<strong>If this is to be true I will say "Wow Apple. Still can't give me a reason to upgrade from my broken beige G3 tower". This is bull.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tigerwoods - I thought you assured us G5's at MWSF2002 - what happened?
Well I've seen Macuser co. uk. be right before. But, if this is true they ( Apple ) will hear one of 2 things........ether a collective groan or ( just as bad ) snoaring. I've been very forgiving of Apple's speed gap before but, now it's more than just about what PC users say. This time it's such a big gap it will hurt Apple's sales, stock, and credability. Maybe in a way that will be very difficult to turn around.
As we all know dual GIG machines don't mean much if the program isn't written for it ( even in OS X ). If every one was writing every program for MP I'd feel more positive but, they aren't. They have already been to this well as a stop gap measure. We have already seen how they stack up ( pretty telling when Macworld rates the 867 faster than the dual 800 for most tasks ). Winning photoshop bakeoffs won't be enough.
If this is true Apple will break the gigahertz barrier and no one will care. It would almost be better to release nothing than this embarassment. I know I sound negative but the the thing is boys and girls this is coming from one of their die hard supporters on this board. I hope this is just another rumor.
<strong> As we all know dual GIG machines don't mean much if the program isn't written for it ( even in OS X ). If every one was writing every program for MP I'd feel more positive but, they aren't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most apps that would really benefit from multiprocessing are in fact MP-aware; Photoshop and Final Cut Pro come to mind. I don't know if Maya is--I think perhaps it isn't, which obviously would be a disgrace. But really, how much is MS Office going to benefit from multithreading? Once you get out of the high-end area of Photoshop and FCP, you've got the same situation most home PC users are in--they have far more power than they can effectively use.
[quote]<strong>If this is true Apple will break the gigahertz barrier and no one will care. It would almost be better to release nothing than this embarassment. I know I sound negative but the the thing is boys and girls this is coming from one of their die hard supporters on this board.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no one harder on Apple than the die-hards on this board. Even given that Apple users are uncommonly attached to their computers, the level of passion and intensity routinely displayed around here puts the average user to shame. While I agree that G4s topping at 1Ghz aren't impressive, the fact remains that people here and on other boards expect way too much of this company.
My guess is this. Simple speed bumps until Photoshop X. The reason is really simple, really.
They always like to show off their new processors with Photoshop. Lots of filters, etc., perhaps showing the creation of a poster or something lame like that.
But Photoshop STILL isn't running X. And they don't want to give Adobe any credit until the get Photoshop converted.
So, small bumps (and small could possibly still mean 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, but I doubt it) until Photoshop X. And then, at some developers conference they'll roll out Photoshop X with the new G4+ or G5 (I suspect G4+ with duals) and show it kicking the ass of a Photoshop Windows (yuck) running a pair of Intel 2.2 GHz procs.
Apple loves to launch and show their machines wiping the floor, and the way the door that (and sell boxes to the hardcore graphics artists/etc) is with a Photoshop demo.
If this is to be true I will say "Wow Apple. Still can't give me a reason to upgrade from my broken beige G3 tower". This is bull.
if you have a broken beige G3 Tower, and that alone isn't reason to upgrade...not sure what is??? if i had a broken computer i would either get a current tower or a new iMac....the waiting game is a silly game to play with a broken computer...by the time G5s come out, there will be rumors of G6 chips that are so much better than G5 and you will want to wait again....
if the computer you have does what you need...keep it
if the computer you have is broken, replace it...
if you just want the next great thing....you will always keep waiting....
g
maybe i should cancel my iMac order...i hear that the next revision will have a faster bus....and the revision after that will offer a 17" lcd...etc etc
Apple loves to launch and show their machines wiping the floor, and the way the door that (and sell boxes to the hardcore graphics artists/etc) is with a Photoshop demo.
Agree? Disagree? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Very good argument. I have a hard time imagining Steve Jobs introducing butt-kickin' chips and then saying, "Well, trust us, it's way faster than a Pentium IV. Really! We don't have any apps that can show that, though, so you'll just have to believe us..." The sly shot at Adobe during MWSF suggests he's getting impatient.
All of that won't change the consumers impression of Apple. Slow and out of date. This isn't about what the average consumer can use. This about Apple wanting to win converts and stay competitive. This is not the way to do that. Apple desperately needs to shake this image or I'm afraid it will become embossed ( permanent ). I like their designs but do you know what much of the rest of the world ( the other 97 % ) say : " a pretty box won't buy you a cup of coffee ". This is what they are up against.
I sticked with a 5200 for 3 years. Of those 3 years, 2.5 were simply waiting.
