A Mac is obsolete when it is no longer of use to YOU. My dad's 400Mhz Lombard Powerbook does just what he needs: word processing and internet. It's not obsolete in his eyes. [/B]
EXACTLY!
We have 3 Blue and White G3s doing simple server duties in our office.
A single new machine could more than likely replace them, but it is all still working like a charm. Why mess with it?
And you and I really think alike.
I was using a 1.5 G4 PB+20" and moved this week to a dual core 2.0 G5.
Importing HDV and working with HDV is 3-4x better...
I know a post production shop that recently bought three Quad Core PowerMacs. Which are being used as uncompressed HD workstations. The computers will prove a faster more efficient HD workflow obviously because of its 4 processors and because of PCI-e. The older dual processor Macs have been moved down to less hardware demanding work but are still being used.
The main reason to buy Quad G5 is because they need the new speed and efficiency now and cannot wait until some undetermined point in the future for a mythical new PowerMac with mythical new abilities.
Also because there is no guarantee the software they need will be universal when Intel PowerMacs are released. They know all software and cards they need will work on the current G5.
Autodesk as bought much of the industry leading visual effects, 3D modeling software, and the top color grading software (Discreet Luster). Most all of this software runs exclusively on Windows and Linux. Maya was ported to OS X but I hear its not a good port.
Discreet Luster
Post production shops had no choice but purchase x86 hardware to run these applications.
This is where Boot Camp will make a difference for Apple and for the Mac. Once this post shop is ready to purchase Intel Macs they will have the option of being an all Macintosh shop. I know of a couple of post houses that are hardcore Mac users who have to buy Windows boxes to run Windows only software. I know for sure in the future they will buy all Mac hardware.
The other point I wanted to make was that there will STILL be a market for PM G5s when the ProMacs (or whatever they'll be called) come out. As has been explained earlier, people will want hardware that's compatible with the software and hardware they already have in current PowerPC machines.
I expect Apple to do the same with PMs that they did with the Powerbooks and iMacs: Sell the two platforms side by side for the same price until PMs are essentially gone. No price drop now or later.
No matter what anyone says about whether to buy now or whether to wait, it's an exciting time to be a Mac user.
A friend of mine who teaches in the arts and humanities at a major university put it this way the other day. He said, "While the PC crowd faces nagging viruses and a mediocre OS, I can do amazing work with a whole host of apps running on my dual G5 and even my older dual G4s. For the foreseeable future, we'll be running everything from Photoshop and After Effects to Pro Tools and Maya with a rock solid OS ? Panther (10.3.9). There's no need to retire a machine that allows me to do excellent work TODAY. Meanwhile, the promise of cooler apps (UB, no less) and faster processors from Intel beckons, along with additional OS features. It's the best of two worlds."
The only reason to consider a G5 now is if you have some OS9 apps you don?t want to let go of. Otherwise just wait for the new Mactels and you?ll be getting a presumably MUCH faster machine and access to the future. The G5 by contrast is now dated technology.
I don't see the new Intel desktop machines being MUCH faster than the current G5 models. The G5 is a very good processor - the biggest problem with the Powermac today is that the GCC based compiler generates much slower code than the IBM compiler. Many of my applications are 3x faster with the IBM compiler over the XCode GCC. The new Intel processors (not the current generation, but the Conroe, etc.) will be quite good, but not leaps and bounds better then the current G5. One good thing, however, is that Intel has already ported their compilers to OS X. Intel's compilers rule.
I don't see the new Intel desktop machines being MUCH faster than the current G5 models. The G5 is a very good processor - the biggest problem with the Powermac today is that the GCC based compiler generates much slower code than the IBM compiler. Many of my applications are 3x faster with the IBM compiler over the XCode GCC. The new Intel processors (not the current generation, but the Conroe, etc.) will be quite good, but not leaps and bounds better then the current G5. One good thing, however, is that Intel has already ported their compilers to OS X. Intel's compilers rule.
Great to hear MonaLisa. That was an "artful" post. Welcome to the boards!
The trade press, including appleinsider.com, is already referring to even new G5 owners as ?legacy PowerPC users.?
DaveGee said it best in his post above, ?With the double barrel Boot Camp 'dual boot X and XP' solution from Apple followed up quickly with Parallels and their 'run just about any x86 OS in a virtualized session... if anyone here doesn't think the 'value' of any PowerPC based machine Apple is still shipping didn't plummet... you're just deluding yourself.?
Pay full price for yesterday's technology? Thanks, but I'll pass.
The trade press, including appleinsider.com, is already referring to even new G5 owners as ?legacy PowerPC users.?
... <stuff deleted> ...
Pay full price for yesterday's technology? Thanks, but I'll pass.
A computer is just a tool. If what you need to get done is time critical and solved using software currently available on a G5 desktop under PowerPC/OS X, then the Intel/OS X platform is not going to get the job done significantly better within the next year or so. Thus, if you need to get a new system now to do this job, it would serve you to get a G5 PowerMac. If booting windows and being in sync with the trade press consensus is more important, then get an Intel Mac today.
