I hate that and I find it very irrational. Mexico was one of the places were Microsoft's Xboxes were being manufactured (Guadalajara) yet the console retails for more in here than in the US.
Apple's done well but there are very evident weaknesses that must be addressed. Looking at their earnings they just aren't selling more computers. I tried to deny it but Bborofka succinctly pointed on another board that sales are indeed stagnant.
This is easy to verify. Apple still depends on hardware profit to exist. And that means we pay more money for this hardware. I've always been an advocate of Apple becoming a little more Microsoftian and devoting themselves to getting more software out there that can be licensed. They only do about billion a year in software. That's not enough. Software is high margin and your don't have supply issues with software. A hot app is like printing money.
Sadly there haven't been much steps to doing this and its a long haul but if Apple can address this weakness then they can profit more and sell more hardware. Until then I don't see how we won't get higher priced Macs and pissed off fans.
Part of the problem is the model, which is also the only reason Apple still exists at all. Blessing and a curse -- that early licensing miss.
Remember the rumor that Apple was going to charge for iLife? That met with such a deservedly negative chorus from so many corners of the mac community that Apple quitely dropped the price to 49 on a new license and kept on providing it with new machines. They had to because part of the Apple premium involves the apps that come with the machine. Apple can NEVER go any higher on iLife, and MUST continue to expand/improve it and bundle it at no cost with the machine.
There way out was to create a middle "express" tier.
There are pro apps, express verions, and i apps. iApps should basically be considered part of the OS, they're that fundamental. Apple doesn't build in nasty tricks, you don't have to install them, but as far as end-user experience goes, they gotta be there, or you ain't really using OSX. Pro apps subsidize all of the cost of development, and express versions expan the audience so that the lucrative "pro" user base can grow.
However, I'm glad you realize that Apple isn't selling more machines. Awareness is the first step to recovery. Now you just need to make the next logical step and realize that sales and price, and especially the way in which price interacts witht he perception of value, is the number one determiner of consumer computer purchases.
It absolutely is a commodity item. In fact, the price of computers is actually way too high across the board, not just Apple, even the bargain basement stuff. It's held there artificially by a vicious upgrade cycle.
Look at any other piece of consumer electronics.
The useable life of CD's and VHS was over 2 decades. Plenty of TVs saw service for 10-15 years or more. Even DVD's, rumored to be obsoleted almost since their inception, will pass 10 years of service before any real consumer technology replaces them. AM? FM? haven't changed in decades? And crucially, with all of these, the "software" support is still there, not as some legacy apendage, but as the real thriving heart of that platform. Newer models of each, with better features and performance arrive all the time, but each is as capable today of exploiting the current software library as the day the platform was launched.
Computers can't/won't/don't do that. They are obsoleted by developers at a breathtaking pace. But that's finally starting to wear on people. They're treating it like a disposable item. Why spend on something you're going to throw away in three years? When the market famously slowed, and it slowed for everyone, this was why.
Long term, if you want to stay in the home computer business, you're going to have to find a way to stay in business selling a sub 500 USD machine.
Whether that means a set-top that you utilize at your progressive scan TV, content delivery-subscription services, more software sales, more and more varied licensing, and likely some combination of all -- the computer landscape is racing towards a commodity computer market, and thank G-d it is, b/c I don't give a damn that any of them make money or not, their CEO's are all well paid. I want what I want, and I want it cheaper than you've just agreed to sell it, and once I force your price down, then, that's too high too, and I want it lowered again.
Your replies in this thread have been spot-on so far, Matsu.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
Whether that means a set-top that you utilize at your progressive scan TV, content delivery-subscription services, more software sales, more and more varied licensing, and likely some combination of all -- the computer landscape is racing towards a commodity computer market, and thank G-d it is, b/c I don't give a damn that any of them make money or not, their CEO's are all well paid. I want what I want, and I want it cheaper than you've just agreed to sell it, and once I force your price down, then, that's too high too, and I want it lowered again.
That made me laugh but again, it's spot-on about where computer technology is going. We can't be living in the same world of the mid 80's when computers were still looked upon as almost unattainable technology for regular consumers. You've demonstrated thoroughly again and again how Apple can achieve a consumer machine that works both prise-wise for the average consumer yet that still delivers good quality. It's the old argument, but if Apple fails in doing so, the iMac 3 will be condemned to the same fate as the Cube and the iMac 2.
[B]No you're wrong. You just can't boil G4 vs G5 performance down to a nice tidy little package. Integer performance between the two is similar but the two FP units in the G5 are far more superior. Plus the G5 queues a lot of instructions(215 I believe).
As I said, for running 32 bit code, the G5 isn't going to be much faster than a G4. I stand by that. Nothing you've said contradicts this. And a G4 is not, in real terms, faster than a scaled up P3. A 3.4GHz Pentium IV, Athlon 3400, or even the 2500+ CPUs that have become minimums in the PC world (aside from laptops) are considerably faster than the G5s being proposed here. In the real world. In the real world where most applications are 32bit. In the real world where 64bit arithmetic simply isn't done often enough for applications to be even be usefully recompiled.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Then a Macintosh iMac G5 LCD isn't for these people. Apple makes the eMac..if they don't like that they can go buy a PC. Apple doesn't beg for sales, they put extra care in software and hardware design.