Then I got a Beige G3...I still have that machine, and have been waiting for about 1.5 years now.
Waiting for the G5 is childs play. Even if it's released at MWSF 2003, which is the latest date I can imagine (or the public and I will tolerate), I'll wait.
There are 2 kinds of buying an liying with computers (well actually 3).
-Buy a new Mac at least every 2 years, better every 1.5 or 1 year. Due to the increased upgrading speed, you'll want to buy the lower end machines.
-Buy a new Mac whenever the new model incorporates at least 75% new tech, or every 3-4 years. To stay alive with those machines, you will have to buy the toppest end machine, and/or upgrade after 2-3 years.
-The third option does only apply to PC users, and consists of swapping motherboard, CPU and RAM if necessary every year. Keep the rest until it's outdated.
<strong>My guess is this. Simple speed bumps until Photoshop X. The reason is really simple, really.
They always like to show off their new processors with Photoshop. Lots of filters, etc., perhaps showing the creation of a poster or something lame like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>Forgive me, but that's about the dumbest reason I've heard. Yeah, they're sitting on 2 Ghz G5s, but they just don't want to release them yet, because they'd just love to do a Photoshop demo.
They used Media Cleaner on X for their demos at MWNY 2001 anyway.
When are people just going to admit - THEY DON'T HAVE THE GOODS!!! If they had the G5s, or the 1.6 Ghz G4s, blah blah, they'd release them. There is no mysterious reason or conspiracy about it.
I stuck with a 6200 for 3 years, I stuck with a Powermac 6500 for 2 yrs. I've had my G4 450 for a year and a half now. Yes, my computer does everything I want it to ....now. But, what if this trend continues? I don't think Intel or AMD are going to stop making faster CPUs. This is about the new buyer. What if all he/she hears is " well Macs look good but they are half as fast "? You have to stop thinking in terms of a long time Macuser. Also we live in bad economic times. Unlike a few years ago. People are looking for value. Right or wrong the FIRST thing they will look at is speed. In the average persons mind this is the simplest measurement of long term use and lack of obsolesence.
I owned a Performa 6360 or something like that for about 4 years. This was my first mac experience and I was hooked. After the Performa became dated I used my Dad's Mac that he kept at home(Powermac 9600). I was content with the 9600 and as that became dated I just waited and waited and waited fot something good...from anyone. A year and a half ago my parents got me (and my 4brothers) a new iMac Indigo 450 and a G4 Cube 450 with a sweet 19 inch NEC CRT.
My point? I buy when i need and or really want something withink reason. Some people that cry for G5's couldnt even tap all of it's power anyway. I felt cramped by my G4 Cube's HD space and it's pretty slow processor.
I just purchased a new Superdrive iMac with my money.
PC's have pretty much reached their lowest priceing. The trend (as I've read) is that computers will stay about the same price, maybe a little increase.
I hope Apple will lower their margin's on these new 1Ghz PM's and bring the prices back up for the G5. Maybe even leave the competatively priced 1Ghz G4 when the G5 comes out and there can be a tower for the rest of us like so many others have wanted...
I really do think Apple is concentrating on price more right now. The new iBook price points are truly amazing. It is hard to believe that the combo iBook is only 1499! The iMacs may seem like a lot to some but the features that they bring to the table justify the price. The Powerbooks are way less now than they were when first released. The Powermac is just waiting for its turn.
Steve said (and I quote), "The iMac is the first of our computers designed from the ground up to stand at the center of the digital hub."
<strong>My guess is this. Simple speed bumps until Photoshop X. The reason is really simple, really.
They always like to show off their new processors with Photoshop. Lots of filters, etc., perhaps showing the creation of a poster or something lame like that.
<snip>
Agree? Disagree? </strong><hr></blockquote>
The ONLY reason that I could go along with this would be if Adobe were writing Photoshop to be a 64-bit ready application. And even if this were true, holding back the chip would be the wrong thing to do.
Well, apart from the iBooks, those low prices are only low prices to us Mac users, who are used to very steep pricing for years.
As long as there is no Mac for about 599$ or even 499$, there will always be a cheaper PC. Note the emphasis on cheaper, not better, or better price performance. But as I see things, John Doe PC buyer is driven by only two factors:
1. Price
2. MHz
Everythign else is not important, because he probably doesn't even know the difference between a powersupply and a graphics card, that's also where PC manufacturers economize on.
(Latest Dell offering: P4 1.6-2.2GHz, 256MB RAM, 20GB HD, CD-RW drive, GeForce 2 MX 64MB, some crappy sound card, and some other crap with a crappy 19" crap display for about 1990 swiss franks, that's about 1100$ or so
The potential PC customer will see:
1. the low price
2. the high MHz
3. will buy the machine, thinking: "wow that's a great deal"
a week later his son will compare the specs to the specs of his techy friends and notice that he has gotten the worst stuff in the industry.