I recently did some research on 64-bit quad systems with 8GB of memory. It is really hard to beat the G5 PowerMac on price for a fully configured system. All of the mainstream vendors I checked (Dell, HP, IBM, etc.) had Pentium D, Xeon, or AMD solutions that were more expensive than the G5 quad. And the G5 is generally faster as well. I don't really think the "long in the tooth" G5 is quite ready for pasture.
Comments
Originally posted by CosmoNut
A Mac is obsolete when it is no longer of use to YOU. My dad's 400Mhz Lombard Powerbook does just what he needs: word processing and internet. It's not obsolete in his eyes. [/B]
EXACTLY!
We have 3 Blue and White G3s doing simple server duties in our office.
A single new machine could more than likely replace them, but it is all still working like a charm. Why mess with it?
And you and I really think alike.
I was using a 1.5 G4 PB+20" and moved this week to a dual core 2.0 G5.
Importing HDV and working with HDV is 3-4x better...
The main reason to buy Quad G5 is because they need the new speed and efficiency now and cannot wait until some undetermined point in the future for a mythical new PowerMac with mythical new abilities.
Also because there is no guarantee the software they need will be universal when Intel PowerMacs are released. They know all software and cards they need will work on the current G5.
Autodesk as bought much of the industry leading visual effects, 3D modeling software, and the top color grading software (Discreet Luster). Most all of this software runs exclusively on Windows and Linux. Maya was ported to OS X but I hear its not a good port.
Discreet Luster
Post production shops had no choice but purchase x86 hardware to run these applications.
This is where Boot Camp will make a difference for Apple and for the Mac. Once this post shop is ready to purchase Intel Macs they will have the option of being an all Macintosh shop. I know of a couple of post houses that are hardcore Mac users who have to buy Windows boxes to run Windows only software. I know for sure in the future they will buy all Mac hardware.
I expect Apple to do the same with PMs that they did with the Powerbooks and iMacs: Sell the two platforms side by side for the same price until PMs are essentially gone. No price drop now or later.
A friend of mine who teaches in the arts and humanities at a major university put it this way the other day. He said, "While the PC crowd faces nagging viruses and a mediocre OS, I can do amazing work with a whole host of apps running on my dual G5 and even my older dual G4s. For the foreseeable future, we'll be running everything from Photoshop and After Effects to Pro Tools and Maya with a rock solid OS ? Panther (10.3.9). There's no need to retire a machine that allows me to do excellent work TODAY. Meanwhile, the promise of cooler apps (UB, no less) and faster processors from Intel beckons, along with additional OS features. It's the best of two worlds."
Originally posted by baygbm
The only reason to consider a G5 now is if you have some OS9 apps you don?t want to let go of. Otherwise just wait for the new Mactels and you?ll be getting a presumably MUCH faster machine and access to the future. The G5 by contrast is now dated technology.
I don't see the new Intel desktop machines being MUCH faster than the current G5 models. The G5 is a very good processor - the biggest problem with the Powermac today is that the GCC based compiler generates much slower code than the IBM compiler. Many of my applications are 3x faster with the IBM compiler over the XCode GCC. The new Intel processors (not the current generation, but the Conroe, etc.) will be quite good, but not leaps and bounds better then the current G5. One good thing, however, is that Intel has already ported their compilers to OS X. Intel's compilers rule.
Originally posted by MonaLisa
I don't see the new Intel desktop machines being MUCH faster than the current G5 models. The G5 is a very good processor - the biggest problem with the Powermac today is that the GCC based compiler generates much slower code than the IBM compiler. Many of my applications are 3x faster with the IBM compiler over the XCode GCC. The new Intel processors (not the current generation, but the Conroe, etc.) will be quite good, but not leaps and bounds better then the current G5. One good thing, however, is that Intel has already ported their compilers to OS X. Intel's compilers rule.
Great to hear MonaLisa. That was an "artful" post. Welcome to the boards!
DaveGee said it best in his post above, ?With the double barrel Boot Camp 'dual boot X and XP' solution from Apple followed up quickly with Parallels and their 'run just about any x86 OS in a virtualized session... if anyone here doesn't think the 'value' of any PowerPC based machine Apple is still shipping didn't plummet... you're just deluding yourself.?
Pay full price for yesterday's technology? Thanks, but I'll pass.
Originally posted by baygbm
The trade press, including appleinsider.com, is already referring to even new G5 owners as ?legacy PowerPC users.?
... <stuff deleted> ...
Pay full price for yesterday's technology? Thanks, but I'll pass.
A computer is just a tool. If what you need to get done is time critical and solved using software currently available on a G5 desktop under PowerPC/OS X, then the Intel/OS X platform is not going to get the job done significantly better within the next year or so. Thus, if you need to get a new system now to do this job, it would serve you to get a G5 PowerMac. If booting windows and being in sync with the trade press consensus is more important, then get an Intel Mac today.
I recently did some research on 64-bit quad systems with 8GB of memory. It is really hard to beat the G5 PowerMac on price for a fully configured system. All of the mainstream vendors I checked (Dell, HP, IBM, etc.) had Pentium D, Xeon, or AMD solutions that were more expensive than the G5 quad. And the G5 is generally faster as well. I don't really think the "long in the tooth" G5 is quite ready for pasture.