I just don't think people here in AI have realized that with the advent of the G5 in the iMacs companies and people that would have bought a Powermac in the day are now buying iMacs.
I talk to corporate customers all the time from publishing to advertising markets that run the usual suspects like Adobe apps and Quark and they aren't looking at the Powermacs as much as in yesteryear. The iMac, with capable memory, offers them exactly what they need at $1500+ monitor included.
Those that need more industrial strength are remaining with the Powermacs but I don't hear them complain as much as some AI'ers likely because they'd like to have an additional internal bay and dual optical but those items aren't showstoppers.
Now I hear Mac users bitchin about dual-core and PCI-Express and just sit back and realize that they are cheerleading computers and not actually linking a feature with an immediate benefit. DC means nothing if Macs have had DP processors for years. It's rather silly I'd rather have dual 2.7Ghz processors than one 2.5Ghz 970MP.
I just don't think you realize how many of the millions of iMac buyers will never buy another iMac. Replace the 15"CRT iMac, no biggie. Replace a perfectly good computer with a nice 15"LCD, feel kind of wasteful. Sorry, but the new iMacs' screens are too nice and too big to just replace when the computer gets a bit old.
One of the biggest lessons an iMac teaches is a lame feature now = pain and suffering later, be it a weak video card or integrated monitor. Give me a powermac or a mini. The better the high end now (hopefully quadra soon), the quicker I can afford a lower level powerMac with futureproof features.
hint: Most Appleinsiders would be quite pissed if Apple released dual core Powermacs and they were all single processor.
Yeah they reaaaaly need a fast Safafi don't they. Most of the AI, me included, wouldn't have much of a need for Quad G5s. I think we'll see them it's inevitable but then the chorus will be "why are they so expensive?"
I'm just saying that the Powermac line is going to remain a niche for some time. Adding processors or reducing the cost isn't going to change that.
Quote:
I just don't think you realize how many of the millions of iMac buyers will never buy another iMac. Replace the 15"CRT iMac, no biggie. Replace a perfectly good computer with a nice 15"LCD, feel kind of wasteful. Sorry, but the new iMacs' screens are too nice and too big to just replace when the computer gets a bit old.
I don't have to realize, that's up to the buyer and according to the sales and the "interest" that I see many people remain undaunted that the iMac G5 has a built in LCD.
4 years ago the average price for a 17" LCD was $500+, today it's rapidly approaching $300. In another 4 years 19" LCD will occupy this same space. You guys really are building strawmen here. Selling iMacs on a daily basis I haven't heard one freakin' complaint about using the monitor later. People know they'll have options later on. What people want with the iMac is a G5, the LCD and quiet.
Yes people that desire more expandability will look towards the Powermac line but the masses are chosing the iMac G5 which is a great computer. The numbers clearly show this in apple's quarterly reports.
Some people will keep their monitor and printer but many just replace their whole system. I've have people come to me just looking for a replacement for their cpu and end up walking out with a new system. Everyone realizes that 4 yr old tech is just that...4 years old. The iMac G5 isn't being affected by this fear at all.
17" LCDs are in the 150 price range and 19" occupy the 300 price range... (check out dealnews.com).
iMacs have become so cheap. Their prices are RIGHT ON where they should be, unlike the powermac. I was browsing the education / special deals at the Apple site today...
... Lets see here ...
(NEW)
iMac G5 17" 1.8GHz SuperDrive
512K L2 cache
600MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
Learn More
? Save 27% off the original price
Original price: $1,499.00
Your price: $1,099.00
(NEW)
iMac G5 20" 1.8GHz SuperDrive
512K L2 cache
600MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Learn More
? Save 16% off the original price
Original price: $1,899.00
Your price: $1,599.00
Versus
(REFURBISHED)
Power Mac G5 1.8 GHz/ 256MB/ 80GB/ SuperDrive/ GigE/ 56K - Apple Certified Refurbished
Learn More
? Save 14% off the original price
Original price: $1,499.00
Your price: $1,299.00
The iMac 17" 1.8ghz is cheaper than the powermac with 1.8ghz... and its refurbed too!
That is an off balance in prices there... Big time. I'll be the first to admit, the powermacs are very powerful and I get sick of people trying to knock them down on their power on a daily basis. The people who do CLEARLY haven't used one in a productive environment. I mean the difference they would see (IF ANY) would be so small they wouldn't care.
My biggest complaint IS PRICE. These machines are running on 2+ year technology and the prices haven't BUDGED. Apple could at least add some features... more base ram, better graphics cards (they are running the same graphics cards from 2 years ago), More bays, etc etc. This would justify the price staying static. The prices should have been lowered by at least 500 dollars on the high end by now.
Price for performance on the iMac VS Powermac says it all. You get more for your dollar with the iMac than the Powermac.