What Apple needs is a low cost, yet high quality Mac offering. The iMac is a very good start, but they have to further cut prices by at least 200$.
I guess that will happen this year.
Unlike the Pro towers, keep the prices as they are now, you can even raise them on the top models, but then they have to sport ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC SPECS...4000$ for a 2GHz G5, with 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, DVD-ROM and DVD-R drive (2), expandable as hell, GeForce 4 etc etc etc...
did you guys ever consider this: top of the line G4: dual 1GHz. OK, everyone is thinking that this sucks pretty bad.... BUT this says nothing about the models that are not 'top of the line'. what if the other models have higher clock rates... 1 GHZ, 1.2 GHz, 1.4 GHz, and dual 1 GHz at the 'top of the line' just a thought....
PS: 1.4 GHz G4 would be a start, but the chipset is clowned by PC stuff... SOME kind of better memory bus and system bus are needed badly, gigawire (firewire 2?) wouldn't hurt
<strong>I really do think Apple is concentrating on price more right now. The new iBook price points are truly amazing. It is hard to believe that the combo iBook is only 1499! The iMacs may seem like a lot to some but the features that they bring to the table justify the price. The Powerbooks are way less now than they were when first released. The Powermac is just waiting for its turn.
Steve said (and I quote), "The iMac is the first of our computers designed from the ground up to stand at the center of the digital hub."
First of our computers huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is one of Apples biggest problems right now. The price/performance ratio is not good. The MoBo tech is old shcool, and processors have suffered from 12 months of stagnation. The current mothor board is what, two years or more old (UMA 1.5 used in the new towers is an incramental upgrade, not a new design). Apple made their money off of this design a long time ago, and it has probably already paid for UMA 2.0 design. But the price was increased a year ago when Motorolla was finally able to ship a G4 above 500 mhz. I guess it made sense, a lot of Apples core customers will only buy Apple computers, but it wont help them convert Wintell users.
Apple needs to do something do become a leader again in more than just visual design, or offer a better deal along with that better design....just my 2¢
[quote] As long as there is no Mac for about 599$ or even 499$, there will always be a cheaper PC <hr></blockquote>
The point about the pricing of Apple products can be discussed ad nauseam. Apple's goal is NOT to be the #1 computer maker by VOLUME, thus it's products are not targeted towards the consumer whose ONLY factor in making a purchase decision is the price of the product. Apple's target audience is a well-defined subpopulation of consumers who can afford to pay Apple's higher prices. A similar situation can be found in the watch industry. You can buy a Swatch for about $50, and it will tell you the time correctly. However, you can also buy a Patek Philippe watch for $10'000, if you can afford it and it makes you happy. Now Patek Philippe sells about 15'000 watches worldwide per year, has a great following among watch lovers, has been around for more than 100 years, and it's market share is a fraction of one percent. Same thing with Apple, market share is not the determining factor for a company's success, but satisfaction of its customer base is. Thus, as long as Apple can maintain a base of customer who will continue to buy its products, Apple can lead a pretty comfortable life. Thus, it is not in Apple's best interest to compete with the sub-$500 PC makers, as it would divert R&D and marketing resources, dilute the product range, resulting in an overall decrease in revenue generation efficiency.
Comments
<strong>If this is to be true I will say "Wow Apple. Still can't give me a reason to upgrade from my broken beige G3 tower". This is bull.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tigerwoods - I thought you assured us G5's at MWSF2002 - what happened?
As we all know dual GIG machines don't mean much if the program isn't written for it ( even in OS X ). If every one was writing every program for MP I'd feel more positive but, they aren't. They have already been to this well as a stop gap measure. We have already seen how they stack up ( pretty telling when Macworld rates the 867 faster than the dual 800 for most tasks ). Winning photoshop bakeoffs won't be enough.
If this is true Apple will break the gigahertz barrier and no one will care. It would almost be better to release nothing than this embarassment. I know I sound negative but the the thing is boys and girls this is coming from one of their die hard supporters on this board. I hope this is just another rumor.
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Time to up the ram to DDR
up the bus speed
Up the ATA bus
[quote]Originally posted by jimmac:
<strong> As we all know dual GIG machines don't mean much if the program isn't written for it ( even in OS X ). If every one was writing every program for MP I'd feel more positive but, they aren't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most apps that would really benefit from multiprocessing are in fact MP-aware; Photoshop and Final Cut Pro come to mind. I don't know if Maya is--I think perhaps it isn't, which obviously would be a disgrace. But really, how much is MS Office going to benefit from multithreading? Once you get out of the high-end area of Photoshop and FCP, you've got the same situation most home PC users are in--they have far more power than they can effectively use.