An eMac is hardly going to satisfy someone who considers the iMac overpriced and underperforming now is it? Sure, it's sub-$1,000, but it's even more poorly powered than the iMac. Worse still, the "Educational iMac 3G" appears to have been invented so that the eMac can be discontinued at some point.
Your comments that Apple doesn't beg for sales strikes me as a little inconsidered. Apple needs to grow its user base. Not doing so damages existing users, because it reduces the incentives for third party support. That directly damages you and me, whether we own iMac 3Gs or Beige G3s.
Right now Apple's only "solution" to this particular problem has been to start writing the software themselves. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where one company is responsible for virtually all of the software I have.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Oh so a 1.6 or 1.8Ghz G5 is slow now? Riiiiight keep stroking that RDF man you almost sounded convincing.
I'm saying it's considerably slower than current baseline industry standards. Am I saying it's "slow"? Well, I personally wouldn't say a 500MHz G4 is "slow", I grew up on Z80s and 68000s. Anything's an improvement on that.
But relatively, is the 1.8GHz G5 slow compared to, say, a 2.5GHz Pentium IV with a modern FSB? You betcha.
Does this effect SP 1.8GHz G5 owners? Well, will the new technologies you're finding on PCs, from image processing to the latest games run acceptably on 1.8GHz machines?
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
YOU....ARE ....DUMB
I'm sorry I violated the TOS but sometimes you read a post so stupid in content, so rife with banality I literally dry heaved reading this.
If you don't mind me asking, why exactly are you getting so hysterical and emotional about this? Nothing I've said is particularly controvertial. Apple is, if the rumours are correct, about to release an underpowered machine. I've said I'm not going to buy it, that I consider it extremely poor value for money. I can get a traditional three box (read: expandable) set-up with far more horsepower from IBM for a better price than I can get a proposed iMac 3G.
There's nothing "stupid" about this. There's stupidity, arguably, on the part of Apple, but nothing for you to take offense at to the degree you have, where you've moved from trying to justify the unjustifiable (as you did in your attempts to disprove my comment that a G5 isn't going to run 32 bit code significantly faster than a G4 or Pentium at the same clock rate), to hurling childish insults.
I stand by my comments. Yes, you can run Gentoo Linux on a G5 if you want and probably get a performance increase on a G5 such that it might be faster than an ix86 clocked a few (only a few mind you) hundred MHz faster, but Apple doesn't ship Gentoo - you have to run exactly the same binaries as everyone else.
It's under powered for the price. Get over it. And, BTW, it's a computer for christ sakes - lose the emotion.
Is $1299 USD really that much in Norway? I mean do people really think $149 GPUs are in $1299 computers because on the PC side you don't get to this level as standard equipment until you spend $1499 or above. Of course you can BTO lower end configs.
well, here in Norway, the 17" iMac with SuperDrive is more like . . . 2300$.
As I said, for running 32 bit code, the G5 isn't going to be much faster than a G4. I stand by that. Nothing you've said contradicts this. And a G4 is not, in real terms, faster than a scaled up P3. A 3.4GHz Pentium IV, Athlon 3400, or even the 2500+ CPUs that have become minimums in the PC world (aside from laptops) are considerably faster than the G5s being proposed here.
On integer code, the 74xx and 970 should have the same performance per MHz. On FPU code, the 970 should be about 1.5 times as fast the 74xx per MHz. A 74xx CPU should also be about the same or 1.2 times as fast as P3 or Pentium M per MHz. A 1.6 GHz 970 on average should be about the same performance as a 2.5 GHz P4.
And of course, as establisted many times in benchmarks, a 1.6 GHz Pentium M has about the same performance as a 2.6 GHz P4, and the Athlon 2 GHz about the same as a 3 GHz P4.
1.6 to 1.8 GHz 970 machines are fine for Apple's consumers machines. Everyone also acknowledges that Apple puts a $200+ price premium on there machines when compared to x86 machines.
Quote:
Right now Apple's only "solution" to this particular problem has been to start writing the software themselves. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where one company is responsible for virtually all of the software I have.
Heh, you may not have choice, because that's the way this market seems to work.
Quote:
But relatively, is the 1.8GHz G5 slow compared to, say, a 2.5GHz Pentium IV with a modern FSB? You betcha.
You're mistaken here. A 1.8 GHz G5 should be on average equivalent to a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV.
On integer code, the 74xx and 970 should have the same performance per MHz. On FPU code, the 970 should be about 1.5 times as fast the 74xx per MHz. A 74xx CPU should also be about the same or 1.2 times as fast as P3 or Pentium M per MHz. A 1.6 GHz 970 on average should be about the same performance as a 2.5 GHz P4.
It should also be noted that in this price range (including the 17" monitor -- I swear, I think people are mentally comparing the $1300 price to a PC without a monitor at that price!) you don't get a P4, you get a Celeron. I don't imagine 1.6 GHz G5 will compare badly to a 2.5 GHz Celeron at all.
