.
There goes the UNIX workstation market, and the Windows-based UNIX-workstation-wannabe market. The PowerMac G5 would become capable of a new level of computational heavy lifting. (I'm aware that ECC RAM doesn't have that drastic an effect most of the time, but neither does radiation-hardening the components, and that's a standard feature in the $10K+ market. The extra reliability, however subtle it is in practice, is important in this space.)
I consider the RAID much more likely than the ECC support. It would certainly have a much bigger impact on performance, since hard drives are a bottleneck and since the RAID doesn't require special hard drives. But the possibility is there, and if Apple really wants to aim high, they must be considering it.
perhaps you should do a bit more research before you talk about "what sucks".
you DONT know what your talking about.
first.
the details of the 0.09um 970 processor will be given next month by ibm.
im sure this is why it was not even mention in the expo that the g5 in the new xserves were 0.09um.
you look like an idiot when you dont know what your talking about and are beligerent to boot.
have a nice day.
Quote:
Originally posted by wizard69
What does the G5 XServe tell me?
Well it is a mixed bag to be perfectly honest.
The 90 NANO G5 is a big disappointment unless they have embargoed some critical information on the processor. Base frequency at intro is 2GHz - that sucks. No CACHE size increase - that sucks big time, especially on a processor that your expect to scale. No indications of the new power management features - this sucks also. Nothing in the way of an additional integer unit or other processor improvements - while I can't say that sucks one can always wish for more! One can only hope that this is a short term interim processor or they are just playing their card slose to their chests waiting for IBM to announce the newer technology.
The XServe G5 itself tells me that Apple has developed a machine focused squarely on one portion of the server market. This XServe will be profoundly less flexible that the model it replaces, mostly due to the lost of the AGP slot. WE won't be seeing this machine sitting in the rack of an audio engineer for example.
Now none of this is a bad thing. One can obviously see that the G5 XSErve is designed to be cheap to manufacture, yet offer a compelling postion in the performance equation. That is for the server markets where it will best be able to do its job. It does make me wonder if Apple has another machine up its sleeve, yet to be revealed.
64 bit portables are even farther away. That is, on the surface, this processor does not appear to be the portable capable unit we are all looking for. Then again I'm expecting a high performance 32 bit processor for the next couple of portable revs.
Other than a good overall design for a hardcore server, I don't see alot of good in this announcement. It is almsot like we are going through another bout of the Motorola syndrome. There is more to processor perfromance than just process shrinks, we had enough of them in the old days. I want to see improvements each and everytime a processor comes out.
Comments
Originally posted by gar
mosr mentioned 2 really large slow spinning fans and liquid cooling in the G5 pb.
well, it's mosr...
oh, and they don't have an archive on their side
MOSR archive is hosted on ComedyCentral.com.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
MOSR archive is hosted on ComedyCentral.com.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
Apple's consumer desktops need a right royal sortin'. (I can understand your frustration led you to a Dell... Apple needs to address this kind of thing if they are serious about desktop growth...)
I'm hoping that the 'anniversary year '04' will put that right.
It's a shame that the team that designed the stunning G5 Tower can't do a more flexible consumer Mac.
There's still plenty of time left in '04 though.
I'm waiting for the dual 3 gigs. I'd be mad not to wait a mere 6 months.
It'll soon pass. In the mean time, I'm enjoying my wife's iBook and my Athlon remains 'off'.
I have just gone Homebrew PC as well after being a stanch Powermac user for the last 10 years...
There is just not the flexibility I need in the current line up... they are also way, way overpriced in todays market, G5 or no G5.
I need 2 Optical drive bays...
I need more than 2 HD Bays...
I want IDE as well as SATA...
I'm not concerned about dualies, a single 2 ghz G5 would do the job well.
Also I want flexability as to Graphics cards etc.
As it currently stands Apple just can't offer any of this.
I have just built a new PC in a chieftec blue dragon case to the following specs:
Athlon XP2800+
1 Gig RAM
2 x 80 Gig HD
1 x 120 Gig HD
Combo Drive
DVD+/- RW Drive
Firewire
USB 2
SATA connection
Radeon 9600 Pro (Waiting for a 9800 XT)
It has cost me just £550. The 1.6 G5 without any of the features I need is £1300.
My machine still has 2 spare optical drive bays and/or 3 spare HD bays.
Performance wise, in Photoshop and indesign it is waaaayy better then my 'old' dual 867, and also better than a 1.6 Ghz G5 I have used extensively...
Something is wrong somewhere along the line. Apple needs another line of truely flexible machine in the mid range... at 'reasonable prices'.