[quote]<strong>If this is true Apple will break the gigahertz barrier and no one will care. It would almost be better to release nothing than this embarassment. I know I sound negative but the the thing is boys and girls this is coming from one of their die hard supporters on this board.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no one harder on Apple than the die-hards on this board. Even given that Apple users are uncommonly attached to their computers, the level of passion and intensity routinely displayed around here puts the average user to shame. While I agree that G4s topping at 1Ghz aren't impressive, the fact remains that people here and on other boards expect way too much of this company.
<strong>[email protected]
An out of hand rant will do nothing. Be concise and clear.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you or anyone actually ever gotten a response from Jobs?
How does he handle criticism? My guess is not very well, especially since he's under him, Apple's risen from the dead and prospered.
They always like to show off their new processors with Photoshop. Lots of filters, etc., perhaps showing the creation of a poster or something lame like that.
But Photoshop STILL isn't running X. And they don't want to give Adobe any credit until the get Photoshop converted.
So, small bumps (and small could possibly still mean 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, but I doubt it) until Photoshop X. And then, at some developers conference they'll roll out Photoshop X with the new G4+ or G5 (I suspect G4+ with duals) and show it kicking the ass of a Photoshop Windows (yuck) running a pair of Intel 2.2 GHz procs.
Apple loves to launch and show their machines wiping the floor, and the way the door that (and sell boxes to the hardcore graphics artists/etc) is with a Photoshop demo.
Agree? Disagree?
If this is to be true I will say "Wow Apple. Still can't give me a reason to upgrade from my broken beige G3 tower". This is bull.
if you have a broken beige G3 Tower, and that alone isn't reason to upgrade...not sure what is??? if i had a broken computer i would either get a current tower or a new iMac....the waiting game is a silly game to play with a broken computer...by the time G5s come out, there will be rumors of G6 chips that are so much better than G5 and you will want to wait again....
if the computer you have does what you need...keep it
if the computer you have is broken, replace it...
if you just want the next great thing....you will always keep waiting....
g
maybe i should cancel my iMac order...i hear that the next revision will have a faster bus....and the revision after that will offer a 17" lcd...etc etc
<strong>
Apple loves to launch and show their machines wiping the floor, and the way the door that (and sell boxes to the hardcore graphics artists/etc) is with a Photoshop demo.
Agree? Disagree?
Very good argument. I have a hard time imagining Steve Jobs introducing butt-kickin' chips and then saying, "Well, trust us, it's way faster than a Pentium IV. Really! We don't have any apps that can show that, though, so you'll just have to believe us..." The sly shot at Adobe during MWSF suggests he's getting impatient.
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I sticked with a 5200 for 3 years. Of those 3 years, 2.5 were simply waiting.
Then I got a Beige G3...I still have that machine, and have been waiting for about 1.5 years now.
Waiting for the G5 is childs play. Even if it's released at MWSF 2003, which is the latest date I can imagine (or the public and I will tolerate), I'll wait.
There are 2 kinds of buying an liying with computers (well actually 3).
-Buy a new Mac at least every 2 years, better every 1.5 or 1 year. Due to the increased upgrading speed, you'll want to buy the lower end machines.
-Buy a new Mac whenever the new model incorporates at least 75% new tech, or every 3-4 years. To stay alive with those machines, you will have to buy the toppest end machine, and/or upgrade after 2-3 years.
-The third option does only apply to PC users, and consists of swapping motherboard, CPU and RAM if necessary every year. Keep the rest until it's outdated.
G-News
<strong>My guess is this. Simple speed bumps until Photoshop X. The reason is really simple, really.
They always like to show off their new processors with Photoshop. Lots of filters, etc., perhaps showing the creation of a poster or something lame like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>Forgive me, but that's about the dumbest reason I've heard. Yeah, they're sitting on 2 Ghz G5s, but they just don't want to release them yet, because they'd just love to do a Photoshop demo.
They used Media Cleaner on X for their demos at MWNY 2001 anyway.
When are people just going to admit - THEY DON'T HAVE THE GOODS!!! If they had the G5s, or the 1.6 Ghz G4s, blah blah, they'd release them. There is no mysterious reason or conspiracy about it.
My point? I buy when i need and or really want something withink reason. Some people that cry for G5's couldnt even tap all of it's power anyway. I felt cramped by my G4 Cube's HD space and it's pretty slow processor.
