Current Powermac owners/users, tell me about your future Powermac expectations



  • Reply 41 of 65
    After today's quote for day three, I would now expect a 2 Ghz G5, but I'm not counting on it though; would be a hell of a surprise for everyone.

    Imagine the headlines, "Moore's Law has just been Steved."
  • Reply 42 of 65
    [quote]Originally posted by suckfuldotcom:

    <strong>These computers coming out on 1/7 will be bigger and better than the ones now, and I really can't see, except for a very select few, how these products won't have the horsepower to keep up.


    It's not the horsepower alone. I have no problem admitting that the current powermacs (733, 867 and dual 800) are faster than my three main machines (G3 300 beige, G3 350 and dual 533). If new machines come out at the expo (I think there willl be), they'll also be faster (well, apple is screwd if they aren't I wonder ow they could market that LOL).

    The problem is the price you pay for the horsepower. I always buy the middle machine, sometimes the top of the line if it offers compelling features for the extra cost, but I feel that current machines don't offer enough over my old stuff for the extra money.

    An example. I own a business, so I'm 'forced' to use machines for 3 years wrt to tax write-offs. Not so much a problem. But 3 years ago (Jan 1999) I bought my G3 350 yosemite. Looking at Apple's current line-up, well IMHO, the 867 powermac (which is, relatively speaking, 15% more expensive now over here than my yosemite was 3 years ago) just isn't what I expect. I think it's a pretty lame computer when I compare it to my G3, comsider the time I had my G3, and the money Apple wants for it.

    Your mileage may vary. If I were in the market to buy my first powermac now, I'd like the current ones, if a little underpowered for the price. And yes, I think you'll put together a killer video machine.

    Good enough info?
  • Reply 43 of 65

    Well, here's to hoping that Apple has seen the light on desktop computer pricing. No one but no spends more than 2.5K on a PC anymore.

    I'd like to see immediate ~20% cuts, from




    Those seem on the high side of reasonable to me.

    But whatever. I'm still balls optimistic that we'll get what we deserve (even if we don't know it).

  • Reply 44 of 65
    Thanks for making this thread, I really can't stand the whining for high performance iMacs. I really don't mind paying for high quality Apple products.

    I'm working on a G4 500/1gb/200gb and I had a Quicksilver 867/1gb/100gb which I got rid of pretty quickly.

    What I want to see from Apple is something I can sit down in front of and go wow, this is fast. And then drop 4k on and be satisified.

    After my first PowerPC, my PowerTower blew me away, after that, my G4 blew me away. And it still blows my friends away. This Quicksilver just didnt impress me. Its marginally faster, but I see hardly any realworld performance gains.

    I don't care about clockspeeds, I do care about performance. I'm not spending another dollar on a G4 based computer. Ramping it up to 2ghz isnt enough. I've seen what the technology does, and I'm ready for something else.

    I've been running on the same system for almost 2 years. It's getting to the point where its getting tired and old. I need a new one, I needed a new one 6 monthes ago, but once I had it, I found it just didn't measure up.

    I dont care what the specs are, I just want to sit down in front of it, and have my jaw drop. I know Apple can pull it off, they've done it before, and hell, I'll wait another six monthes if I have to, and invest in a portable in the meantime.

    .: Michael
  • Reply 45 of 65
    So you sold the newer one?


    If I had an 867, I'd feel like I was sittin' pretty no matter they brought out on Monday.

    Ah, well. I hope you get what you want, too.

  • Reply 46 of 65

    I'd like to see immediate ~20% cuts, from





    What, you want a $99 5 GHz G5 powermac?!?!? I bet you don't even own a Mac! TROLL!

  • Reply 47 of 65
    Yea, it doesnt seem right, I sold it for a bit of a loss. I was just dissapointed with the speed of it, it wasnt worth the investment of it becoming my main computer for the next 18 monthes. I've put almost 2 years and a lot of money into getting to know my ol 500, why force the adjustment if I'm not awestruck.

    Its dying though....egh, I have to let it rest a little every day now, otherwise it gets cranky, but only when I'm in OS 9. Anyone know what could cause that? Oh well... 2 more days... maybe...

    .: Michael
  • Reply 48 of 65
    I bought a 733 Quicksilver last October, and I have to say I'm pretty happy (granted, wish I had the money at the time to get the 867 w/Superdrive )

    My other Mac is a 400 MHz slot-load iMac. To "upgrade" that Mac won't take too much convincing: An LCD (has to be 15") with a respectible speed bump would certainly tempt me. Of course, I don't really need it--my current iMac is suiting it's purpose fine--but it would be enough to make me want it real bad!

    Back to my Powermac; the new entry level ($1699 price point) would need to be 1 GHz minimum for me to consider going through the hassle of selling my 733, and then coming up with the difference between what I sell if for and what I need to buy the new one. Even then, all this has to be approved by the "boss" (wife )

    Very long story short, if iMac rumors are true, I'll probably get one within 3 months. The Powermac though is a bit more iffy, after all, my 733 seems to be doing just fine...
  • Reply 49 of 65
    I think I OD'd on Hype yesterday.

    Nice, quiet, realistic thread here.

    I've got a DP500@550/1GB/100GB/Radeon/Orion.

    Video compression and MP3 compression are slightly below a friend's 1.4GHz Athlon w/DDR(1GB) and ATA133 bus. Although his was cheaper, it's the third PC he's had since I got my duallie, and the first one that's faster.