As someone pointed out above, the Powermac has the biggest profit margin compared to any other line. Why not lower the price, sell a few more systems and make the same amount of money. You would make more people happy this way.
I'd say we'll get single chip Dual Core Macs that run at 3 ghz
This will go down 'OK' with those who have bought 2.7s "it's only a 300mhz bump".
It will also play well to the market ie apple keeps it's offering in line with other market offerings ie dual core tech. Especially if it benches well...
If initial numbers are low (ie apple has to get in line with others for the chip) then it would make sense for them to only offer small numbers of quadras if at all and at a premium.
Apple then gets to sell units even if the available numbers of 970MPs are low to begin with. This also gives the DC tech a road test in the real world to iron out issues re sys-software developer-application implementation.
You know they'd have a waiting list for these high end x-stations as soon as announced. Nice way to prime the pumps and then offer a strategic price drop...umm... or not!
It might make %age sense to keep the top of the line niche in more ways than one.
3ghz I hear you LOL well If the current macs ship with an under-clocked G5 due to heat problems but also due to external memory control then with on die memory and heat management these issues might be resolved.
I'm just saying that the Powermac line is going to remain a niche for some time. Adding processors or reducing the cost isn't going to change that.
niche = a specialized but profitable corner of the market.
niche isn't the powermac. niche is any Mac.
Now if your trying to imply that the PowerMac is suddenly a smaller portion of sales because it's not needed due to other Macs, you have no actual proof to base that on. Not when the PowerMac is such a black hole in technology as a Pro desktop. The majority of people that buy pro desktops stay away from it. Not because they want iMacs. Get a grip.
Then I guess you could say the Powermac line is a "niche within a niche"
Aren't the quarterly sales reports enough? The corroborate what I see at work. The iMac G5 is in fact taking business from the Powermac line. Perhaps if Apple had a capable dual proc lowend Powermac things might change but right now many customers don't want to spend $2k sans monitor for a Mac when the iMac is sitting there.
I had a conversation just yesterday with a biz client about his two iMac G5s. Sure he said he'd love to have the expandability of a Powermac but the price of the iMac was worth forgoing that.
Who knows..I could see things changing in a year with Dual-Core chips infiltrate the who line making the lowend PM livable. So I do have some hope.
Point taken. I'm sure some are willing to adapt to an iMac, but from what I hear the PowerMac is what everybody really wants, and many are not using Apple machines as substitutes.
It's hard to compare this years PowerMacs vs. powermacs of yesteryear in the way they held up against what the best PC's could throw at them. If anything I think it's Apples own fault that PowerMacs have become what they have.
The PowerMac used to be a step above for those who would use it. (it was a big step) There is technology not including dual core, and PCI-E that Apple could have incorporated to the PowerMac in the past to make a case for it's future as an all around fully capable workstation, but were unable to for what reasons I care/dare not speculate on. But if you want to expand on a small but profitable market you must open it up to more possibilities to be considered as more than just an adobe machine for professional work. Look where that got them when Adobe announced that Macs were no longer the fastest machines that photoshop ran on.
Apple has great pro applications of their own, and there are more, different, and better applications available on the Mac today than ever before. It's the machine that is holding their, and other professional software back in the mainstream.
Big professional studios can afford to buy a few Macs, and put them to use, and they do, but Joe User, or Joe the Freelance Guy sees a Mac, and a PC. (as an example ->) FCP, vs. Avid. They look at the machines, and decide when they start making enough money to afford better additional equipment for professional work, which machine will take it?
I hear that pretty often, and I think Apples pro applications alone should justify upping the ante when it comes to a PowerMac workstation.
Either way I think it's their own fault the PowerMac has slid, and not grown. They have concentrated on making profits in the low end for so long it has become their de-facto standard when thinking about making a computer. I think they forgot there were others that look at this in other ways than just theirs.
Point taken. I'm sure some are willing to adapt to an iMac, but from what I hear the PowerMac is what everybody really wants, and many are not using Apple machines as substitutes.
It's hard to compare this years PowerMacs vs. powermacs of yesteryear in the way they held up against what the best PC's could throw at them. If anything I think it's Apples own fault that PowerMacs have become what they have.
The PowerMac used to be a step above for those who would use it. (it was a big step) There is technology not including dual core, and PCI-E that Apple could have incorporated to the PowerMac in the past to make a case for it's future as an all around fully capable workstation, but were unable to for what reasons I care/dare not speculate on. But if you want to expand on a small but profitable market you must open it up to more possibilities to be considered as more than just an adobe machine for professional work. Look where that got them when Adobe announced that Macs were no longer the fastest machines that photoshop ran on.
Apple has great pro applications of their own, and there are more, different, and better applications available on the Mac today than ever before. It's the machine that is holding their, and other professional software back in the mainstream.