Whether that means a set-top that you utilize at your progressive scan TV, content delivery-subscription services, more software sales, more and more varied licensing, and likely some combination of all -- the computer landscape is racing towards a commodity computer market, and thank G-d it is, b/c I don't give a damn that any of them make money or not, their CEO's are all well paid. I want what I want, and I want it cheaper than you've just agreed to sell it, and once I force your price down, then, that's too high too, and I want it lowered again.
So basically everything you say in these forums needs to be mentally prefaced with the intro "After the revolution, man..."
When you say that a 17" G5 iMac "should be" $999, this doesn't have much to do with present reality, but rather some theoretical ideal-in-your-mind world where, at your demand, all profits for all computer makers have been slashed to the barest razor thin margins, and 17" LCD displays have to be given away practically for free because everyone really wants to use their TVs as their computer displays instead.
It's under those circumstances that a 17" G5 iMac "should" cost $999.
Ah, it helps to have a little context to better understand things!
It should also be noted that in this price range (including the 17" monitor -- I swear, I think people are mentally comparing the $1300 price to a PC without a monitor at that price!) you don't get a P4, you get a Celeron. I don't imagine 1.6 GHz G5 will compare badly to a 2.5 GHz Celeron at all.
No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions. But 1.6 to 1.8 GHz 970 machines should be perfectly comparable to 2.8 to 3.0 GHz P4 machines. It's just that Apple has a $200+ price premium and inflexible options...
It should also be noted that in this price range (including the 17" monitor -- I swear, I think people are mentally comparing the $1300 price to a PC without a monitor at that price!) you don't get a P4, you get a Celeron. I don't imagine 1.6 GHz G5 will compare badly to a 2.5 GHz Celeron at all.
I for one think that a $999 G5 iMac without 17" monitor IS a good deal. In fact, I would prefer it. I have a monitor. A good one too. What I don't have is $2000 for a computer with a monitor attached to it.
I for one think that a $999 G5 iMac without 17" monitor IS a good deal. In fact, I would prefer it. I have a monitor. A good one too. What I don't have is $2000 for a computer with a monitor attached to it.
As I've made clear in other posts, I'm not arguing that Apple shouldn't have more options. These new iMacs, if Think Secret has it right, aren't a great way for Apple to increase market share, although I think they'll sell fine to Apple's existing base.
No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions. But 1.6 to 1.8 GHz 970 machines should be perfectly comparable to 2.8 to 3.0 GHz P4 machines. It's just that Apple has a $200+ price premium and inflexible options...
I popped over to Dell's site and priced up a 4600 desktop with the following options:
2.8GHz P4
256MB RAM
80GB HDD
2 optical drives DVD-ROM and CD-RW
Windows XP Professional (better comparison to OS X than XP Home)
Nvidia FX5200 w/128MB (Hey there's that 5200 again!)
17" Digital LCD
All this priced for $1337.00*
There were some extras like free printer and maybe a rebate for $75 but this does not include shipping. So to equal the rumored iMac with a separate component machine from Dell is about the same money and you don't get iLife with the Dell.
The only benefit is being able to upgrade the video if you like and swapping to a different monitor. You could shave the price down if you downgrade to the analog LCD by $200. After checking it out though I'd still go with the iMac regardless.
* Dell's site is an atrocity and the same or similar machine will price differently depending on how you click to the options or for various other reasons. It is a fair estimate of what Dell will charge for a system with specs coinciding with the iMac (arguments about relative processor power aside).
... They are obsoleted by developers at a breathtaking pace. But that's finally starting to wear on people. They're treating it like a disposable item. Why spend on something you're going to throw away in three years? When the market famously slowed, and it slowed for everyone, this was why.
...
Absolutely correct. The home market is virtually dead; in a few months, people will surf the web and do word-processing on their game consoles.
The corporate market is holding onto their machines longer, because they are paying attention to long-term costs. This is the market that Apple should target with the new iMac, and the published designs look good for that market.
There is a narrow window of opportunity, about a year, for Apple to make a beachhead in the corporate market, before generic Linux PCs steamroller the industry.
Absolutely correct. The home market is virtually dead; in a few months, people will surf the web and do word-processing on their game consoles...
That has failed in the past, and since it will take a while for most households to get true HDTV's it will take a while for it to become feasable to try it again. That is not saying that it can't be done, it could be done 5 years ago it just didn't suceed.
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
...The corporate market is holding onto their machines longer, because they are paying attention to long-term costs. This is the market that Apple should target with the new iMac, and the published designs look good for that market...
I disagree here, though the specs are ok, the price is not right for this market. The AIO design could work for it or aginst it.
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
...There is a narrow window of opportunity, about a year, for Apple to make a beachhead in the corporate market, before generic Linux PCs steamroller the industry.
Apple has been positioning themselve to do this with OS X and the Xserve. These products have come along way in building respect for Apple in a number of areas that Apple is not historically strong in. It would be nice to see Apple come out with the desktop computers at a price point that will help them target this market, but I don't thin they have them yet.
