What ticks you off most about the new PowerMacs?

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 110
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by applenut

    i wonder if the homosexual members here (im sure there is a rather high percentage) appreciates your derogatory remarks.



    all talk and no substance....back yourself up or you look like the hillbilly from PA that you are.




    1)Don't Care



    2)Backing My Ideas Up



    3)"...back yourself up or look like the hill billy from PA that you are." What does that even mean? Hillbilly's don't back themselves up? You are looking the denser one between the two of us if you can't recognize that places that aren't the city are not all lifestyles like the amish. I was under the impression NY is much like PA. Each have a major city NYC, Philly...but they also have suburbs and rural. You did learn about those in school right?
  • Reply 62 of 110
    *sigh*



    So immature on this board sometimes....



    Ah well, I'm at fault sometimes too.
  • Reply 63 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Ummm, March is when they were SUPPOSED to ship ... please read posts carefully before replying like this ... it just makes you look stupid.



    According to you, because Apple planned to announce/ship these in March it has not actually been 12 months. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It doesn't matter what they had planned to do, only what they actually did. You can't just take off three months based on something that never happened. Apparently the laws of physics don't apply when it comes to Apple. You will say anything to defend them even when it clearly makes no sense at all.



    They never shipped in March. It's June. It is totally absurd to say it has only been 6 months based on the original ship date VS an imaginary planned March ship date. I mean, what the hell kind of logic is that? I could just see you walking into the IRS office in July with your income tax payment stating you are not actually late because you intended to pay back in April.



    They announed these new G5s in June. They announced the original G5s in June. That is ONE YEAR and if you can't understand that you have serious issues. It has been 12 months announcement to announcement and assuming the 2.5Ghz model ships in August then it will be about 10 months shipping date to shipping date. Period. End of discussion.
  • Reply 64 of 110
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by TWinbrook46636

    It has been 12 months announcement to announcement and assuming the 2.5Ghz model ships in August then it will be about 10 months shipping date to shipping date. Period. End of discussion.



    I'm sorry .... I completely mis-judged how much this whole upgrade cycle has upset you. At first glance it just looked like you were ranting, but it's pretty clear that you have some pretty deep issues regarding computer cycle upgrades which I think you better deal with, it's just not healthy.
  • Reply 65 of 110
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZoSo

    Right.



    Think before insulting, violence (even verbal) gets you nowhere.



    ZoSo




    Ummm, please read the WHOLE discussion before making passing judgement.

  • Reply 66 of 110
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    Ummm, please read the WHOLE discussion before making passing judgement.



    Which is exactly what I did. And I stand by my opinion.



    ZoSo
  • Reply 67 of 110
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZoSo

    Right.



    And when they will finally, actaually ship to end users? September, most likely.



    Following your same reasoning, this makes you look retarded. Think before insulting, violence (even verbal) gets you nowhere.



    ZoSo




    Thanks for the advice, *** **** ****** ****!
  • Reply 68 of 110
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Messiahtosh

    Hey Applenut, as soon as you take that hot poker out of your ass, why dont you do all the ladies a favor and cut off your dick?



    was that part of your "i want to ram it up Jobs' ass" graduation speech?
  • Reply 69 of 110
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x



    3)"...back yourself up or look like the hill billy from PA that you are." What does that even mean? Hillbilly's don't back themselves up? You are looking the denser one between the two of us if you can't recognize that places that aren't the city are not all lifestyles like the amish. I was under the impression NY is much like PA. Each have a major city NYC, Philly...but they also have suburbs and rural. You did learn about those in school right?










    keep biting



    this place is so easy
  • Reply 70 of 110
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,656member
    First off, no one accused of whining here is actually guilty of that crime.



    Whichever way you look at it Apple screwed up (AGAIN!!!). Was it entirely their fault? Certainly not, but they could have done so much more with just a little common sense in management/marketing.



    Apple announced the G5s at WWDC last year. To all intents and purposes that is one year ago. But, irrespective of dates, even June 2003 was WAY overdue for serious mac hardware improvements. Let's not forget that we were playing serious catchup on Mac desktop hardware. In many ways the dual 2GHz caught up and was competitive on pricing. Nice. The rest of the line was overpriced and underpowered. Not nice.