Big professional studios can afford to buy a few Macs, and put them to use, and they do, but Joe User, or Joe the Freelance Guy sees a Mac, and a PC. (as an example ->) FCP, vs. Avid. They look at the machines, and decide when they start making enough money to afford better additional equipment for professional work, which machine will take it?
I hear that pretty often, and I think Apples pro applications alone should justify upping the ante when it comes to a PowerMac workstation.
Either way I think it's their own fault the PowerMac has slid, and not grown. They have concentrated on making profits in the low end for so long it has become their de-facto standard when thinking about making a computer. I think they forgot there were others that look at this in other ways than just theirs.
(edit: i fixed the grammerr)
while i would not 100% agree with what you claim to be apple's motivations, as you have laid it out,
it is clear that apple is now positioning the powerMac line in two ways:
1. along with xServe, xSan, xGrid, etc, cluster, server-type "power-render-nodes"
2. for the 'pro' or 'prosumer', they are clearly moving away from "a kickass machine for graphic designers who might have bought a PC", but towards "hey, i can have the equivalent functionality of this full-blown avid edit suite for half the cost with the coolness of apple PowerMac gear"
2(b) see no. 2 above, but for (even major) musicians who are moving more into home-studio production, considering a PowerMac based setup vs a full-blown Protools Digi100 or something...
3. re: iMac g5s. i think very likely that except for top-tier graphic and ad agencies, a lot of design shops are most likely starting to eye the iMac g5s. particularly the new Revs, or, PowerBooks and external monitors/tablets/etc.
4. mid-tier and one or two-man design teams will either move towards PC (as i have personally seen) or if they are Mac believers, they will seriously consider iMac g5s or PowerBooks now...
well, that's my personal take on the Power line, and WWDC or NAMM will clarify this...
it is clear that apple is now positioning the powerMac line in two ways:
1. along with xServe, xSan, xGrid, etc, cluster, server-type "power-render-nodes"
What exactly has made this clear, and where does joe user come with the cash to blow on such a dead non-upgradable system?
[edit] Ohh I get it, that 's how you would stack a Mac up against a PC workstation. Well that's a lot of unnecessary hardware when they could just provide a better, more suitable PowerMac for the job IMO. Not everybody (I surely don't) want all that stuff when I could just buy a workstation that was suitable for the work I needed to do.
What exactly has made this clear, and where does joe user come with the cash to blow on such a dead none upgradable system?
[edit] Ohh I get it, that 's how you would stack a Mac up against a PC workstation. Well that's a lot of unnecessary hardware when they could just provide a better, more suitable PowerMac for the job IMO. Not everybody (I surely don't) want all that stuff when I could just buy a workstation that was suitable for the work I needed to do.
yeah... there's where the whole powermac being a 'niche-in-a-niche' game comes in, and time will tell if it is getting too 'niche-in-a-niche'
that's as much sense as i can make for now in response \
Places like ILM, WETA and Pixar don't need SLI in every computer. You have the talented creative staff on the front end and then render farms to add the grunt.
Would't it be cool to have a rendernode Powermac with a couple of PCI-Express and one Drive Bay, no optical for really cheap. Plastic casing as well to keep costs lowww.
Quad Core Powermacs are inevitable but WWDC is far too early and would only instill ill feelings in people who just purchased 2.7GHZ PMs who would have wanted the option to go with a Quad Core PM if given the chance.
I doubt we have to wait until MWSF 2006 for updated Powermacs but WWDC is far too close.
I hope we have a bit more tech that is relevant for the masses. SLI is cool but I'd like more storage improvements like 3Gbps SATA as well. I can't wait to see the next generation Powermacs. There's gotta be at least one surprise.
I do have to agree that the case is a HUGE overkill. I actually think this is the only way they can "sort-of" justify the outrageous prices on the powermacs. I just purchased a coolermaster centurion case... IMO it is really nice. It has tooless design, and it moves air through it better than any PC Tower case I have seen. Also it has filters in the front to boot. Oh and it looks cool. . Apple's case is a BIG overkill. There is SO much wasted space in that thing. It's built to be used in war. The thickness of that aluminum is far thicker than anything I have seen. This is good, but not appropriate for everyone. I really think apple should work on lowering the powermac prices more than anything right now. That is my #1 complaint (even though I pay dev discount, it is still too much to justify compared to pc's... only thing that keeps me on a mac is Cocoa / Objective-c and easier web development. I bought a g4 cube for 40 dollars that I'm decking out to hold me over till the next powermacs or powerbooks. Its a shame I have to wait again... and yes I can avoid it .
Places like ILM, WETA and Pixar don't need SLI in every computer. You have the talented creative staff on the front end and then render farms to add the grunt.