The only benefit is being able to upgrade the video if you like and swapping to a different monitor. You could shave the price down if you downgrade to the analog LCD by $200.
Well, if you didn't notice I said, "No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions." That was a conservative statement. You can get a digital LCD system for <$1300, but barely.
The benifit of Dell's offerings is excellent flexibility at very low prices. If the options for the 4600 aren't to ones to your liking, there are 4 other lines of Dimensions to choose from, all with very low prices. For instance, the 4700 can be upgraded to the ATI Radeon X300 for $60 instead of splurging $200 for a Radeon 9800 in the 4600 series.
Apple should really consider offering such CTO or BTO options. They don't have to offer rock low margin prices, just the flexibility.
Quote:
* Dell's site is an atrocity and the same or similar machine will price differently depending on how you click to the options or for various other reasons. It is a fair estimate of what Dell will charge for a system with specs coinciding with the iMac (arguments about relative processor power aside).
Yes, one has to be very careful when going through Dell's website. I've purchased 3 systems (2 laptops and a 17" LCD Dimension 8250) in the last 2 years from Dell, all under $1250. Here are some examples I priced out today:
The major difference between your and my prices, aside from not subtracting rebates, is mostly likely that you priced your 4600 system with the 2 year warranty ($100 value). Not sure if you included Firewire or not. And yes, one has to be really anal about getting and sending those rebates.
Well, if you didn't notice I said, "No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions." That was a conservative statement. You can get a digital LCD system for <$1300, but barely.
The benifit of Dell's offerings is excellent flexibility at very low prices. If the options for the 4600 aren't to ones to your liking, there are 4 other lines of Dimensions to choose from, all with very low prices. For instance, the 4700 can be upgraded to the ATI Radeon X300 for $60 instead of splurging $200 for a Radeon 9800 in the 4600 series.
Apple should really consider offering such CTO or BTO options. They don't have to offer rock low margin prices, just the flexibility.
Yes, one has to be very careful when going through Dell's website. I've purchased 3 systems (2 laptops and a 17" LCD Dimension 8250) in the last 2 years from Dell, all under $1250. Here are some examples I priced out today:
The major difference between your and my prices, aside from not subtracting rebates, is mostly likely that you priced your 4600 system with the 2 year warranty ($100 value). Not sure if you included Firewire or not. And yes, one has to be really anal about getting and sending those rebates.
I wasn't really arguing your statement. You're correct that systems can be had in that range.
I specifically made sure to keep it as the 1 year warranty so there wsn't a $100 extra when I specc'ed it out. I was a bit skimpy with listing all the specs an options. That's one of my beefs with Dell's site. I can probably go back there and find yet another different price. Infinite configurability and a convoluted site is not a good thing at all. Also (from experience), if you call rather than order online you can not get the exact system you spec at the exact price you see online. FOr some godforsaken reason Dells CS reps see a different price/configuration list than the site details.
My only real point I guess is that if you're ok with not upgrading the video and a 17" LCD suits your taste then Apple's price is certainly competitive expecially considering the software and OS. I know the AIO won't please everyone but the value is not as horrible as some claim.
Still, I prefer to see what's realeased for real before getting in any good fights here .
[B]On integer code, the 74xx and 970 should have the same performance per MHz. On FPU code, the 970 should be about 1.5 times as fast the 74xx per MHz. A 74xx CPU should also be about the same or 1.2 times as fast as P3 or Pentium M per MHz. A 1.6 GHz 970 on average should be about the same performance as a 2.5 GHz P4.
I can't really see how a 1.6GHz 970 can get close to a 2.5GHz P4 using the figures you've just quoted, even assuming the "G4 1.2 times as fast as P3" statistic (which doesn't match my experience, but, whatever. I'd be interested in easily verifiable benchmarks that show this.) The vast bulk of code run now is doing mostly integer work (there's a somewhat misleading consensus that this isn't the case because programmers don't have the fear of FPUs they had 10 years ago, but that's somewhat ludicrous - you don't add fractions to pointers, you don't index arrays to three decimal places, it's still the case that the bulk of processing work is the exclusive realm of the integer.)
Comments
Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
Consumer machines aren't generally used for rendering Finding friggin' Nemo scenes. or applying 450 Photoshop filters to a 47" - 54" movie poster.
I loved that fscking movie!
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple's done well but there are very evident weaknesses that must be addressed. Looking at their earnings they just aren't selling more computers. I tried to deny it but Bborofka succinctly pointed on another board that sales are indeed stagnant.
This is easy to verify. Apple still depends on hardware profit to exist. And that means we pay more money for this hardware. I've always been an advocate of Apple becoming a little more Microsoftian and devoting themselves to getting more software out there that can be licensed. They only do about billion a year in software. That's not enough. Software is high margin and your don't have supply issues with software. A hot app is like printing money.
Sadly there haven't been much steps to doing this and its a long haul but if Apple can address this weakness then they can profit more and sell more hardware. Until then I don't see how we won't get higher priced Macs and pissed off fans.
Part of the problem is the model, which is also the only reason Apple still exists at all. Blessing and a curse -- that early licensing miss.