    Apple had to introduce a dual 1.8Ghz G5 line against its own planning strategies (and incurring serious costs in the process). This was admitted by Fred Anderson at a financial call. The term for this kind of revision is a 're-configuration'.



    Apple, unfortunately, has garnered an unenviable reputation for launching products and not actually shipping them until a much later date. This should be a crime punishable by law IMO . The G5 line was up and on sale at WWDC. Actual shipping of the product has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.



    Look at it from an extreme viewpoint but in the other direction. If Apple had announced the dual 2GHz G5s in June 2003 but not actually shipped them until January 2004 would some people still be arguing that it had only been six months since the last revision? It doesn't make sense.



    The lack of a 3GHz chip, in spite of the claims Steve Jobs made 12 months ago, is something many could complain about but, as others in this same thread have already pointed out, the lack of a 3GHz chip has little to do with how people feel. Just look at the poll results.



    What is angering people is the lack of revised hardware at the other end twelve months after the initial G5s were introduced. Many believe (myself included) that the G5s should have been launched as a dual processor product line. Launching single chip models probably hurt sales in the long term. Remember Apple did not plan to make the 1.8GHz machine dual, they just had no other option.



    Users voted with their wallets that the singles were not wanted. Apple even went on record confirming that users were more interested in dual machines.



    So, providing a dual lineup across the entire line now, is simply giving people what they should have had a year ago. In effect Apple has just re-configured the line again (barring the 2.5GHz model). The addition of 8x Superdrives is not something that you should consider a serious improvement. They couldn't do anything else seeing as the eMac already has it.



    Add to this the graphics cards problem. The current stock cards are an insult. What they are moving into the retail channel is a huge amount of ridiculously underpowered graphics hardware. It's severely underpowered now, let alone in four or five months when these machines will still (in theory) be live. These cards would be OK in eMacs (and only just!).



    You could say that nothing new has actually come on line with the two lower end models. Absolutley nothing. They are just shipping exactly the same overall hardware they were last year. I could be wrong but I think that is unheard of in the desktop computer industry for pro desktop machines. The amount of RAM in shipping pro macs is also a bone of contention but at least that can be upgraded with less losses on the part of the user.



    So, assuming Apple hardware typically has a refresh life of a mimimum six months, come December 2004, Apple could reasonably be shipping almost identical hardware to what it launched in June 2003!!!! Bar one top-end, low volume model.



    All this with all but the smallest of concessions on pricing. Complaints are more than justified.



    But it doesn't stop there. There are other issues to be considered. We're considering the fact that the original G5s represent a basepoint that users were/are happy with.



    I don't share that viewpoint. The original G5 architcture was long overdue and much needed. The core architecture lays a fine base but Apple screwed in other areas.



    Apple launched overpriced, underpowered second and third tier G5s without several key pro features. Namely a second optical bay, room for more than two hard drives and independent firewire busses.



    The first of those items was a feature that users had virtually pleaded to get. They got it on the MDD line. Then they got it taken away in the very next line. At times I think Apple is pure evil.



    Given the current enormous size of the G5, do we really think that a couple of inches more for a second optical bay would have angered pro users more than not not having an extra bay at all?



    Apple got a handy dosis of backslaps when the second optical bay became a reality. Why ruin it for a couple of inches? And before thousands of Apple defenders step forward with claims of 'I don't need a second optical bay', let me remind you that this is a question of options. And not even a very extravagant one at that.



    People try to justify Apple's decision of supporting only two internal drive bays by saying ' as each one can be up to 250GB you can fit the same content of four old drives onto two new ones'. This is true in many cases but isn't the solution for all. The problem goes beyond capacity. Some people (obviously, myself included again here) want room for more individual drives. Physical drives. For data security reasons. One other physical drive is insufficient for my needs. Again we're talking options. We are using pro machines. we're entitled to options aren't we? Again, not something you could call extravagant for a machine of this pricing.



    Some of the ultra 'Apple can do no wrong' brigade will tell me that I am mad and that these two complaints can be worked around via firewire. Just add a second optical external firewire disk and add as many external hard drives as you like.



