IPowermac 2.7 upgrade hapenned after almost 1 year wait.
And did they drop the price then? Did they drop prices when the G4 stalled in the PowerMacs? I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason why things won't just be business as usual with upgrades.
Also, just for your consideration. The Powerbook did drop prices when they were last upgrade. $300, I believe for the high end model. So the possibility of drop prices on the Powermac front does exist in case of slow sales and no upgrade soon.
I had planned on upgrading in that time frame anyway, as my PowerBook is no approaching two years, and I'd like something more powerful (even if not portable). I'm also a Computer Science major and programmer type in general, and I WILL hold off any purchase until I can buy a Mactel, solely because I want to have a machine to cross-compile against.
I will also likely load some version of Linux on it and play with that some.
Macworld very nicely summarized the main point I've been trying to make in this discussion. I'm glad to see they agree with me, quote:
"But Apple has a role to play in this process, too. Having announced a significant and far-reaching transition effort, it?s incumbent upon the company to provide as detailed an overview of what to expect as possible, to correct any misconceptions or flawed assumptions before they spiral out of control, and to address any concerns that its customers might have. Apple has done a swell job of making its case to analysts and developers . But when it comes to talking directly to the people buying its products, Apple has been noticeably silent from the moment Steve Jobs left the stage at this month?s Developers Conference."
. But when it comes to talking directly to the people buying its products, Apple has been noticeably silent from the moment Steve Jobs left the stage at this month?s Developers Conference."
Ditto! This is certainly not the time for Apple's typical tight-lipped approach towards product plans.
The "U" in FUD is for Uncertainty, and that's exactly where Apple has left its customers. Of course the true believers would never have Fear or Doubt, but there's many non-KoolAid-drinking Apple buyers out there, including IT managers.
Even if they released a two sentence product plan, it would remove the uncertainly and quiet a lot of the doubters out there. I would love to see something like:
"The full Macintosh lineup will be available on Intel by Q1 2007, and PPC-based PowerMacintoshes will remain on the market through 2008. MacOS X will support all G4 and G5 systems through v10.6."
I agree, any additional information Apple can provide will be very welcome.
I am not expecting them to reveal any plans for new computers. But more certainty about how long they will support PPC and native applications would be nice.
I know I'm only one person...but I purchased my G5 after the Intel announcements. I still plan on buying a Intel Mac when they drop into the PowerMac lines.
One of the Mac vs PC arguments I kept in my back pocket was resale value, which has taken a huge hit as a result of the Intel announcement. I've rethought and am now delaying a 20" iMac purchase (to replace my cube), until I see how this all shakes out.
personally, i think the best time ot upgrade would be just before the intel-based machines start coming out. it's doubtful that apple would integrate anything terribly adventuous hardware-wise at this point, so the next few boxes will have more and more refinements, with just faster processors. the last powerpc's will not only be the most bug-free, but also supported the best for a very long time.
it's the same philosophy that my wife and i used when buying her pismo in january 2000, right after macworld san francisco introduced the new titanium powerbook g4's. that pismo still works to this day, and is still very well-supported by software upgrades.
i also used this method on buying my dual-G4. sure, it wasn't cutting edge, but i've never had a problem with it, it's still very fast and compatible, and also backwards compatible to mac os 9 (though i am hard-pressed to figure out when i will ever use that os again...)
but yes, mac sales will hurt, which explains why apple's been hording money these past years... it's the mother of all rainy-day funds, and the clouds are gathering.
. . . but yes, mac sales will hurt, which explains why apple's been hording money these past years... it's the mother of all rainy-day funds, and the clouds are gathering.
It sounds like you think it's inevitable and there is nothing Apple can do to bolster sales and profit during this transition time. No?
if i need a new mac and the processor it comes with is a G4 or G5 i'll but it anyway. it's not like software won't run on it. it'll be a perfectly good box.