Remember the rumor that Apple was going to charge for iLife? That met with such a deservedly negative chorus from so many corners of the mac community that Apple quitely dropped the price to 49 on a new license and kept on providing it with new machines. They had to because part of the Apple premium involves the apps that come with the machine. Apple can NEVER go any higher on iLife, and MUST continue to expand/improve it and bundle it at no cost with the machine.
There way out was to create a middle "express" tier.
There are pro apps, express verions, and i apps. iApps should basically be considered part of the OS, they're that fundamental. Apple doesn't build in nasty tricks, you don't have to install them, but as far as end-user experience goes, they gotta be there, or you ain't really using OSX. Pro apps subsidize all of the cost of development, and express versions expan the audience so that the lucrative "pro" user base can grow.
However, I'm glad you realize that Apple isn't selling more machines. Awareness is the first step to recovery. Now you just need to make the next logical step and realize that sales and price, and especially the way in which price interacts witht he perception of value, is the number one determiner of consumer computer purchases.
It absolutely is a commodity item. In fact, the price of computers is actually way too high across the board, not just Apple, even the bargain basement stuff. It's held there artificially by a vicious upgrade cycle.
Look at any other piece of consumer electronics.
The useable life of CD's and VHS was over 2 decades. Plenty of TVs saw service for 10-15 years or more. Even DVD's, rumored to be obsoleted almost since their inception, will pass 10 years of service before any real consumer technology replaces them. AM? FM? haven't changed in decades? And crucially, with all of these, the "software" support is still there, not as some legacy apendage, but as the real thriving heart of that platform. Newer models of each, with better features and performance arrive all the time, but each is as capable today of exploiting the current software library as the day the platform was launched.
Computers can't/won't/don't do that. They are obsoleted by developers at a breathtaking pace. But that's finally starting to wear on people. They're treating it like a disposable item. Why spend on something you're going to throw away in three years? When the market famously slowed, and it slowed for everyone, this was why.
Long term, if you want to stay in the home computer business, you're going to have to find a way to stay in business selling a sub 500 USD machine.
Whether that means a set-top that you utilize at your progressive scan TV, content delivery-subscription services, more software sales, more and more varied licensing, and likely some combination of all -- the computer landscape is racing towards a commodity computer market, and thank G-d it is, b/c I don't give a damn that any of them make money or not, their CEO's are all well paid. I want what I want, and I want it cheaper than you've just agreed to sell it, and once I force your price down, then, that's too high too, and I want it lowered again.
Originally posted by Matsu
*snip*
Your replies in this thread have been spot-on so far, Matsu.
Originally posted by Matsu
Whether that means a set-top that you utilize at your progressive scan TV, content delivery-subscription services, more software sales, more and more varied licensing, and likely some combination of all -- the computer landscape is racing towards a commodity computer market, and thank G-d it is, b/c I don't give a damn that any of them make money or not, their CEO's are all well paid. I want what I want, and I want it cheaper than you've just agreed to sell it, and once I force your price down, then, that's too high too, and I want it lowered again.
That made me laugh but again, it's spot-on about where computer technology is going. We can't be living in the same world of the mid 80's when computers were still looked upon as almost unattainable technology for regular consumers. You've demonstrated thoroughly again and again how Apple can achieve a consumer machine that works both prise-wise for the average consumer yet that still delivers good quality. It's the old argument, but if Apple fails in doing so, the iMac 3 will be condemned to the same fate as the Cube and the iMac 2.
Originally posted by hmurchison
[B]No you're wrong. You just can't boil G4 vs G5 performance down to a nice tidy little package. Integer performance between the two is similar but the two FP units in the G5 are far more superior. Plus the G5 queues a lot of instructions(215 I believe).
As I said, for running 32 bit code, the G5 isn't going to be much faster than a G4. I stand by that. Nothing you've said contradicts this. And a G4 is not, in real terms, faster than a scaled up P3. A 3.4GHz Pentium IV, Athlon 3400, or even the 2500+ CPUs that have become minimums in the PC world (aside from laptops) are considerably faster than the G5s being proposed here. In the real world. In the real world where most applications are 32bit. In the real world where 64bit arithmetic simply isn't done often enough for applications to be even be usefully recompiled.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Then a Macintosh iMac G5 LCD isn't for these people. Apple makes the eMac..if they don't like that they can go buy a PC. Apple doesn't beg for sales, they put extra care in software and hardware design.
An eMac is hardly going to satisfy someone who considers the iMac overpriced and underperforming now is it? Sure, it's sub-$1,000, but it's even more poorly powered than the iMac. Worse still, the "Educational iMac 3G" appears to have been invented so that the eMac can be discontinued at some point.
Your comments that Apple doesn't beg for sales strikes me as a little inconsidered. Apple needs to grow its user base. Not doing so damages existing users, because it reduces the incentives for third party support. That directly damages you and me, whether we own iMac 3Gs or Beige G3s.
Right now Apple's only "solution" to this particular problem has been to start writing the software themselves. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where one company is responsible for virtually all of the software I have.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Oh so a 1.6 or 1.8Ghz G5 is slow now? Riiiiight keep stroking that RDF man you almost sounded convincing.