    No sir. Why should I work around a problem that shouldn't even be present in a pro desktop machine? Why should I incur the extra cost of this workaround? Why should have to go through the pain of seeing this 'workaround' fail due to another of the G5s shortcomings: Firewire.



    Apple designed the G5 to have all its FW ports on the same bus. Just plug an active iSight into any G5 port and you can say goodbye to any other pro uses you might have for devices connected to the other ports. Isn't the G5 supposed to have humungous amounts of bandwidth? Let's not even mention the strange FW800 issues on G5s as mentioned by Barefeats.



    Perhaps I'm being harsh on the design of the G5? Maybe. It's a Rev A after all, but for the asking price of the lower models there are a lot of pro features missing. Fancy Fans? Cool design? You bet. Missing key design options? Also true.



    If these issues had been cleared up or improved in the refresh, then many of the complaints simply wouldn't have surfaced but Apple did just the opposite of calming people down. It lit the torch to their anger by screwing up and making things even worse than they already were.



    Not only are things now bad for the vast majority of users (those who won't be buying dual 2.5GHz G5s) but they will stay bad for the foreseable future. So what are we to do? Buy into this 're-configuration' knowing that we are being undersold or refuse to buy? I refuse to buy.



    Judging from the poll results here, the majority share the same concerns as I do. Whether voters who were looking to buy a refreshed G5s will actually go ahead with the purchase given the quality of the refresh is a bit of an unknown.



    I'm looking forward to the next financial conference call.



    That's how I see current reality. Whether you share that view in part or at all is something else. What I fail to understand is how some people seem to think there are no grounds for complaint and freely accuse other sof being whiners.



    So what for the future?



    For one, Apple isn't getting full yields of 2.5GHz chips. So the question has to be, where the hell are the lower rated chips (2.2GHz and 2.4Ghz) and what is being done with them? A big mystery.



    Two. Supposing the 3GHz had been delivered on time, I very much doubt Apple planned on putting them in the current G5 iteration. The conclusion is, therefore, that there is a re-worked G5 design that has been finalised and is waiting to be announced.



    I expect the mysterious 2,2 and 2.4 GHz G5 FX chips to appear in a sooner rather than later G5 refresh. This time it will be the one everybody (even Apple) had expected for WWDC. Expo Paris seems to be a good date for the announcement but if sales of the current lower end G5s are as low as I think they will be, then Steve Jobs could well be ready to announce absolutely anything come that show if only to avoid being the first CEO tomatoed to death at an expo.



    If not a see a black Christmas this year.
  • Reply 71 of 110
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    An impressive post. I don't think anyone would be called a whiner for presenting arguements in this way...



    You seem to compare Apple a lot to the rest of the industry. Despite the fact that Apple is using proprietary hardware and commands a whopping 3% market share.



    If you think Apple is doing so badly, you can check out your options with other proprietary hardware makers like Sun and SGI. Not only do you suggest that Apple match specs with competitors who's parts are a commodity, but you expect Apple to be competative with price. Sorry, your expectations are un-realistic.



    Sure, we are all expecting big things with IBM's new G5, but a turnaround of Apples powermac fortunes are going to take years of hard work.
  • Reply 72 of 110
    I think it all comes down to the 1-year upgrade cycle. The longer the wait the higher the expectations. This simply proves they can't go this long without an update. If these were announced earlier I don't believe there would be this kind of negative reaction. I think if they announced a 1.8/2.0/2.2 lineup in January and a 2.0/2.2/2.5 in June things would have gone a lot smoother. I think it's best to stick with a 6 to 8 month upgrade cycle.



    Now with Steve saying "Today Apple and IBM are announcing that at this time next year we will be at 3Ghz" at last year's WWDC, expectations were literally forced higher. Unfortunately Apple did very little damage control over the following 12 months. They didn't exactly play down that comment very much. In fact, Tom Boger at Apple recently stated that they didn't know they would not be able to meet the 3Ghz deadline until a few weeks ago. This is one of a few strange comments that makes me wonder just what in the world is going on over there in Cupertino.