Would't it be cool to have a rendernode Powermac with a couple of PCI-Express and one Drive Bay, no optical for really cheap. Plastic casing as well to keep costs lowww.
Quad Core Powermacs are inevitable but WWDC is far too early and would only instill ill feelings in people who just purchased 2.7GHZ PMs who would have wanted the option to go with a Quad Core PM if given the chance.
I doubt we have to wait until MWSF 2006 for updated Powermacs but WWDC is far too close.
I hope we have a bit more tech that is relevant for the masses. SLI is cool but I'd like more storage improvements like 3Gbps SATA as well. I can't wait to see the next generation Powermacs. There's gotta be at least one surprise.
I can't imagine ILM, WETA and Pixar using SLI much at all when they can afford huge racked systems, but I wasn't actually referring to SLI. When I said "There is technology not including dual core, and PCI-E that Apple could have incorporated to the PowerMac in the past to make a case for it's future as an all around fully capable workstation" Although I did have better, and more graphics capabilities in mind. SLI wasn't at the forefront of my thoughts.
i think hmurchinson was talking about the people that "arent actually productive and producing anything much with their macs" that sit around bitchin about dual cores...
If Apple started building computers that only met the needs of Mac users, rather than the desires, they would be out of business real fast. ALL Mac users should care about dual-cores, because they will improve the health of Apple and ensure that we have OS X and Macs around for years to come.
It's silly to argue that only "pro" users should want "pro" machines. If this were true there would be no gaming market, no consumer media editing, nothing. A computer is a playground, not a corporate business suite.
Yeah they reaaaaly need a fast Safafi don't they. Most of the AI, me included, wouldn't have much of a need for Quad G5s. I think we'll see them it's inevitable but then the chorus will be "why are they so expensive?"
So what were you saying back in '00? All those casual Mac users who want dual 500 MHz G4 Powermacs are luzers? Their machines can still run OS X now, because they bought something to last.
I agree that buying the latest high-end Powermac every year is a bit wasteful if the user only surfs the net; all I'm saying is that Apple needs all the sales they can get, and if that means selling twin dual core Powermacs to tech junkies who don't need them, fine. Greater Powermac sales help everyone, and if IBM invests more R&D into the desktop Power 5 based PPC because they're selling lots of Powermacs to Mac users who don't need them...how is that a bad thing?
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that sometimes you see the loudest complaints coming from people who aren't even going to be buying the new computers.
I empathize with Onlooker FAR more than most other people because he is litterally waiting for the hardware that he "needs" to do his job. There are lots of Mac users that are carrying the torch but tend to respond a little hyperbolic when they don't see Mac hardware that allows them to gloat.
I should really temper how I talk about Pro users because it's not fair to those who are willing to purchase the top PM but simply want some assurances that they are future proofed as much as possible.
BTW dual core Athlons are expensive. Leads me to think that fabbing them well is going to take some months. The good news is Athlons didn't have to drop so much in clock speed. I think we can expect close clock speed with the G5 SC and DC chips.
I'm wondering if the 970MP is a red herring and Apple is actually going to transition to Cell. The Cell's PPE sounds like a fast G3 with Altivec.
For hmurchison, I bought a PM 1.6 single because I got tired of waiting for the G5 iMac. Now, I'm very happy I got a PM instead of an iMac - I got a new monitor, upgraded the graphics card, and am about to add a second hard drive - all without changing the computer.
The last round of updates doesn't offer me a really significant (to me) upgrade path. I might bite (on a 2.3D) if it were cheaper, tho. Everyone makes that cost/performance tradeoff. So lower prices would indeed increase PM sales - the only question is, how much?
[B]So what were you saying back in '00? All those casual Mac users who want dual 500 MHz G4 Powermacs are luzers? Their machines can still run OS X now, because they bought something to last...
I had a dual 500 that I just upgraded via ebay to a dual 533. I picked up the dual 533 for $390 and sold my dual 500 for $600 after swapping my Pioneer Superdrive and dual IBM 120 Deskstars. I added two more Deskstars and RAIDed them together.
This machine will last me for a few more years, I may upgrade to dual G4's @ 1.42 GHz down the road, so I'm not really in the market for a quad Powermac with two 970MPs, but I'd still like to see Apple come out with a true workstation model added to the line up.
