If Apple really wants bang for it's buck, It would not release a small speed bump in the rev B. They should come out with a 3.0 in this release. That way, they won't have people going, "I can wait for the Rev c". Apple needs to make a big splash and not another little drip.
You have no clue what you are freaking talking about. Apple already has one of the fastest PC's in the world with the G5 at 2 Ghz. 2.5 is appropriately fast for the high end, and would trounce anything out of AMD or Intel right now. People scare me sometimes with these "mind sets", and it is true that some G4's are still better than a lot of Intel's offerings. The G5 is fine as it is right now, (in terms of speed) the price for that speed is what needs to be corrected, more than anything.
Big Blue is expected to describe a 2.5GHz version of the chip made on the 90-nanometer process at the International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) in San Francisco next week.
Quote:
Someone had the balls to post that IBM is shipping a 2.5!! Damn it I've been telling everyone forever... MOSR doesn't know what they are talking about...they are the ones that started all of this 2.6 bs.
WTF are you going on about. Since when does describe == shipping. IBM is going to talk about a 2.5GHZ 970FX at the ISSCC. Thats all. What ships in Apple product could be any manner of speed above and below 2.5GHZ, or do you forget the initial 1.8GHZ top speed quoted for the first gen G5s.
Only reason I didn't buy a Rev A is because I didn't trust the hardware. Its brand new in so many ways and I just wanted to be sure before I spent my money on a high end machine.
[/snip]
it's funny though, by all accounts, the 'Rev A' PM G5's have been perfect, while the 'long-in-the-tooth' iBook platform (not to mention the PowerBooks) have had repeated build issues.
You have no clue what you are freaking talking about. Apple already has one of the fastest PC's in the world with the G5 at 2 Ghz. 2.5 is appropriately fast for the high end, and would trounce anything out of AMD or Intel right now. People scare me sometimes with these "mind sets", and it is true that some G4's are still better than a lot of Intel's offerings. The G5 is fine as it is right now, (in terms of speed) the price for that speed is what needs to be corrected, more than anything.
OK, do you know what conjecture is? This isn't a mind set, this is an oppinion. I expect nothing. You don't have a clue as to what I know, or don't know. So until you crawl into my head and learn what I know, you have no room to tell me jack. What I am talking about is shock effect. Something Apple needs alittle of. This is pure marketing, Think Different.
OK, do you know what conjecture is? This isn't a mind set, this is an oppinion. I expect nothing. You don't have a clue as to what I know, or don't know. So until you crawl into my head and learn what I know, you have no room to tell me jack. What I am talking about is shock effect. Something Apple needs alittle of. This is pure marketing, Think Different.
lol
They dont NEED shock effect. PURE MARKETING, LMFAO! That would be retarded marketing, anybody with a real markeing sense knows that is is better to milk everything you can while remaining profitable. For example, say Apple had the capability to sell a 3.5 Ghz G5 but Steve has talked about the 3 Ghz barrier...So, anyone with marketing sense would know that Apple would downclock the chips to run at 3 Ghz, just because it is what people expect. That way, when it seems like its time for an upgrade and units stop selling, Apple can start selling the 3.5 Ghz chips that return them more profit per sale than the same chip that used to sell at 3 Ghz.
Urban Legend! I agree with you that some 2ghz chips are sold as 1.8ghz, but Apple/IBM will release the chips they have. If they can produce enough at 3ghz, they will release it. It's Econ 101 - there is no monopoly, so monopoly power can not be exercised. Plus, Apple & IBM engineers want there best to be out there - they are very competitive people.
There is a monopoly in who decides what to sell. Apple can decide that keeping margins high is what they want to do. If they decide that, it benefits them to "give us upgrades" that are upgrades but not full scale upgrades. Apple, Intel, and AMD all do that, selling higher potential chips at underclocked speeds. If it is selling at X speed, and Apple is making money from those X chips that cost X amount; then Apple will just scale the chip back up when the upgrade cycle is over but they will still be paying the same price for this chip that they were in the first place. All while customers pay higher prices for the same chip for a long period of time. Makes good business sense to do it that way.
They dont NEED shock effect. PURE MARKETING, LMFAO! That would be retarded marketing, anybody with a real markeing sense knows that is is better to milk everything you can while remaining profitable. For example, say Apple had the capability to sell a 3.5 Ghz G5 but Steve has talked about the 3 Ghz barrier...So, anyone with marketing sense would know that Apple would downclock the chips to run at 3 Ghz, just because it is what people expect. That way, when it seems like its time for an upgrade and units stop selling, Apple can start selling the 3.5 Ghz chips that return them more profit per sale than the same chip that used to sell at 3 Ghz.