I'll be back to the PowerMac platform, (and I still have my iBook) but maybe not for the next few years until Apple release a true Prosumer tower....
Peace,
Marc
Originally posted by The Placid Casual
Athlon XP2800+
1 Gig RAM
2 x 80 Gig HD
1 x 120 Gig HD
Combo Drive
DVD+/- RW Drive
Firewire
USB 2
SATA connection
Radeon 9600 Pro (Waiting for a 9800 XT)
It has cost me just £550. The 1.6 G5 without any of the features I need is £1300.
2*80 Gig and a 120 Gig HD, Combo Drive, and SuperDrive and SATA and 9600Pro for 550 ? what's that in us dollars?
Originally posted by Krassy
2*80 Gig and a 120 Gig HD, Combo Drive, and SuperDrive and SATA and 9600Pro for 550 ? what's that in us dollars?
I think it is about $800-900...
I got most of it off component websites here in the UK, although I confess I did have the case and the 120 Gig drive laying about the house... However, from my time in the US, I recon you could get a much, much better system for the same kind of money in US component stores...
SATA support is built into the board, so all I needed was a SATA connector PCI card which cost £20...
All in, it broke down like this:
Motherboard (ePox, nForce 2) - £75 (sale item)
Processor (XP2800+) - £75
RAM (Crucial 2 x 512MB)- £120
GFX (3D Connect DVI, 128MB) - £100
2 x 80 Gig HD (Maxtor) - £75
Combo Drive (Lite-On 48X CD-RW, 16x DVD) - £30
Superdrive £50
Modem (Hardware) - £10
SATA Card - £20
Total - £555
As I said, I already had the 120g drive and the case which would have been about £75 complete with 360w Powersupply... I also have a copy of XP, but I run Linux most of the time so I didn't factor it in. (OEM £60).
All in a it seems to be a great system for my needs, but it all looks quite bizarre running XP on my 17" Studio Display!...
Peace.
The price of the current tower is high, but there is great chances to see a new powermac G5 2 ghz at 1500 $
Why ? : SATA drives are less expansives than before, the chip will be less expansive even at 2 ghz because of the smallest die size. All others componements of the computer will follows the way, excepting the memory where the price are subjects to great variations.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have no doubt that your computer is great. But you canno't compare an assembled PC with a regular manufactured one like a Mac.
The price of the current tower is high, but there is great chances to see a new powermac G5 2 ghz at 1500 $
Why ? : SATA drives are less expansives than before, the chip will be less expansive even at 2 ghz because of the smallest die size. All others componements of the computer will follows the way, excepting the memory where the price are subjects to great variations.
I agree entirely, the products are totally different, and quality wise I would take a Mac any day of the week over something that I have cobbled together!
It was just that in this case, there was £1000 difference... if the difference was about £500, or a single 2 ghz for about £1000 or even £1500, cool, I'll pay the Apple premium, I'd be typing this on a new Powermac, not Windows...
But, to me as it stands, the differential is just too much, especially when you consider that I get better performance from the PC.
The range just doesn't make sense to people after a machine they can use for work, but also upgrade or add to later on, and more importantly use their own monitor with.
I'm sure Apple will do something to remedy this sooner or later, but in the mean time people like me, and I'm sure quite a few others, will have to look elsewhere for our computing needs...
It is a real pitty as I have been with Apple for my desktop/work machine for over 13 years now, and in my heart never want to change...
At least I stll have my laptop though to get my OS X fix...
I'm not sure that the server currently has heat issues, I would not be surprised if it isn't re-released, or another model added, after IBM has had an opportunity to release their informaiton on the processor.
I geuss though that many people, after years with Motorola, are happy just to see a process shrink. That is all well and good but it really doesn't drive the processor (not the process) design forward. You are correct that new designs will come but I do have to wonder about this chip, I'm begining to think that its primary application will be in the low cost end of things.
Dave
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Oh i see, IBM suck because only 6 monts after introducing the G5 on 130 nm, they produce the G5 on 90 nm.
The chip will scale in Mhz much higher than 2 ghz. It's one of the first 90 nm of the market (the production of Prescott is very low for the moment).
The server has heat issue, and the process just started.
The new design will come later.
Since you have to revisit a design for a process shrink anyway, it's not unusual to add or change a few things, correct a few errata.
Actually, if IBM corrects the apparent bug that doesn't no-op the AltiVec prefetch instructions there will be dancing in the streets (well, among AltiVec programmers anyway). But anyway, we'll see. IBM seems to have really thrown weight behind this project, so I don't expect them to get complacent any time soon.