I'm saying it's considerably slower than current baseline industry standards. Am I saying it's "slow"? Well, I personally wouldn't say a 500MHz G4 is "slow", I grew up on Z80s and 68000s. Anything's an improvement on that.
But relatively, is the 1.8GHz G5 slow compared to, say, a 2.5GHz Pentium IV with a modern FSB? You betcha.
Does this effect SP 1.8GHz G5 owners? Well, will the new technologies you're finding on PCs, from image processing to the latest games run acceptably on 1.8GHz machines?
Originally posted by hmurchison
YOU....ARE ....DUMB
I'm sorry I violated the TOS but sometimes you read a post so stupid in content, so rife with banality I literally dry heaved reading this.
If you don't mind me asking, why exactly are you getting so hysterical and emotional about this? Nothing I've said is particularly controvertial. Apple is, if the rumours are correct, about to release an underpowered machine. I've said I'm not going to buy it, that I consider it extremely poor value for money. I can get a traditional three box (read: expandable) set-up with far more horsepower from IBM for a better price than I can get a proposed iMac 3G.
There's nothing "stupid" about this. There's stupidity, arguably, on the part of Apple, but nothing for you to take offense at to the degree you have, where you've moved from trying to justify the unjustifiable (as you did in your attempts to disprove my comment that a G5 isn't going to run 32 bit code significantly faster than a G4 or Pentium at the same clock rate), to hurling childish insults.
I stand by my comments. Yes, you can run Gentoo Linux on a G5 if you want and probably get a performance increase on a G5 such that it might be faster than an ix86 clocked a few (only a few mind you) hundred MHz faster, but Apple doesn't ship Gentoo - you have to run exactly the same binaries as everyone else.
It's under powered for the price. Get over it. And, BTW, it's a computer for christ sakes - lose the emotion.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Is $1299 USD really that much in Norway? I mean do people really think $149 GPUs are in $1299 computers because on the PC side you don't get to this level as standard equipment until you spend $1499 or above. Of course you can BTO lower end configs.
well, here in Norway, the 17" iMac with SuperDrive is more like . . . 2300$.
Very very expensive.
sigh
http://www.barefeats.com/rad9800s.html
so there . . . . . .
;-)
Originally posted by peharri
As I said, for running 32 bit code, the G5 isn't going to be much faster than a G4. I stand by that. Nothing you've said contradicts this. And a G4 is not, in real terms, faster than a scaled up P3. A 3.4GHz Pentium IV, Athlon 3400, or even the 2500+ CPUs that have become minimums in the PC world (aside from laptops) are considerably faster than the G5s being proposed here.
On integer code, the 74xx and 970 should have the same performance per MHz. On FPU code, the 970 should be about 1.5 times as fast the 74xx per MHz. A 74xx CPU should also be about the same or 1.2 times as fast as P3 or Pentium M per MHz. A 1.6 GHz 970 on average should be about the same performance as a 2.5 GHz P4.
And of course, as establisted many times in benchmarks, a 1.6 GHz Pentium M has about the same performance as a 2.6 GHz P4, and the Athlon 2 GHz about the same as a 3 GHz P4.
1.6 to 1.8 GHz 970 machines are fine for Apple's consumers machines. Everyone also acknowledges that Apple puts a $200+ price premium on there machines when compared to x86 machines.
Right now Apple's only "solution" to this particular problem has been to start writing the software themselves. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where one company is responsible for virtually all of the software I have.
Heh, you may not have choice, because that's the way this market seems to work.
But relatively, is the 1.8GHz G5 slow compared to, say, a 2.5GHz Pentium IV with a modern FSB? You betcha.
You're mistaken here. A 1.8 GHz G5 should be on average equivalent to a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV.
Originally posted by THT
On integer code, the 74xx and 970 should have the same performance per MHz. On FPU code, the 970 should be about 1.5 times as fast the 74xx per MHz. A 74xx CPU should also be about the same or 1.2 times as fast as P3 or Pentium M per MHz. A 1.6 GHz 970 on average should be about the same performance as a 2.5 GHz P4.
It should also be noted that in this price range (including the 17" monitor -- I swear, I think people are mentally comparing the $1300 price to a PC without a monitor at that price!) you don't get a P4, you get a Celeron. I don't imagine 1.6 GHz G5 will compare badly to a 2.5 GHz Celeron at all.
Originally posted by Matsu
Whether that means a set-top that you utilize at your progressive scan TV, content delivery-subscription services, more software sales, more and more varied licensing, and likely some combination of all -- the computer landscape is racing towards a commodity computer market, and thank G-d it is, b/c I don't give a damn that any of them make money or not, their CEO's are all well paid. I want what I want, and I want it cheaper than you've just agreed to sell it, and once I force your price down, then, that's too high too, and I want it lowered again.
So basically everything you say in these forums needs to be mentally prefaced with the intro "After the revolution, man..."