One of the Mac vs PC arguments I kept in my back pocket was resale value, which has taken a huge hit as a result of the Intel announcement. I've rethought and am now delaying a 20" iMac purchase (to replace my cube), until I see how this all shakes out.
Don't be foolish. Resale value of PPC Mac will go up. Do you know how many prepress shops I talk to still running OS9. Macintel is a no go for them. Mac users have been talking about things that will destroy the Mac resale prices for years and all I see are Macs fetching great prices on eBay still. Macintel will change nothing here. Buy the PPC iMac and don't make the mistake I did by forgoing on a Color Classic or $200 years ago thinking there'd be plenty available even cheaper. Well CC fetch twice that nowadays. My recommendation is to sit out of the 1st generation of Mactel and see how things playout. If you can of course.
Don't be foolish. Resale value of PPC Mac will go up. Do you know how many prepress shops I talk to still running OS9. Macintel is a no go for them. Mac users have been talking about things that will destroy the Mac resale prices for years and all I see are Macs fetching great prices on eBay still. Macintel will change nothing here. Buy the PPC iMac and don't make the mistake I did by forgoing on a Color Classic or $200 years ago thinking there'd be plenty available even cheaper. Well CC fetch twice that nowadays. My recommendation is to sit out of the 1st generation of Mactel and see how things playout. If you can of course.
maybe you're right, and I'm overreacting, but I'm not sure the value of the last ppc imac relative to a second gen macintel will be as close as the last G4 imac vs today's G5 imac (a bit more than half price, from a quick glance at ebay). G4 to G5 is a whole lot different than ppc g5 to intel G6.
From what I currently know about this (significant) product revision, in two or three years the only way I would so easily recommend the dead ppc tech is if it was significantly cheaper. thus my fears of resale value.
. . . From what I currently know about this (significant) product revision, in two or three years the only way I would so easily recommend the dead ppc tech is if it was significantly cheaper. thus my fears of resale value.
Here's my take on resale. If Apple does nothing soon to reassure potential buyers about future support of PPC Macs, many will put off buying a new Mac. Sales of used Macs may increase, as those who need another Mac look for the cheapest option to get by until Intel Macs arrive. I'm waiting for delivery of a dual 1.25GHz Power Mac right now.
If Apple does not reveal its plan for support of current PPC Macs, your fear of resale value dropping may be realized when the Intel Macs arrive.
Regarding those who want to boot into classic Mac OS, they will not be buying current PPC Mac. These models will not boot OS 9. The older G4 Power Macs that do boot may hold their resale value better. Apple began to remake a version of the 1.25 G4 Power Mac when the G5 came out. These boot OS 9 and are beginning to show up on eBay now. Some have Apple Care coverage into 2006.
Apple will keep supporting PPC Macs for a few years. Not doing so would alienate a lot of users. It's suicide if they don't. They have a pretty large installed user base and they want those people to keep buying new versions of OSX, iLife, iWork and all the pro applications.
That's what those universal binaries will be for, right? So no matter what processor you're running, you won't have to worry about compatibility, being left out in the cold and with a low-resale value machine that doesn't run all the new software.
I suspect software and software updates will continue to exist for PPC macs well beyond Leopard.
Apple will keep supporting PPC Macs for a few years. Not doing so would alienate a lot of users. It's suicide if they don't. They have a pretty large installed user base and they want those people to keep buying new versions of OSX, iLife, iWork and all the pro applications.
That's what those universal binaries will be for, right? So no matter what processor you're running, you won't have to worry about compatibility, being left out in the cold and with a low-resale value machine that doesn't run all the new software.
I suspect software and software updates will continue to exist for PPC macs well beyond Leopard.
I wouldn't disagree with you. But just because you and I are pretty sure support will last for a while, it does nothing to convince the average potential buyer. This reassurance must come from Apple, giving us a minimum time frame that Mac OS and Apple applications will support current PPC Macs. It would not hurt either if Apple asked other application providers to make a similar commitment to the Mac community.