    I don't have a problem with the 2.5 Ghz model. I don't think many people here do. It is the other two models. We are used to speedbump updates where processor speeds are improved but baseline specs remain the same. This is nothing new. What we are not used to is waiting this long between updates. That is the main problem. As I said, the longer the wait the higher the expectations.



    Clearly there are problems with the 90nm transition, not only for Apple/IBM but across the whole industry. Apple will have to innovate in other areas and improve the baseline specs to remain competitive. That is all that I and most of the people here are saying. That and the 1-year upgrade cycle has to go but I think maybe Apple has an idea now. Time will tell.
  • Reply 73 of 110
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    An impressive post. I don't think anyone would be called a whiner for presenting arguements in this way...



    You seem to compare Apple a lot to the rest of the industry. Despite the fact that Apple is using proprietary hardware and commands a whopping 3% market share.



    If you think Apple is doing so badly, you can check out your options with other proprietary hardware makers like Sun and SGI. Not only do you suggest that Apple match specs with competitors who's parts are a commodity, but you expect Apple to be competative with price. Sorry, your expectations are un-realistic.



    Sure, we are all expecting big things with IBM's new G5, but a turnaround of Apples powermac fortunes are going to take years of hard work.




    Sorry but I don't see anything proprietary in RAM, hard drive and optical bays, graphics cards, firewire busses, refresh rates or prices.



    Perhaps if Apple continues in its current vein it might end up like Sun and SGI. I don't think anyone would like that to happen.



    On a company level (my post was basically concerned with the pro line) the problems are even bigger.



    Apple is becoming a 'Lost World' of computing at the lower end. A strange and wonderful place where you go to see computers that you thought had become extinct long ago.



    I truly hope (in spite of Boger's comments) that we see 'consumer' G5 based macs come WWDC. They should have been here in January 2004 and even that was late in my book. Where's there's a will there's a way.
  • Reply 74 of 110
    "Jobs further excited the crowd when he said that Apple would release a 3GHz model within a year -- with two weeks to go before that deadline, Boger said Apple will not meet the 3GHz promise"



    You know, I don't think Apple ever planned to announce new PowerMac models before now. None of the rumors of updates ever panned out and Steve essentially gave a timeframe for an update by stating they would be at 3Ghz by the following WWDC. He actually told us when the next models would be out and we all missed it. They went with the one-year upgrade cycle and made WWDC the deadline but didn't know until the last minute that goal would be missed.
  • Reply 75 of 110
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,259member
    Avon



    Your personal RDF almost matches that of Steve Jobs. Apple did learn that people value dual PMs over singles and adjusted to make that change. They have gone one more step and made the whole lineup dual now. Hindsight is 20/20, any of us can say "they should have done this a year ago". However none of us are privvy to what the chip supply was like. Obviously today the supply is doing well at 2Ghz or less thus we have an all dual line. You may think the PMs are overpriced and underperforming but that opinion and 50 cents might buy me a cup of coffee. I know a lot of people making a good living off of these slow and overpriced computers.



    It's obvious you don't hang in Pro circles. Dual Optical bays a "Pro" feature? Perhaps in your RDF. Independant FW ports a Pro feature. Guess those foolish idiots with Aja IOs got taken right?



    Funny how the bickering and complaining about Mac updates seems to go away once I'm on boards where people actually produce with their computers. What's the old proverb "The person who says it cannot be done is frequently interrupted by someone actually doing it".



    Let's look at the full picture here and try to explain some things.



    RAM- No excuse. Apple is being cheap here. I concur with everyone's complaints.



    5200fx- IMO introduced as a standard config item to placate nvidia who would otherwise be shut out in lieu of Ati products. If I have to have a crappy 5200fx card to increase my chances of getting a Quadro then sobeit. I believe this is but a concession to Nvidia.



    Optical- You wanna dupe a bunch of discs get a Primera CD duplication. I seriously doubt a typical persons day is hampered by having one optical drive.



    Price- Why does everyone keep telling me how expensive Powermacs are? Have you priced a Dual Xeon or Opteron system yet? Have you seen the Alienware configurations? The PC has fragmented into cheap sub $1k systems which foster the perception of being cheap but when you want the "good stuff" you're paying as much as Mac nowadays.