......For hmurchison, I bought a PM 1.6 single because I got tired of waiting for the G5 iMac. Now, I'm very happy I got a PM instead of an iMac - I got a new monitor, upgraded the graphics card, and am about to add a second hard drive - all without changing the computer......
if my job goes okay i am considering the RevB imac g5 17" 2.0ghz superdrive, 2x512mb modules for 1gb ram, plus applecare 3 year warranty
i would certainly love to go the powermac route for expandability and longevity as you have mentioned...
at this stage though i am looking at the iMac g5 because
1. if i were to massively game down the line i'd go to a games cafe
2. counterstrike and half-life2 is not out for mac anyway
3. cost
4. portability and all-in-one convenience
5. ati radeon 9600 - 128mb ram - i'm willing to live with that for a 3-year time horizon
6. size
7. elegance
8. difficulty where i am living now in sourcing non-Apple powermac stuff like cards, drives, upgrades, accessories
edit: from xBench it looks like hard disk bottlenecks are released, the 7200rpm hard disk is unleashed!!! yeah !!11!!
just some thoughts... but the g5 processor kicks azz no? i've tried the powermac single 1.6ghz and it destroyed my previous dual-1.25ghz g4 in reason2.5 pure software synthesis
I think the PowerMac has turned into the black hole of computers. Apple has the iMac covering the whole mid range, and other than a little bit of graphics, and expandability, and it covers everything the weakening PowerMac can handle for the most part. Apple has to push the powerMac back into it's own category because it has no real computing domain, or range of it's own. That is probably it's biggest problem. Apple has to re-define the pro Mac market again. This latest update has done little to help the powerMacs independent standing position in those aspects.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
I just don't think people here in AI have realized that with the advent of the G5 in the iMacs companies and people that would have bought a Powermac in the day are now buying iMacs.
I talk to corporate customers all the time from publishing to advertising markets that run the usual suspects like Adobe apps and Quark and they aren't looking at the Powermacs as much as in yesteryear. The iMac, with capable memory, offers them exactly what they need at $1500+ monitor included.
Those that need more industrial strength are remaining with the Powermacs but I don't hear them complain as much as some AI'ers likely because they'd like to have an additional internal bay and dual optical but those items aren't showstoppers.
Now I hear Mac users bitchin about dual-core and PCI-Express and just sit back and realize that they are cheerleading computers and not actually linking a feature with an immediate benefit. DC means nothing if Macs have had DP processors for years. It's rather silly I'd rather have dual 2.7Ghz processors than one 2.5Ghz 970MP.
I just don't think you realize how many of the millions of iMac buyers will never buy another iMac. Replace the 15"CRT iMac, no biggie. Replace a perfectly good computer with a nice 15"LCD, feel kind of wasteful. Sorry, but the new iMacs' screens are too nice and too big to just replace when the computer gets a bit old.
One of the biggest lessons an iMac teaches is a lame feature now = pain and suffering later, be it a weak video card or integrated monitor. Give me a powermac or a mini. The better the high end now (hopefully quadra soon), the quicker I can afford a lower level powerMac with futureproof features.
hint: Most Appleinsiders would be quite pissed if Apple released dual core Powermacs and they were all single processor.
I'm just saying that the Powermac line is going to remain a niche for some time. Adding processors or reducing the cost isn't going to change that.
I just don't think you realize how many of the millions of iMac buyers will never buy another iMac. Replace the 15"CRT iMac, no biggie. Replace a perfectly good computer with a nice 15"LCD, feel kind of wasteful. Sorry, but the new iMacs' screens are too nice and too big to just replace when the computer gets a bit old.
I don't have to realize, that's up to the buyer and according to the sales and the "interest" that I see many people remain undaunted that the iMac G5 has a built in LCD.
4 years ago the average price for a 17" LCD was $500+, today it's rapidly approaching $300. In another 4 years 19" LCD will occupy this same space. You guys really are building strawmen here. Selling iMacs on a daily basis I haven't heard one freakin' complaint about using the monitor later. People know they'll have options later on. What people want with the iMac is a G5, the LCD and quiet.
Yes people that desire more expandability will look towards the Powermac line but the masses are chosing the iMac G5 which is a great computer. The numbers clearly show this in apple's quarterly reports.
Some people will keep their monitor and printer but many just replace their whole system. I've have people come to me just looking for a replacement for their cpu and end up walking out with a new system. Everyone realizes that 4 yr old tech is just that...4 years old. The iMac G5 isn't being affected by this fear at all.
17" LCDs are in the 150 price range and 19" occupy the 300 price range... (check out dealnews.com).
iMacs have become so cheap. Their prices are RIGHT ON where they should be, unlike the powermac. I was browsing the education / special deals at the Apple site today...
... Lets see here ...
(NEW)
iMac G5 17" 1.8GHz SuperDrive
512K L2 cache
600MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
80GB Serial ATA hard drive
Learn More
? Save 27% off the original price
Original price: $1,499.00
Your price: $1,099.00
(NEW)
iMac G5 20" 1.8GHz SuperDrive
512K L2 cache
600MHz frontside bus
256MB DDR400 SDRAM
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra
64MB DDR video memory
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Learn More
? Save 16% off the original price
Original price: $1,899.00
Your price: $1,599.00
Versus
(REFURBISHED)
Power Mac G5 1.8 GHz/ 256MB/ 80GB/ SuperDrive/ GigE/ 56K - Apple Certified Refurbished
Learn More
? Save 14% off the original price
Original price: $1,499.00
Your price: $1,299.00
The iMac 17" 1.8ghz is cheaper than the powermac with 1.8ghz... and its refurbed too!