I half expect Apple to make such a statement when the next PPC Mac product is introduced. I say half expect, because I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple said nothing.
I'm a long-time mac user and I frequently answer questions from Wintel friends (read potential switchers). One of the most frequent questions include: "How fast is the Mac compared to Windows?"
Up until now, my answer was always, "It depends. What are you going to use it for? The difference in CPU architecture makes the mac faster in some areas but slower in others."
But when the Macs switch to Intel, how will the macs stack up? Macs will be using the same CPU, same graphics card, same RAM, same hard drive, etc. Everything will be the same except for a slightly modified motherboard and BIOS.
If a 3GHz Mac loses against a 3GHz Windows in a photoshop test, it's in black & white. There are no ifs and buts about it. The Mac will be forever considered slower than Windows.
Steve probably has his programmers locked up in some cell programming away to make sure that OS X will be fully Intel optimized. But will Adobe (and others) do the same? Not likely. Especially with the FAT binaries, I have a feeling that the Mac versions will be slower.
From now on I will have to say, "Get a Mac if you don't play games and don't care about performance." Doesn't sound very convincing.
I have two responses to the last post. First, consider how a G5 compares to multi-core Opteron workstations. Look at the feeble G4, whose only saving grace, Altivec, is strangled by an unbelievably feeble system bus (166mhz, on the 'high end'). Switching to X86 removes awkward comparisons. The specs sell themselves. It levels the performance playing field in terms of hardware.
Second, what makes you think OSX will be a laggard in performance? Why wouldn't Apple go to great lengths to optimize their funky hi tech unix for X86? Microsoft is the one who has a plethora of hardware their OS must run on; Apple can tightly control the hardware platform and optimise for that platform (X86, X86-64, etc).
Microsoft is also attempting to reinvent the wheel with Longhorm, which makes it approximate to OS X.0. In other words, they will have a lot of catching up to do.
Moreover, Apple releases a major upgrade to OSX every year, allowing it to stay at the edge of performance and features and new harware. Microsoft, OTOH, releases every few years... look at Xp and how, IMHO, dated it is.
Quote:
"It depends. What are you going to use it for? The difference in CPU architecture makes the mac faster in some areas but slower in others."
The number of areas the mac is faster is not only very VERY small, but mostly purely academic and non-practical, eg: an app that uses 98% altivec, and is not bus constrained.
For home use altivec does very little. My G4 does not encode MP3s faster than even last year's PC. But if you're on a Mac now, obviously speed is not of prime importance to you! So you answer your own question: the reason to buy a Mac is the elegance of the OS, and the freshness and coolness of the industrial design.
I don't think anyone buys a Mac these days 'because' it has a PPC in it. I think we buy them in spite of that fact.
Comments
Originally posted by gugy
IPowermac 2.7 upgrade hapenned after almost 1 year wait.
And did they drop the price then? Did they drop prices when the G4 stalled in the PowerMacs? I'm sorry, but I don't see any reason why things won't just be business as usual with upgrades.
But the situation now is a little different as Macworld put in their article.
The Intel move MIGHT slow down considerably their sales outcome. That's why there is a possibility of price drops.
I will also likely load some version of Linux on it and play with that some.
"But Apple has a role to play in this process, too. Having announced a significant and far-reaching transition effort, it?s incumbent upon the company to provide as detailed an overview of what to expect as possible, to correct any misconceptions or flawed assumptions before they spiral out of control, and to address any concerns that its customers might have. Apple has done a swell job of making its case to analysts and developers . But when it comes to talking directly to the people buying its products, Apple has been noticeably silent from the moment Steve Jobs left the stage at this month?s Developers Conference."
more:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...ysis/index.php
Originally posted by snoopy
. But when it comes to talking directly to the people buying its products, Apple has been noticeably silent from the moment Steve Jobs left the stage at this month?s Developers Conference."