    I will be ready for a new desktop Mac in late spring or early summer and it will have to be significantly faster in performance than what I have now. I don't like the look of the Quicksilvers(well, I like the handles a lot).

    MP is a must, so 2 or 4 proc's will do.

    If they add any pipe-line stages, they better get some more Hertz.

    Faster or wider system bus, DDR.

    I really like the idea of a Raycer chip to speed up Aqua. It's still slow on my setup.

    ATA 133 dual channel or better(nix ATAPI)

    Sound In/Out, real not USB.

    Ditch the zip bay, make it full size.

    At least one USB, FW, audio in/out on the front.

  • Reply 50 of 65
    x704x704 Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by zac4mac:


    Ditch the zip bay, make it full size.

    At least one USB, FW, audio in/out on the front.


    The removing the zip bay makes sense, Zips are now really legacy, I think apple would be better served with a 5.25" bay.

    As far as audio, I don't see Apple moving anything that's not digital, perhpas firewire will be the new connection standard for audio (no processor overhead like USB, higher bandwidth to perhaps handle 5.1 sound?).

    1 Ghz for entry level PM

    DDR/266 mobo

    Firewire 800mbps

    if we get this I'll be satisfied (if we get G5 I'll be estatic)

    Edit:Added expectations

    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: X704 ]</p>
  • Reply 51 of 65
    I'll throw in my 2 cents.

    I'm currently using a G3/300 desktop with 768 megs of RAM and a Powerbook G3/500 with 640 Megs of RAM both of which are adequate for the work I do in Photoshop. However, I'm doing a lot more digital photography now with a Nikon D1 and the Nikon Capture software really bogs down when batch processing more than 10 or 15 images. I've tested the Powerbook against a friends Wintel box with a 900 mhz processor and 512 megs of RAM and his computer smoked my PB processing the same batch of files. I don't know for sure if it was processing power or the Capture software for Mac is a bad port from the Windows version, but, assuming that it's not the fault of the software, I'll need at least 1 ghz machine hopefully able to access 2 gigs of RAM. A 100 gig HD would be nice and I hope my Adaptec 39160 SCSI card and RAID will work without a hitch
  • Reply 52 of 65
    I want an SGI killer!
  • Reply 53 of 65
    I will only be buying the lowest priced model for the towers since the others are waaaay overpriced.

    I would want at least a 1.2ghz g4 with upgraded mobo for the $1699 mark
  • Reply 54 of 65
    FWIW: I use a G4/450 at home and a G4/533 dual at work. I do 2D/3D CAD, graphics, general office stuff, etc. And both of those machines are SLOW!!! It takes forever to render, redraw, etc. Neither machine can handle OSX as fast as I'd like.

    A lot of people will say "oh, your current computer is fast enough for everyday tasks" but in my opinion, no machine is ever fast enough. If I have to wait 10 seconds for something to happen, that's lost productivity over time, and I think the people around here who use their computers to make money (and I'm not talking about Word) would agree with me.

    We need the sick speed now!
  • Reply 55 of 65
    I have a G3 400 B&W

    I am looking to upgrade both at home and at work. My co-worker is using a b&w G3 450 and needs an upgrade too.


    A dual 1.4 Ghz G4 or G5 with faster motherboard and RAM, superdrive.

    In reality, I'll probably have to wait until the summer for my home purchase. The work one is getting desparate. So we'll buy a dual processor machine of whatever is offered.

    I'm willing to wait for something groundbreaking. Speed bumps won't do it.
  • Reply 56 of 65
    scottibscottib Posts: 381member
    [quote]By Chumley:

    I want an SGI killer!<hr></blockquote>

    I don't understand this sentiment against SGI. Off the top of my head, I can think of no software that runs both on Irix and OSX, other than Maya.The SGI killer has arrived; it's a Win2k (and Linux) box with a Wildcat in it--and until Apple can create a box that can compete with it at a relatively similar cost (within 20-25%), Apple will never touch professional 3-D (animation nor design).
  • Reply 57 of 65
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Why kill SGI? They're already dead! Show some mercy...
  • Reply 58 of 65
    Its not a sentiment against SGI, what I mean is that SGI machines are an awesome example of high end hardware interoperability, long shelf life and they are professionally respected. I didnt mean 'killer' literally, i meant that it could, say, compete in certain high end markets as the system of choice. I respect SGI machines for what they do (I worked on an o2 for a while) It would be nice to have the SGIs internal power and efficiency within the Power mac.

    Many, many studios still use SGI, Unix power. OSX is powerful enough for that envirnment, if optimised for it

    [ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Chumley ]</p>
  • Reply 59 of 65
    scottibscottib Posts: 381member
    Rock on. I've a sweet spot for ol' SGI; our Origin server at work has had a uptime of 18 months--just added more drives at that time.

    Rock solid.
  • Reply 60 of 65
    Frankly, I'm waiting for a new, much more space efficient case. I don't even care if it's an ugly, beige box. Function over form.. I do NOT need a glitzy case!

    I've got a glitzy cased, 733 QS at work. And an old workhourse 8600 with a 500MHz G3 at home. Maybe twice a week I "feel" that my office machine is actually faster. So my expectation is that I need something close to 1.5G in processor speed to make the difference. Oh, and while I AM willing to pay a bit of a premium for a Mac, I'm NOT willing to be raped.
Sign In or Register to comment.