When you say that a 17" G5 iMac "should be" $999, this doesn't have much to do with present reality, but rather some theoretical ideal-in-your-mind world where, at your demand, all profits for all computer makers have been slashed to the barest razor thin margins, and 17" LCD displays have to be given away practically for free because everyone really wants to use their TVs as their computer displays instead.
It's under those circumstances that a 17" G5 iMac "should" cost $999.
Ah, it helps to have a little context to better understand things!
Originally posted by shetline
It should also be noted that in this price range (including the 17" monitor -- I swear, I think people are mentally comparing the $1300 price to a PC without a monitor at that price!) you don't get a P4, you get a Celeron. I don't imagine 1.6 GHz G5 will compare badly to a 2.5 GHz Celeron at all.
No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions. But 1.6 to 1.8 GHz 970 machines should be perfectly comparable to 2.8 to 3.0 GHz P4 machines. It's just that Apple has a $200+ price premium and inflexible options...
Originally posted by shetline
It should also be noted that in this price range (including the 17" monitor -- I swear, I think people are mentally comparing the $1300 price to a PC without a monitor at that price!) you don't get a P4, you get a Celeron. I don't imagine 1.6 GHz G5 will compare badly to a 2.5 GHz Celeron at all.
I for one think that a $999 G5 iMac without 17" monitor IS a good deal. In fact, I would prefer it. I have a monitor. A good one too. What I don't have is $2000 for a computer with a monitor attached to it.
Originally posted by tak1108
I for one think that a $999 G5 iMac without 17" monitor IS a good deal. In fact, I would prefer it. I have a monitor. A good one too. What I don't have is $2000 for a computer with a monitor attached to it.
As I've made clear in other posts, I'm not arguing that Apple shouldn't have more options. These new iMacs, if Think Secret has it right, aren't a great way for Apple to increase market share, although I think they'll sell fine to Apple's existing base.
Originally posted by THT
No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions. But 1.6 to 1.8 GHz 970 machines should be perfectly comparable to 2.8 to 3.0 GHz P4 machines. It's just that Apple has a $200+ price premium and inflexible options...
I popped over to Dell's site and priced up a 4600 desktop with the following options:
2.8GHz P4
256MB RAM
80GB HDD
2 optical drives DVD-ROM and CD-RW
Windows XP Professional (better comparison to OS X than XP Home)
Nvidia FX5200 w/128MB (Hey there's that 5200 again!)
17" Digital LCD
All this priced for $1337.00*
There were some extras like free printer and maybe a rebate for $75 but this does not include shipping. So to equal the rumored iMac with a separate component machine from Dell is about the same money and you don't get iLife with the Dell.
The only benefit is being able to upgrade the video if you like and swapping to a different monitor. You could shave the price down if you downgrade to the analog LCD by $200. After checking it out though I'd still go with the iMac regardless.
* Dell's site is an atrocity and the same or similar machine will price differently depending on how you click to the options or for various other reasons. It is a fair estimate of what Dell will charge for a system with specs coinciding with the iMac (arguments about relative processor power aside).
Originally posted by Matsu
... They are obsoleted by developers at a breathtaking pace. But that's finally starting to wear on people. They're treating it like a disposable item. Why spend on something you're going to throw away in three years? When the market famously slowed, and it slowed for everyone, this was why.
...
Absolutely correct. The home market is virtually dead; in a few months, people will surf the web and do word-processing on their game consoles.
The corporate market is holding onto their machines longer, because they are paying attention to long-term costs. This is the market that Apple should target with the new iMac, and the published designs look good for that market.
There is a narrow window of opportunity, about a year, for Apple to make a beachhead in the corporate market, before generic Linux PCs steamroller the industry.
Originally posted by cubist
Absolutely correct. The home market is virtually dead; in a few months, people will surf the web and do word-processing on their game consoles...
That has failed in the past, and since it will take a while for most households to get true HDTV's it will take a while for it to become feasable to try it again. That is not saying that it can't be done, it could be done 5 years ago it just didn't suceed.
Originally posted by cubist
...The corporate market is holding onto their machines longer, because they are paying attention to long-term costs. This is the market that Apple should target with the new iMac, and the published designs look good for that market...
I disagree here, though the specs are ok, the price is not right for this market. The AIO design could work for it or aginst it.
Originally posted by cubist
...There is a narrow window of opportunity, about a year, for Apple to make a beachhead in the corporate market, before generic Linux PCs steamroller the industry.
Apple has been positioning themselve to do this with OS X and the Xserve. These products have come along way in building respect for Apple in a number of areas that Apple is not historically strong in. It would be nice to see Apple come out with the desktop computers at a price point that will help them target this market, but I don't thin they have them yet.
Originally posted by Bancho
The only benefit is being able to upgrade the video if you like and swapping to a different monitor. You could shave the price down if you downgrade to the analog LCD by $200.
Well, if you didn't notice I said, "No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions."
The benifit of Dell's offerings is excellent flexibility at very low prices. If the options for the 4600 aren't to ones to your liking, there are 4 other lines of Dimensions to choose from, all with very low prices. For instance, the 4700 can be upgraded to the ATI Radeon X300 for $60 instead of splurging $200 for a Radeon 9800 in the 4600 series.