Ditto! This is certainly not the time for Apple's typical tight-lipped approach towards product plans.
The "U" in FUD is for Uncertainty, and that's exactly where Apple has left its customers. Of course the true believers would never have Fear or Doubt, but there's many non-KoolAid-drinking Apple buyers out there, including IT managers.
Even if they released a two sentence product plan, it would remove the uncertainly and quiet a lot of the doubters out there. I would love to see something like:
"The full Macintosh lineup will be available on Intel by Q1 2007, and PPC-based PowerMacintoshes will remain on the market through 2008. MacOS X will support all G4 and G5 systems through v10.6."
I am not expecting them to reveal any plans for new computers. But more certainty about how long they will support PPC and native applications would be nice.
it's the same philosophy that my wife and i used when buying her pismo in january 2000, right after macworld san francisco introduced the new titanium powerbook g4's. that pismo still works to this day, and is still very well-supported by software upgrades.
i also used this method on buying my dual-G4. sure, it wasn't cutting edge, but i've never had a problem with it, it's still very fast and compatible, and also backwards compatible to mac os 9 (though i am hard-pressed to figure out when i will ever use that os again...)
but yes, mac sales will hurt, which explains why apple's been hording money these past years... it's the mother of all rainy-day funds, and the clouds are gathering.
Originally posted by rok
. . . but yes, mac sales will hurt, which explains why apple's been hording money these past years... it's the mother of all rainy-day funds, and the clouds are gathering.
It sounds like you think it's inevitable and there is nothing Apple can do to bolster sales and profit during this transition time. No?
Originally posted by follow
One of the Mac vs PC arguments I kept in my back pocket was resale value, which has taken a huge hit as a result of the Intel announcement. I've rethought and am now delaying a 20" iMac purchase (to replace my cube), until I see how this all shakes out.
Don't be foolish. Resale value of PPC Mac will go up. Do you know how many prepress shops I talk to still running OS9. Macintel is a no go for them. Mac users have been talking about things that will destroy the Mac resale prices for years and all I see are Macs fetching great prices on eBay still. Macintel will change nothing here. Buy the PPC iMac and don't make the mistake I did by forgoing on a Color Classic or $200 years ago thinking there'd be plenty available even cheaper. Well CC fetch twice that nowadays. My recommendation is to sit out of the 1st generation of Mactel and see how things playout. If you can of course.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Don't be foolish. Resale value of PPC Mac will go up. Do you know how many prepress shops I talk to still running OS9. Macintel is a no go for them. Mac users have been talking about things that will destroy the Mac resale prices for years and all I see are Macs fetching great prices on eBay still. Macintel will change nothing here. Buy the PPC iMac and don't make the mistake I did by forgoing on a Color Classic or $200 years ago thinking there'd be plenty available even cheaper. Well CC fetch twice that nowadays. My recommendation is to sit out of the 1st generation of Mactel and see how things playout. If you can of course.
maybe you're right, and I'm overreacting, but I'm not sure the value of the last ppc imac relative to a second gen macintel will be as close as the last G4 imac vs today's G5 imac (a bit more than half price, from a quick glance at ebay). G4 to G5 is a whole lot different than ppc g5 to intel G6.
From what I currently know about this (significant) product revision, in two or three years the only way I would so easily recommend the dead ppc tech is if it was significantly cheaper. thus my fears of resale value.
Originally posted by follow
. . . From what I currently know about this (significant) product revision, in two or three years the only way I would so easily recommend the dead ppc tech is if it was significantly cheaper. thus my fears of resale value.
Here's my take on resale. If Apple does nothing soon to reassure potential buyers about future support of PPC Macs, many will put off buying a new Mac. Sales of used Macs may increase, as those who need another Mac look for the cheapest option to get by until Intel Macs arrive. I'm waiting for delivery of a dual 1.25GHz Power Mac right now.