    Hell considering what Apple charges for BTO upgrades i'm more inclined to have them ship me a box with as little as possible and let me configure the rest the way I want.



    I don't mind the whining, it's funny actually because I realize how some people get caught up in the spectacle.



    Apple will likely address some of the issues that we see here but there will always be complaints. It's the human way.
  • Reply 76 of 110
    the cool gutthe cool gut Posts: 1,714member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Avon B7

    Sorry but I don't see anything proprietary in RAM, hard drive and optical bays, graphics cards, firewire busses, refresh rates or prices.





    uhhhhhh ....... sigh. Nevermind.
  • Reply 77 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally posted by the cool gut

    I'm sorry .... I completely mis-judged how much this whole upgrade cycle has upset you. At first glance it just looked like you were ranting, but it's pretty clear that you have some pretty deep issues regarding computer cycle upgrades which I think you better deal with, it's just not healthy.



    Just frustrating. Your comment that it has actually only been 6 months since the G5s were announced because they planned on updates back in March was an amazing stretch of logic. Besides, I don't think Apple ever intended to announce upgraded PowerMacs until now anyway. It's that 1-year cycle plan of theirs. It's not going to work. I think, or at least hope, they realize this now. The new lineup will certainly not hold over until next June so hopefully they will bump it to 2.0/2.2/2.5 or so this fall. Unfortunately I don't think we will see any other improvments to the system until 3Ghz becomes available. Not because they can't do it but because they won't. They don't like doing that until the whole package is ready. It's not their way.
  • Reply 78 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Avon B7



    For one, Apple isn't getting full yields of 2.5GHz chips. So the question has to be, where the hell are the lower rated chips (2.2GHz and 2.4Ghz) and what is being done with them? A big mystery.



    Good question. It is a bit odd that they are offering two current speeds, 1.8 and 2.0, then jumping to 2.5. Have we confirmed whether or not the 1.8 and 2.0 are the newer 90nm processors?



    Quote:



    Two. Supposing the 3GHz had been delivered on time, I very much doubt Apple planned on putting them in the current G5 iteration. The conclusion is, therefore, that there is a re-worked G5 design that has been finalised and is waiting to be announced.




    I agree. I think Apple tends to wait on adding a lot of improvements until the whole package is ready though maybe they will come with updates before 3Ghz is reached as it may be quite a while.
  • Reply 79 of 110
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    After cooling off for the past few days I think depending on the speed of the 2.5 in real world tests turns out to be what I think it will be comparatively vs. the 2,0, and vs. PC x86 it's still not that great of a processor update, but I'm sure it's better than it was.

    I was of the opinion that 2.5GHz was probably good enough yesterday, but I think it's only going to hold on in speed (which is still probably lesser than AMD, and Intel) in comparisons vs. PC for a short while, and they will overcome, and surpass it again while the 2.5GHz G5 falls to a much slower 3rd place than it would have if Apple would have hit the 3GHz goal. IF that goal would have been met at least the PowerMac would have had a more respectable position when the XEON, and AMD processors get updated, and increased their lead that much further ahead.

    ---------------------------------------Just my thoughts on the processors.





    Mostly I'm disappointed that there was no good graphics card news for any of us, be it users, gamers, or 3D guy's such as my self.



    I actually didn't expect a 3D card, but did expect Apple to have an Nvidia Geforce FX (not to be mistaken with the QuadroFX) of some variant available for those of you waiting to play Doom3, and those just looking for better graphics performance.



    I'd like to know what they were working on all year? Did it take 12 months for them to devise a liquid cooling system? I'd fire the whole PowerMac hardware team if that's all they could come up with in 12 months. It's not like they even pioneered the technology. It's old sh*t. It's on about every PC already if you've wanted it for about 2 years.

    Needless to say I think it's a rather lackluster update, and Apple is not looking like they are functioning on all 8 cylinders.
  • Reply 80 of 110
    what ticked me off most: no one will donate 3 grand so i can buy one
Sign In or Register to comment.