Apple should really consider offering such CTO or BTO options. They don't have to offer rock low margin prices, just the flexibility.
* Dell's site is an atrocity and the same or similar machine will price differently depending on how you click to the options or for various other reasons. It is a fair estimate of what Dell will charge for a system with specs coinciding with the iMac (arguments about relative processor power aside).
Yes, one has to be very careful when going through Dell's website. I've purchased 3 systems (2 laptops and a 17" LCD Dimension 8250) in the last 2 years from Dell, all under $1250. Here are some examples I priced out today:
Dimension 8400
3 GHz P4 w/HT, 800 MHz FSB
512 MB PC3200
17" digital flat panel
ATI Radeon X300 SE w/128 MB graphics
80 GB SATA drive
Gigabit Ethernet
Dual opticals (equivalent of combo drive)
IEEE-1394
$1548 - ($75 + $150 rebates) + free shipping/tax = $1323
Dimension 4600
2.8 GHz P4, 533 MHz FSB
256 MB PC2700
17" digital flat panel
Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 w/128 MB graphics
80 GB drive
100 Mbit Ethernet
Dual opticals (equivalent of combo drive)
IEEE-1394
$1298 - ($75 + $50 rebates) + free shipping/tax = $1173
The major difference between your and my prices, aside from not subtracting rebates, is mostly likely that you priced your 4600 system with the 2 year warranty ($100 value). Not sure if you included Firewire or not. And yes, one has to be really anal about getting and sending those rebates.
Originally posted by THT
Well, if you didn't notice I said, "No, you really can get a 2.8 to 3 GHz Pentium 4 computers with analog 17" LCD for price points below $1300, some even have the multithreading versions."
The benifit of Dell's offerings is excellent flexibility at very low prices. If the options for the 4600 aren't to ones to your liking, there are 4 other lines of Dimensions to choose from, all with very low prices. For instance, the 4700 can be upgraded to the ATI Radeon X300 for $60 instead of splurging $200 for a Radeon 9800 in the 4600 series.
Apple should really consider offering such CTO or BTO options. They don't have to offer rock low margin prices, just the flexibility.
Yes, one has to be very careful when going through Dell's website. I've purchased 3 systems (2 laptops and a 17" LCD Dimension 8250) in the last 2 years from Dell, all under $1250. Here are some examples I priced out today:
Dimension 8400
3 GHz P4 w/HT, 800 MHz FSB
512 MB PC3200
17" digital flat panel
ATI Radeon X300 SE w/128 MB graphics
80 GB SATA drive
Gigabit Ethernet
Dual opticals (equivalent of combo drive)
IEEE-1394
$1548 - ($75 + $150 rebates) + free shipping/tax = $1323
Dimension 4600
2.8 GHz P4, 533 MHz FSB
256 MB PC2700
17" digital flat panel
Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 w/128 MB graphics
80 GB drive
100 Mbit Ethernet
Dual opticals (equivalent of combo drive)
IEEE-1394
$1298 - ($75 + $50 rebates) + free shipping/tax = $1173
The major difference between your and my prices, aside from not subtracting rebates, is mostly likely that you priced your 4600 system with the 2 year warranty ($100 value). Not sure if you included Firewire or not. And yes, one has to be really anal about getting and sending those rebates.
I wasn't really arguing your statement. You're correct that systems can be had in that range.
I specifically made sure to keep it as the 1 year warranty so there wsn't a $100 extra when I specc'ed it out. I was a bit skimpy with listing all the specs an options. That's one of my beefs with Dell's site. I can probably go back there and find yet another different price. Infinite configurability and a convoluted site is not a good thing at all. Also (from experience), if you call rather than order online you can not get the exact system you spec at the exact price you see online. FOr some godforsaken reason Dells CS reps see a different price/configuration list than the site details.
My only real point I guess is that if you're ok with not upgrading the video and a 17" LCD suits your taste then Apple's price is certainly competitive expecially considering the software and OS. I know the AIO won't please everyone but the value is not as horrible as some claim.
Still, I prefer to see what's realeased for real before getting in any good fights here
Originally posted by THT
[B]On integer code, the 74xx and 970 should have the same performance per MHz. On FPU code, the 970 should be about 1.5 times as fast the 74xx per MHz. A 74xx CPU should also be about the same or 1.2 times as fast as P3 or Pentium M per MHz. A 1.6 GHz 970 on average should be about the same performance as a 2.5 GHz P4.
I can't really see how a 1.6GHz 970 can get close to a 2.5GHz P4 using the figures you've just quoted, even assuming the "G4 1.2 times as fast as P3" statistic (which doesn't match my experience, but, whatever. I'd be interested in easily verifiable benchmarks that show this.) The vast bulk of code run now is doing mostly integer work (there's a somewhat misleading consensus that this isn't the case because programmers don't have the fear of FPUs they had 10 years ago, but that's somewhat ludicrous - you don't add fractions to pointers, you don't index arrays to three decimal places, it's still the case that the bulk of processing work is the exclusive realm of the integer.)