While I agree that he cost of the Tower is high, I'm not to sure the price of the 970's has anything to do with it. Just look at what Apple did with the 1.8GHz unit a few months after release. The price of the PowerMac is high to allow Apple to obtain maximum profits, the cost of the actual underlying hardware has little impact on the selling price.
For me all of the above has little impact with respect to a purchase decision. Mr Placid did hit upon some of the issues that will keep people from purchasing this hardware. For the market the PowerMac is targeted at, the lack of expansion capabilities is appalling. Say what you want about external expansion, but the preferred avenue for expansion is internal to the box. A case that does not atleast offer the opportunity to add a optical drive and a 6 in 1 reader is of little use to me. The lack of internal harddisk space is also and issue, along with fixing that they need to offer the option of hardware RAID.
The point is that the PowerMac does not offer much more than one of the all in one units. That is with respect to expansion capabilities. Yeah they have PCI but that is not what I'm concerned about.
To a certian extent I can deal with the price of a PowerMac. It does mean budgetting concerns one would not have with PC hardware but that is not what will keep many from buying the hardware.
The problem is that no matter how much $$$$$ you have you can't buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilites as a run of the mill PC in a generic case. Nor can you buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilities as the HP, Emachine, and other hardware sold down at the local electronics store. Since these PC's are often sold right next to Apple hardware it is no wonder that Apple has a hard time increasing market share. It is like Apple does no market research at all.
So we are in a situation where the only thing Apple has going for it is its operating system. Now MAC/OSX is a wonderful thing, but so is Linux. Given that OS/X is differrent I do have the expectation that Apple hardware will also be different. But the issue seems to be that Apple spent 2 years developing the G5 Tower and associated electronics; and then forgot to keep in touch with the real world. In the real world people have all sorts of devices that take Compact flash and a host of other expansion cards. They have huge image and video libraries that they would like to keep safe. When attempting to do so with Apple hardware they run into unneeded obstructions to using these things.
thanks
Dave
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I have no doubt that your computer is great. But you canno't compare an assembled PC with a regular manufactured one like a Mac.
The price of the current tower is high, but there is great chances to see a new powermac G5 2 ghz at 1500 $
Why ? : SATA drives are less expansives than before, the chip will be less expansive even at 2 ghz because of the smallest die size. All others componements of the computer will follows the way, excepting the memory where the price are subjects to great variations.
Cheers..
Originally posted by wizard69
Actually you can compare an assembled yourself computer with a manufacture one. The only difference is the final assembler. This is one part of the argument that does not hold water. When it comes right down to it a manufacture like Apple should have a huge advantage when it comes to the cost of the final product.
Dave
Well as fresco mentionned there is no support. If there is incompatibilities between some componements, you can't send back the machine.
And i still claim that you canno't compare an assembled computer with a manufactured one. Do you know many companies who built their own assembled computer ?
I doubt, they'll change the enclosure size, etc., but that would mean more room for additional drives, optical drives, etc. That's what I'm waiting for.
Originally posted by gar
sure
sorry, iirc, the bet was about the ibook G4
and i quote you:
in this thread
but about this powerbook G5 part you're right:
i thought summer 2004 was pessimistic and i have to conclude it was very realistic or even a little optimistic. 6-9 months i hope
[edited some spelling]
Hmm, well going back to that thread and reading through it, there was some discussion about the PBG5, but you're right on the bet that was offered - which I apparently would have lost, had you taken it up.
But you bottled it, same thread:
what we can expect is something i would throw some cash in not "when" exactly because for me januari 2004 is still winter... and the same timeframe.
-- Clive
Originally posted by wizard69
While I agree that he cost of the Tower is high, I'm not to sure the price of the 970's has anything to do with it. Just look at what Apple did with the 1.8GHz unit a few months after release. The price of the PowerMac is high to allow Apple to obtain maximum profits, the cost of the actual underlying hardware has little impact on the selling price.
This is just nonsense. Apple has relatively high-cost chips and components. If you compare their prices to "quality", high-end PCs you come up with similar prices. Apple isn't making 75% profit on a box.
Originally posted by wizard69
[BThe problem is that no matter how much $$$$$ you have you can't buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilites as a run of the mill PC in a generic case. [/B]
Wrong again, because you can just buy a generic case and stick the Apple components in it. Then you have all the "expandability" you could want.
For me your argument is nonsense anyway. I would much rather have external Firewire/USB expansion, because that means I can use it with my desktop, and take it away and use it with my PowerBook too. If I had a built-in card reader I'd have to also buy a portable one for use with my PB.
You may as well argue that you can't buy a Mac with a built-in scanner or camera.