I just purchased a new Superdrive iMac with my money.
Improvments over Cube.
*40 Gigs more HD space.
*Superdrive compared to a DVD drive.
*Smaller Footprint.
*Nearly twice as fast.
*LCD
I hope Apple will lower their margin's on these new 1Ghz PM's and bring the prices back up for the G5. Maybe even leave the competatively priced 1Ghz G4 when the G5 comes out and there can be a tower for the rest of us like so many others have wanted...
Steve said (and I quote), "The iMac is the first of our computers designed from the ground up to stand at the center of the digital hub."
First of our computers huh?
<strong>My guess is this. Simple speed bumps until Photoshop X. The reason is really simple, really.
They always like to show off their new processors with Photoshop. Lots of filters, etc., perhaps showing the creation of a poster or something lame like that.
<snip>
Agree? Disagree?
The ONLY reason that I could go along with this would be if Adobe were writing Photoshop to be a 64-bit ready application. And even if this were true, holding back the chip would be the wrong thing to do.
As long as there is no Mac for about 599$ or even 499$, there will always be a cheaper PC. Note the emphasis on cheaper, not better, or better price performance. But as I see things, John Doe PC buyer is driven by only two factors:
1. Price
2. MHz
Everythign else is not important, because he probably doesn't even know the difference between a powersupply and a graphics card, that's also where PC manufacturers economize on.
(Latest Dell offering: P4 1.6-2.2GHz, 256MB RAM, 20GB HD, CD-RW drive, GeForce 2 MX 64MB, some crappy sound card, and some other crap with a crappy 19" crap display for about 1990 swiss franks, that's about 1100$ or so
The potential PC customer will see:
1. the low price
2. the high MHz
3. will buy the machine, thinking: "wow that's a great deal"
a week later his son will compare the specs to the specs of his techy friends and notice that he has gotten the worst stuff in the industry.
What Apple needs is a low cost, yet high quality Mac offering. The iMac is a very good start, but they have to further cut prices by at least 200$.
I guess that will happen this year.
Unlike the Pro towers, keep the prices as they are now, you can even raise them on the top models, but then they have to sport ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC SPECS...4000$ for a 2GHz G5, with 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, DVD-ROM and DVD-R drive (2), expandable as hell, GeForce 4 etc etc etc...
But that's not going to happen either...
G-News
PS: 1.4 GHz G4 would be a start, but the chipset is clowned by PC stuff... SOME kind of better memory bus and system bus are needed badly, gigawire (firewire 2?) wouldn't hurt
<strong>I really do think Apple is concentrating on price more right now. The new iBook price points are truly amazing. It is hard to believe that the combo iBook is only 1499! The iMacs may seem like a lot to some but the features that they bring to the table justify the price. The Powerbooks are way less now than they were when first released. The Powermac is just waiting for its turn.
Steve said (and I quote), "The iMac is the first of our computers designed from the ground up to stand at the center of the digital hub."
First of our computers huh?</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is one of Apples biggest problems right now. The price/performance ratio is not good. The MoBo tech is old shcool, and processors have suffered from 12 months of stagnation. The current mothor board is what, two years or more old (UMA 1.5 used in the new towers is an incramental upgrade, not a new design). Apple made their money off of this design a long time ago, and it has probably already paid for UMA 2.0 design. But the price was increased a year ago when Motorolla was finally able to ship a G4 above 500 mhz. I guess it made sense, a lot of Apples core customers will only buy Apple computers, but it wont help them convert Wintell users.
Apple needs to do something do become a leader again in more than just visual design, or offer a better deal along with that better design....just my 2¢
The point about the pricing of Apple products can be discussed ad nauseam. Apple's goal is NOT to be the #1 computer maker by VOLUME, thus it's products are not targeted towards the consumer whose ONLY factor in making a purchase decision is the price of the product. Apple's target audience is a well-defined subpopulation of consumers who can afford to pay Apple's higher prices. A similar situation can be found in the watch industry. You can buy a Swatch for about $50, and it will tell you the time correctly. However, you can also buy a Patek Philippe watch for $10'000, if you can afford it and it makes you happy. Now Patek Philippe sells about 15'000 watches worldwide per year, has a great following among watch lovers, has been around for more than 100 years, and it's market share is a fraction of one percent. Same thing with Apple, market share is not the determining factor for a company's success, but satisfaction of its customer base is. Thus, as long as Apple can maintain a base of customer who will continue to buy its products, Apple can lead a pretty comfortable life. Thus, it is not in Apple's best interest to compete with the sub-$500 PC makers, as it would divert R&D and marketing resources, dilute the product range, resulting in an overall decrease in revenue generation efficiency.