That is an off balance in prices there... Big time. I'll be the first to admit, the powermacs are very powerful and I get sick of people trying to knock them down on their power on a daily basis. The people who do CLEARLY haven't used one in a productive environment. I mean the difference they would see (IF ANY) would be so small they wouldn't care.
My biggest complaint IS PRICE. These machines are running on 2+ year technology and the prices haven't BUDGED. Apple could at least add some features... more base ram, better graphics cards (they are running the same graphics cards from 2 years ago), More bays, etc etc. This would justify the price staying static. The prices should have been lowered by at least 500 dollars on the high end by now.
Price for performance on the iMac VS Powermac says it all. You get more for your dollar with the iMac than the Powermac.
As someone pointed out above, the Powermac has the biggest profit margin compared to any other line. Why not lower the price, sell a few more systems and make the same amount of money. You would make more people happy this way.
I'd say we'll get single chip Dual Core Macs that run at 3 ghz
This will go down 'OK' with those who have bought 2.7s "it's only a 300mhz bump".
It will also play well to the market ie apple keeps it's offering in line with other market offerings ie dual core tech. Especially if it benches well...
If initial numbers are low (ie apple has to get in line with others for the chip) then it would make sense for them to only offer small numbers of quadras if at all and at a premium.
Apple then gets to sell units even if the available numbers of 970MPs are low to begin with. This also gives the DC tech a road test in the real world to iron out issues re sys-software developer-application implementation.
You know they'd have a waiting list for these high end x-stations as soon as announced. Nice way to prime the pumps and then offer a strategic price drop...umm... or not!
It might make %age sense to keep the top of the line niche in more ways than one.
3ghz I hear you LOL well If the current macs ship with an under-clocked G5 due to heat problems but also due to external memory control then with on die memory and heat management these issues might be resolved.
Yea ok you can stop laughing now....
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm just saying that the Powermac line is going to remain a niche for some time. Adding processors or reducing the cost isn't going to change that.
niche = a specialized but profitable corner of the market.
niche isn't the powermac. niche is any Mac.
Now if your trying to imply that the PowerMac is suddenly a smaller portion of sales because it's not needed due to other Macs, you have no actual proof to base that on. Not when the PowerMac is such a black hole in technology as a Pro desktop. The majority of people that buy pro desktops stay away from it. Not because they want iMacs. Get a grip.
Aren't the quarterly sales reports enough? The corroborate what I see at work. The iMac G5 is in fact taking business from the Powermac line. Perhaps if Apple had a capable dual proc lowend Powermac things might change but right now many customers don't want to spend $2k sans monitor for a Mac when the iMac is sitting there.
I had a conversation just yesterday with a biz client about his two iMac G5s. Sure he said he'd love to have the expandability of a Powermac but the price of the iMac was worth forgoing that.
Who knows..I could see things changing in a year with Dual-Core chips infiltrate the who line making the lowend PM livable. So I do have some hope.
It's hard to compare this years PowerMacs vs. powermacs of yesteryear in the way they held up against what the best PC's could throw at them. If anything I think it's Apples own fault that PowerMacs have become what they have.
The PowerMac used to be a step above for those who would use it. (it was a big step) There is technology not including dual core, and PCI-E that Apple could have incorporated to the PowerMac in the past to make a case for it's future as an all around fully capable workstation, but were unable to for what reasons I care/dare not speculate on. But if you want to expand on a small but profitable market you must open it up to more possibilities to be considered as more than just an adobe machine for professional work. Look where that got them when Adobe announced that Macs were no longer the fastest machines that photoshop ran on.
Apple has great pro applications of their own, and there are more, different, and better applications available on the Mac today than ever before. It's the machine that is holding their, and other professional software back in the mainstream.
Big professional studios can afford to buy a few Macs, and put them to use, and they do, but Joe User, or Joe the Freelance Guy sees a Mac, and a PC. (as an example ->) FCP, vs. Avid. They look at the machines, and decide when they start making enough money to afford better additional equipment for professional work, which machine will take it?
I hear that pretty often, and I think Apples pro applications alone should justify upping the ante when it comes to a PowerMac workstation.
Either way I think it's their own fault the PowerMac has slid, and not grown. They have concentrated on making profits in the low end for so long it has become their de-facto standard when thinking about making a computer. I think they forgot there were others that look at this in other ways than just theirs.
Originally posted by onlooker
Point taken. I'm sure some are willing to adapt to an iMac, but from what I hear the PowerMac is what everybody really wants, and many are not using Apple machines as substitutes.