If Apple does not reveal its plan for support of current PPC Macs, your fear of resale value dropping may be realized when the Intel Macs arrive.
Regarding those who want to boot into classic Mac OS, they will not be buying current PPC Mac. These models will not boot OS 9. The older G4 Power Macs that do boot may hold their resale value better. Apple began to remake a version of the 1.25 G4 Power Mac when the G5 came out. These boot OS 9 and are beginning to show up on eBay now. Some have Apple Care coverage into 2006.
That's what those universal binaries will be for, right? So no matter what processor you're running, you won't have to worry about compatibility, being left out in the cold and with a low-resale value machine that doesn't run all the new software.
I suspect software and software updates will continue to exist for PPC macs well beyond Leopard.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
Apple will keep supporting PPC Macs for a few years. Not doing so would alienate a lot of users. It's suicide if they don't. They have a pretty large installed user base and they want those people to keep buying new versions of OSX, iLife, iWork and all the pro applications.
That's what those universal binaries will be for, right? So no matter what processor you're running, you won't have to worry about compatibility, being left out in the cold and with a low-resale value machine that doesn't run all the new software.
I suspect software and software updates will continue to exist for PPC macs well beyond Leopard.
I wouldn't disagree with you. But just because you and I are pretty sure support will last for a while, it does nothing to convince the average potential buyer. This reassurance must come from Apple, giving us a minimum time frame that Mac OS and Apple applications will support current PPC Macs. It would not hurt either if Apple asked other application providers to make a similar commitment to the Mac community.
I half expect Apple to make such a statement when the next PPC Mac product is introduced. I say half expect, because I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple said nothing.
I'm a long-time mac user and I frequently answer questions from Wintel friends (read potential switchers). One of the most frequent questions include: "How fast is the Mac compared to Windows?"
Up until now, my answer was always, "It depends. What are you going to use it for? The difference in CPU architecture makes the mac faster in some areas but slower in others."
But when the Macs switch to Intel, how will the macs stack up? Macs will be using the same CPU, same graphics card, same RAM, same hard drive, etc. Everything will be the same except for a slightly modified motherboard and BIOS.
If a 3GHz Mac loses against a 3GHz Windows in a photoshop test, it's in black & white. There are no ifs and buts about it. The Mac will be forever considered slower than Windows.
Steve probably has his programmers locked up in some cell programming away to make sure that OS X will be fully Intel optimized. But will Adobe (and others) do the same? Not likely. Especially with the FAT binaries, I have a feeling that the Mac versions will be slower.
From now on I will have to say, "Get a Mac if you don't play games and don't care about performance." Doesn't sound very convincing.
Second, what makes you think OSX will be a laggard in performance? Why wouldn't Apple go to great lengths to optimize their funky hi tech unix for X86? Microsoft is the one who has a plethora of hardware their OS must run on; Apple can tightly control the hardware platform and optimise for that platform (X86, X86-64, etc).
Microsoft is also attempting to reinvent the wheel with Longhorm, which makes it approximate to OS X.0. In other words, they will have a lot of catching up to do.
Moreover, Apple releases a major upgrade to OSX every year, allowing it to stay at the edge of performance and features and new harware. Microsoft, OTOH, releases every few years... look at Xp and how, IMHO, dated it is.
"It depends. What are you going to use it for? The difference in CPU architecture makes the mac faster in some areas but slower in others."
The number of areas the mac is faster is not only very VERY small, but mostly purely academic and non-practical, eg: an app that uses 98% altivec, and is not bus constrained.
For home use altivec does very little. My G4 does not encode MP3s faster than even last year's PC. But if you're on a Mac now, obviously speed is not of prime importance to you! So you answer your own question: the reason to buy a Mac is the elegance of the OS, and the freshness and coolness of the industrial design.
I don't think anyone buys a Mac these days 'because' it has a PPC in it. I think we buy them in spite of that fact.