Think Different? Think Schiller.
Hello, go back and read my original post. The chips that are slower than the stated 2.6 would be going into the other lines. This makes total sense. That kind of ripple (tidal wave) could do for Apple what the original iMac did and more. This idea of mine isn't just about the PM, it is about all Mac lines.
Hello, go back and read my original post. The chips that are slower than the stated 2.6 would be going into the other lines. This makes total sense. That kind of ripple (tidal wave) could do for Apple what the original iMac did and more. This idea of mine isn't just about the PM, it is about all Mac lines.
I see that point here now that you have clarified it, thank you. In the original post I didnt see what you were getting at. It read to me like this, "Apple should get 3 Ghz because that would be RoXor!"
Haha, but now I see what youre saying and I do agree it would be nice if the G5 could permeate throughout the rest of Apple's computer lines.
yah I see what you're saying now too oldmacman, I agree it would ripple the whole mac community if that were the case... not to mention get motorola out of the picture .
Any ways... the one that didn't like my claim on the Rev A's. By the time there was enough proof that the Rev A's were good computers it was near time for the Reb B's to come out. I'd never buy a Rev A computer (especially with the upgrades that the g5 consisted of) for many reasons.
I've bought many brand new computers from Apple since 93. I haven't had the best of luck with their Rev A computers. The first B+W g3 is a perfect example. I've seen it over and over again with a lot of companies. They come out with this really nice product and a certain percetage fail. This IS the case with the Rev A g5. I've heard stories from Apple Service shops and seen posts all over the internet of motherboards failing. Of the fans going nuts and the computer not turning on after that. Again this is a very small percentage... but its better to wait until apple actually had this product on the market before spending 2300 on a high end dual 2ghz g5 (developer discount). This way apple has time to work out the kinks. Any ways thats not what this thread is for.
final post: Dual 2.5 g5 within a few weeks... I could be like MOSR and say... "My resources claim the next rev of g5s will be out within a year"
Nonesense! If AMD & Intel had monopoly power, how do you explain that there are two of them? Why has AMD lost money recently? Why do chip prices vary? There is no upgrade cycle! This all may make sense in your world, but not in the real world.
Where did I say they had monopoly power? I said they have a monopoly over choice, about when to sell what. That cant be argued.
Comments
Originally posted by oldmacfan
If Apple really wants bang for it's buck, It would not release a small speed bump in the rev B. They should come out with a 3.0 in this release. That way, they won't have people going, "I can wait for the Rev c". Apple needs to make a big splash and not another little drip.
You have no clue what you are freaking talking about. Apple already has one of the fastest PC's in the world with the G5 at 2 Ghz. 2.5 is appropriately fast for the high end, and would trounce anything out of AMD or Intel right now. People scare me sometimes with these "mind sets", and it is true that some G4's are still better than a lot of Intel's offerings. The G5 is fine as it is right now, (in terms of speed) the price for that speed is what needs to be corrected, more than anything.
Big Blue is expected to describe a 2.5GHz version of the chip made on the 90-nanometer process at the International Solid State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) in San Francisco next week.
Someone had the balls to post that IBM is shipping a 2.5!! Damn it I've been telling everyone forever... MOSR doesn't know what they are talking about...they are the ones that started all of this 2.6 bs.
WTF are you going on about. Since when does describe == shipping. IBM is going to talk about a 2.5GHZ 970FX at the ISSCC. Thats all. What ships in Apple product could be any manner of speed above and below 2.5GHZ, or do you forget the initial 1.8GHZ top speed quoted for the first gen G5s.
Originally posted by emig647
LOL!
[snip]
Only reason I didn't buy a Rev A is because I didn't trust the hardware. Its brand new in so many ways and I just wanted to be sure before I spent my money on a high end machine.
[/snip]
it's funny though, by all accounts, the 'Rev A' PM G5's have been perfect, while the 'long-in-the-tooth' iBook platform (not to mention the PowerBooks) have had repeated build issues.
funny...
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
You have no clue what you are freaking talking about. Apple already has one of the fastest PC's in the world with the G5 at 2 Ghz. 2.5 is appropriately fast for the high end, and would trounce anything out of AMD or Intel right now. People scare me sometimes with these "mind sets", and it is true that some G4's are still better than a lot of Intel's offerings. The G5 is fine as it is right now, (in terms of speed) the price for that speed is what needs to be corrected, more than anything.