It's hard to compare this years PowerMacs vs. powermacs of yesteryear in the way they held up against what the best PC's could throw at them. If anything I think it's Apples own fault that PowerMacs have become what they have.
The PowerMac used to be a step above for those who would use it. (it was a big step) There is technology not including dual core, and PCI-E that Apple could have incorporated to the PowerMac in the past to make a case for it's future as an all around fully capable workstation, but were unable to for what reasons I care/dare not speculate on. But if you want to expand on a small but profitable market you must open it up to more possibilities to be considered as more than just an adobe machine for professional work. Look where that got them when Adobe announced that Macs were no longer the fastest machines that photoshop ran on.
Apple has great pro applications of their own, and there are more, different, and better applications available on the Mac today than ever before. It's the machine that is holding their, and other professional software back in the mainstream.
Big professional studios can afford to buy a few Macs, and put them to use, and they do, but Joe User, or Joe the Freelance Guy sees a Mac, and a PC. (as an example ->) FCP, vs. Avid. They look at the machines, and decide when they start making enough money to afford better additional equipment for professional work, which machine will take it?
I hear that pretty often, and I think Apples pro applications alone should justify upping the ante when it comes to a PowerMac workstation.
Either way I think it's their own fault the PowerMac has slid, and not grown. They have concentrated on making profits in the low end for so long it has become their de-facto standard when thinking about making a computer. I think they forgot there were others that look at this in other ways than just theirs.
(edit: i fixed the grammerr)
while i would not 100% agree with what you claim to be apple's motivations, as you have laid it out,
it is clear that apple is now positioning the powerMac line in two ways:
1. along with xServe, xSan, xGrid, etc, cluster, server-type "power-render-nodes"
2. for the 'pro' or 'prosumer', they are clearly moving away from "a kickass machine for graphic designers who might have bought a PC", but towards "hey, i can have the equivalent functionality of this full-blown avid edit suite for half the cost with the coolness of apple PowerMac gear"
2(b) see no. 2 above, but for (even major) musicians who are moving more into home-studio production, considering a PowerMac based setup vs a full-blown Protools Digi100 or something...
3. re: iMac g5s. i think very likely that except for top-tier graphic and ad agencies, a lot of design shops are most likely starting to eye the iMac g5s. particularly the new Revs, or, PowerBooks and external monitors/tablets/etc.
4. mid-tier and one or two-man design teams will either move towards PC (as i have personally seen) or if they are Mac believers, they will seriously consider iMac g5s or PowerBooks now...
well, that's my personal take on the Power line, and WWDC or NAMM will clarify this...
Originally posted by sunilraman
it is clear that apple is now positioning the powerMac line in two ways:
1. along with xServe, xSan, xGrid, etc, cluster, server-type "power-render-nodes"
What exactly has made this clear, and where does joe user come with the cash to blow on such a dead non-upgradable system?
[edit] Ohh I get it, that 's how you would stack a Mac up against a PC workstation. Well that's a lot of unnecessary hardware when they could just provide a better, more suitable PowerMac for the job IMO. Not everybody (I surely don't) want all that stuff when I could just buy a workstation that was suitable for the work I needed to do.
Originally posted by onlooker
What exactly has made this clear, and where does joe user come with the cash to blow on such a dead none upgradable system?
[edit] Ohh I get it, that 's how you would stack a Mac up against a PC workstation. Well that's a lot of unnecessary hardware when they could just provide a better, more suitable PowerMac for the job IMO. Not everybody (I surely don't) want all that stuff when I could just buy a workstation that was suitable for the work I needed to do.
yeah... there's where the whole powermac being a 'niche-in-a-niche' game comes in, and time will tell if it is getting too 'niche-in-a-niche'
that's as much sense as i can make for now in response
Would't it be cool to have a rendernode Powermac with a couple of PCI-Express and one Drive Bay, no optical for really cheap. Plastic casing as well to keep costs lowww.
Quad Core Powermacs are inevitable but WWDC is far too early and would only instill ill feelings in people who just purchased 2.7GHZ PMs who would have wanted the option to go with a Quad Core PM if given the chance.
I doubt we have to wait until MWSF 2006 for updated Powermacs but WWDC is far too close.
I hope we have a bit more tech that is relevant for the masses. SLI is cool but I'd like more storage improvements like 3Gbps SATA as well. I can't wait to see the next generation Powermacs. There's gotta be at least one surprise.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Places like ILM, WETA and Pixar don't need SLI in every computer. You have the talented creative staff on the front end and then render farms to add the grunt.
Would't it be cool to have a rendernode Powermac with a couple of PCI-Express and one Drive Bay, no optical for really cheap. Plastic casing as well to keep costs lowww.