Originally posted by wizard69
A case that does not atleast offer the opportunity to add a optical drive and a 6 in 1 reader is of little use to me.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3: Bask in the pride of a case mod well done.
What?
Originally posted by wizard69
When it comes right down to it a manufacture like Apple should have a huge advantage when it comes to the cost of the final product.
It's truly amazing how many people think that Apple pays the same price for components that you and I do at a brick and mortar storefront. Truly.
The problem is that no matter how much $$$$$ you have you can't buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilites as a run of the mill PC in a generic case. Nor can you buy an Apple that gives you the same capabilities as the HP, Emachine, and other hardware sold down at the local electronics store. Since these PC's are often sold right next to Apple hardware it is no wonder that Apple has a hard time increasing market share. It is like Apple does no market research at all.
I'd go one step further and state: if Apple computer put as much effort into market research and advertising as they do into technical innovation and case design, then they would be the number one computer/software solution in the world today.
So we are in a situation where the only thing Apple has going for it is its operating system.
And this is the reason why Apple continues to produce award-winning products without increasing market share.
They spend SO much time developing hardware that LOOKS good without being functional, and marketing said products at OUTRAGEOUS prices, that they sacrifice HUGE amounts of cross-platform sales (to Windows users).
The cube is the perfect example of how Apple had the potential of selling the 'product of the millenium' to every PC user on the face of the Earth. And because of cosmetically-motivated-engineering and sloppy marketing, they managed to completely destroy any chances of selling said product to thousands of Wintel users who WANTED to switch to the MacOS.
-Antithesis
Back on topic, the Xserve has in its brief lifetime shipped with technologies that subsequently ended up in PowerMacs. This time around, the Xserve got two interesting things: hardware RAID, and ECC RAM. So, imagine a PowerMac case with the heat zones rejiggered to take advantage of smaller, cooler G5 CPUs. It has three SATA drives with support for RAID 0, 1, and 5, and 2 channels of 4 slots each of ECC RAM.
There goes the UNIX workstation market, and the Windows-based UNIX-workstation-wannabe market. The PowerMac G5 would become capable of a new level of computational heavy lifting. (I'm aware that ECC RAM doesn't have that drastic an effect most of the time, but neither does radiation-hardening the components, and that's a standard feature in the $10K+ market. The extra reliability, however subtle it is in practice, is important in this space.)
I consider the RAID much more likely than the ECC support. It would certainly have a much bigger impact on performance, since hard drives are a bottleneck and since the RAID doesn't require special hard drives. But the possibility is there, and if Apple really wants to aim high, they must be considering it.
you DONT know what your talking about.
first.
the details of the 0.09um 970 processor will be given next month by ibm.
im sure this is why it was not even mention in the expo that the g5 in the new xserves were 0.09um.
you look like an idiot when you dont know what your talking about and are beligerent to boot.
have a nice day.
Originally posted by wizard69
What does the G5 XServe tell me?
Well it is a mixed bag to be perfectly honest.
The 90 NANO G5 is a big disappointment unless they have embargoed some critical information on the processor. Base frequency at intro is 2GHz - that sucks. No CACHE size increase - that sucks big time, especially on a processor that your expect to scale. No indications of the new power management features - this sucks also. Nothing in the way of an additional integer unit or other processor improvements - while I can't say that sucks one can always wish for more! One can only hope that this is a short term interim processor or they are just playing their card slose to their chests waiting for IBM to announce the newer technology.
The XServe G5 itself tells me that Apple has developed a machine focused squarely on one portion of the server market. This XServe will be profoundly less flexible that the model it replaces, mostly due to the lost of the AGP slot. WE won't be seeing this machine sitting in the rack of an audio engineer for example.
Now none of this is a bad thing. One can obviously see that the G5 XSErve is designed to be cheap to manufacture, yet offer a compelling postion in the performance equation. That is for the server markets where it will best be able to do its job. It does make me wonder if Apple has another machine up its sleeve, yet to be revealed.
64 bit portables are even farther away. That is, on the surface, this processor does not appear to be the portable capable unit we are all looking for. Then again I'm expecting a high performance 32 bit processor for the next couple of portable revs.
Other than a good overall design for a hardcore server, I don't see alot of good in this announcement. It is almsot like we are going through another bout of the Motorola syndrome. There is more to processor perfromance than just process shrinks, we had enough of them in the old days. I want to see improvements each and everytime a processor comes out.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3: Bask in the pride of a case mod well done.
What?
Now that is an idea! I wonder how many are willing to take their G5 under the knife so to speak.
Dave