OK, do you know what conjecture is? This isn't a mind set, this is an oppinion. I expect nothing. You don't have a clue as to what I know, or don't know. So until you crawl into my head and learn what I know, you have no room to tell me jack. What I am talking about is shock effect. Something Apple needs alittle of. This is pure marketing, Think Different.
lol
Originally posted by oldmacfan
OK, do you know what conjecture is? This isn't a mind set, this is an oppinion. I expect nothing. You don't have a clue as to what I know, or don't know. So until you crawl into my head and learn what I know, you have no room to tell me jack. What I am talking about is shock effect. Something Apple needs alittle of. This is pure marketing, Think Different.
lol
They dont NEED shock effect. PURE MARKETING, LMFAO! That would be retarded marketing, anybody with a real markeing sense knows that is is better to milk everything you can while remaining profitable. For example, say Apple had the capability to sell a 3.5 Ghz G5 but Steve has talked about the 3 Ghz barrier...So, anyone with marketing sense would know that Apple would downclock the chips to run at 3 Ghz, just because it is what people expect. That way, when it seems like its time for an upgrade and units stop selling, Apple can start selling the 3.5 Ghz chips that return them more profit per sale than the same chip that used to sell at 3 Ghz.
Think Different? Think Schiller.
Originally posted by jwdawso
There is a monopoly in who decides what to sell. Apple can decide that keeping margins high is what they want to do. If they decide that, it benefits them to "give us upgrades" that are upgrades but not full scale upgrades. Apple, Intel, and AMD all do that, selling higher potential chips at underclocked speeds. If it is selling at X speed, and Apple is making money from those X chips that cost X amount; then Apple will just scale the chip back up when the upgrade cycle is over but they will still be paying the same price for this chip that they were in the first place. All while customers pay higher prices for the same chip for a long period of time. Makes good business sense to do it that way.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
They dont NEED shock effect. PURE MARKETING, LMFAO! That would be retarded marketing, anybody with a real markeing sense knows that is is better to milk everything you can while remaining profitable. For example, say Apple had the capability to sell a 3.5 Ghz G5 but Steve has talked about the 3 Ghz barrier...So, anyone with marketing sense would know that Apple would downclock the chips to run at 3 Ghz, just because it is what people expect. That way, when it seems like its time for an upgrade and units stop selling, Apple can start selling the 3.5 Ghz chips that return them more profit per sale than the same chip that used to sell at 3 Ghz.
Think Different? Think Schiller.
Hello, go back and read my original post. The chips that are slower than the stated 2.6 would be going into the other lines. This makes total sense. That kind of ripple (tidal wave) could do for Apple what the original iMac did and more. This idea of mine isn't just about the PM, it is about all Mac lines.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Hello, go back and read my original post. The chips that are slower than the stated 2.6 would be going into the other lines. This makes total sense. That kind of ripple (tidal wave) could do for Apple what the original iMac did and more. This idea of mine isn't just about the PM, it is about all Mac lines.
I see that point here now that you have clarified it, thank you. In the original post I didnt see what you were getting at. It read to me like this, "Apple should get 3 Ghz because that would be RoXor!"
Haha, but now I see what youre saying and I do agree it would be nice if the G5 could permeate throughout the rest of Apple's computer lines.
Sorry!
Any ways... the one that didn't like my claim on the Rev A's. By the time there was enough proof that the Rev A's were good computers it was near time for the Reb B's to come out. I'd never buy a Rev A computer (especially with the upgrades that the g5 consisted of) for many reasons.
I've bought many brand new computers from Apple since 93. I haven't had the best of luck with their Rev A computers. The first B+W g3 is a perfect example. I've seen it over and over again with a lot of companies. They come out with this really nice product and a certain percetage fail. This IS the case with the Rev A g5. I've heard stories from Apple Service shops and seen posts all over the internet of motherboards failing. Of the fans going nuts and the computer not turning on after that. Again this is a very small percentage... but its better to wait until apple actually had this product on the market before spending 2300 on a high end dual 2ghz g5 (developer discount). This way apple has time to work out the kinks. Any ways thats not what this thread is for.
final post: Dual 2.5 g5 within a few weeks... I could be like MOSR and say... "My resources claim the next rev of g5s will be out within a year"
Originally posted by jwdawso
Where did I say they had monopoly power? I said they have a monopoly over choice, about when to sell what. That cant be argued.
Originally posted by jwdawso
I missed that point.
Reread it, the point is clearly made in the post.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Reread it, the point is clearly made in the post.
monopoly schmonopoly, bust out the new macs!