Quad Core Powermacs are inevitable but WWDC is far too early and would only instill ill feelings in people who just purchased 2.7GHZ PMs who would have wanted the option to go with a Quad Core PM if given the chance.
I doubt we have to wait until MWSF 2006 for updated Powermacs but WWDC is far too close.
I hope we have a bit more tech that is relevant for the masses. SLI is cool but I'd like more storage improvements like 3Gbps SATA as well. I can't wait to see the next generation Powermacs. There's gotta be at least one surprise.
I can't imagine ILM, WETA and Pixar using SLI much at all when they can afford huge racked systems, but I wasn't actually referring to SLI. When I said "There is technology not including dual core, and PCI-E that Apple could have incorporated to the PowerMac in the past to make a case for it's future as an all around fully capable workstation" Although I did have better, and more graphics capabilities in mind. SLI wasn't at the forefront of my thoughts.
Originally posted by sunilraman
If Apple started building computers that only met the needs of Mac users, rather than the desires, they would be out of business real fast. ALL Mac users should care about dual-cores, because they will improve the health of Apple and ensure that we have OS X and Macs around for years to come.
It's silly to argue that only "pro" users should want "pro" machines. If this were true there would be no gaming market, no consumer media editing, nothing. A computer is a playground, not a corporate business suite.
Originally posted by hmurchison
So what were you saying back in '00? All those casual Mac users who want dual 500 MHz G4 Powermacs are luzers? Their machines can still run OS X now, because they bought something to last.
I agree that buying the latest high-end Powermac every year is a bit wasteful if the user only surfs the net; all I'm saying is that Apple needs all the sales they can get, and if that means selling twin dual core Powermacs to tech junkies who don't need them, fine. Greater Powermac sales help everyone, and if IBM invests more R&D into the desktop Power 5 based PPC because they're selling lots of Powermacs to Mac users who don't need them...how is that a bad thing?
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that sometimes you see the loudest complaints coming from people who aren't even going to be buying the new computers.
I empathize with Onlooker FAR more than most other people because he is litterally waiting for the hardware that he "needs" to do his job. There are lots of Mac users that are carrying the torch but tend to respond a little hyperbolic when they don't see Mac hardware that allows them to gloat.
I should really temper how I talk about Pro users because it's not fair to those who are willing to purchase the top PM but simply want some assurances that they are future proofed as much as possible.
BTW dual core Athlons are expensive. Leads me to think that fabbing them well is going to take some months. The good news is Athlons didn't have to drop so much in clock speed. I think we can expect close clock speed with the G5 SC and DC chips.
For hmurchison, I bought a PM 1.6 single because I got tired of waiting for the G5 iMac. Now, I'm very happy I got a PM instead of an iMac - I got a new monitor, upgraded the graphics card, and am about to add a second hard drive - all without changing the computer.
The last round of updates doesn't offer me a really significant (to me) upgrade path. I might bite (on a 2.3D) if it were cheaper, tho. Everyone makes that cost/performance tradeoff. So lower prices would indeed increase PM sales - the only question is, how much?
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
[B]So what were you saying back in '00? All those casual Mac users who want dual 500 MHz G4 Powermacs are luzers? Their machines can still run OS X now, because they bought something to last...
I had a dual 500 that I just upgraded via ebay to a dual 533. I picked up the dual 533 for $390 and sold my dual 500 for $600 after swapping my Pioneer Superdrive and dual IBM 120 Deskstars. I added two more Deskstars and RAIDed them together.
This machine will last me for a few more years, I may upgrade to dual G4's @ 1.42 GHz down the road, so I'm not really in the market for a quad Powermac with two 970MPs, but I'd still like to see Apple come out with a true workstation model added to the line up.
Originally posted by cubist
......For hmurchison, I bought a PM 1.6 single because I got tired of waiting for the G5 iMac. Now, I'm very happy I got a PM instead of an iMac - I got a new monitor, upgraded the graphics card, and am about to add a second hard drive - all without changing the computer......
if my job goes okay i am considering the RevB imac g5 17" 2.0ghz superdrive, 2x512mb modules for 1gb ram, plus applecare 3 year warranty
i would certainly love to go the powermac route for expandability and longevity as you have mentioned...
at this stage though i am looking at the iMac g5 because
1. if i were to massively game down the line i'd go to a games cafe
2. counterstrike and half-life2 is not out for mac anyway
3. cost
4. portability and all-in-one convenience
5. ati radeon 9600 - 128mb ram - i'm willing to live with that for a 3-year time horizon
6. size
7. elegance
8. difficulty where i am living now in sourcing non-Apple powermac stuff like cards, drives, upgrades, accessories
edit: from xBench it looks like hard disk bottlenecks are released, the 7200rpm hard disk is unleashed!!! yeah !!11!!
Any thoughts?