My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.
BTW, I have a PowerMac with a single G4 800Mhz, with a vestigial appendange of another G4 800Mhz. It doesn't run my software any faster, but it lets me keep the thermostat down in my office.
There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.
As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.
<strong>I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.
As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.
<strong>There is a strange assumption in this thread.
"Apple wants to milk the G4 for a bit longer"
Two problems with this:-
1. blah
2. blah blah
If they can manufcature a range of faster processors at similar yeilds they will do so without uping the price.
One caveat, if the roomers at MOSR were true, a 2.4GHZ G5. Apple would want to milk a premium price for the fastest desktop for a while. But volume is what is needed and without volume sales Apple will die. It is as important to Apple to provide the fastest processors as it is to us.
Apple will sell the fastest kit it can make.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One problem with this: -
You're assuming a perfect world where decisions are made based on engineering and technical data like chip yield alone.
That's not the case. Sometimes, the marketing department determines the release schedule.
I see it happening this way - G4 desktops get bumped in Jan. and break the GHz barrier before they are phased out of the PowerMac line. Meanwhile, the MHz bump in the G4 allows them to bump the iMac up to 9xx MHz at the top of the line.
Then in the summer, they can bump the PowerMac to G5 and the iMac to G4 (and LCD of course - ten thousand rumors can't be wrong)
[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>I want to see a Macworld where the Mhz Myth ISN'T explained, because the evidence that the new Macs are faster will be so crystal clear that Michael Dell will be dropping bunny turds for months on end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL
Well said! This is exactly what I expect/hope if the rumors of the G5 raw processing power are even halfway true.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>My sources report that it is more likely that the G5 will be delayed until Apple is done creating their Raycer graphics processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now CUT that out, Knife... uhhh, I mean "Fork"
You're probably kidding, but you're making me drool on my keyboard anyway!
<strong>Godzappa, the Mhz myth is very well explained.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are missing this forest for the trees.
The MHz Myth is very well explained... to 90% of the non-trollers on this board. It's very well explained... to people like us.
It's explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and/or based on whose commercial they just saw on TV and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them. Apple said it best themselves at the launch of the retail stores... 95% of the people who bought a Windows computer instead of a Mac, never even considered a Mac as a prospective choice.
[quote]<strong>
If the public does not want to believe that processor efficiency is the generally important factor then thats life unless Apple is going to release a string of advertisements going through that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We would all cheer and high-five each other if Apple/Chiat made a commercial to "to through" that. But unless they produce a 30-sec. masterpiece, they will just be preaching to the choir yet again.
Try to keep in mind - commercials don't educate, they create brand awareness.... they (subliminally) make you ("you" being an average consumer, as opposed to someone posting to AI on the first night of AI's return) want go check out ("check out" meaning not buying something today, but maybe bringing the spouse by to see what a Mac can do on your next mall trip) the Apple Store when you are wandering through your city's newest mall this holiday season.
[quote]<strong>
Apple's G4 line currently stands up to the Pentium 4 as well as it needs to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO it does NOT (except for Altivec-enhanced apps), and never will from a markeing standpoint because the majority of the public is not educated in regards to the Myth. It doesn't stand up to retail competitiveness and marketshare growth any more than the iMac's 15" monitor on a $1499 computer does in a 17" PC system for $899 marketplace.
Apple has paid (and is paying) big bucks to Marketsource to supply Apple Reps to Circuit City and CompUSA to keep display models in running orders and educate the sales staff. They have done a decent (and in many stores outstanding) job of educating the StuporStore sales reps on the Myth. I've even seen a few of these reps sell their PC to buy a Mac!
But, if you are a commissioned sales rep, are you going to bother telling the story of the Myth and the Mac Advantages to someone who wants to buy a 900 MHz or 1.1 GHz PC, or are you just going to shut up and make the sale of a Windoze machine?
95% of the people who buy a Mac from Circuit City or chumpUSA, do so ONLY because they came into the store intending to buy a Mac, and the sales rep managed to serve them well enough (thanks to the work of marketsource) to keep them from running home screaming to their MacWarehouse catalog.
All too seldom (but it does happen), the customer mentions an interest in digital video, and the well-trained sales rep shows them a quick demo of iMovie, and someone not intending to buy a Mac ends up with one anyway.
These "superstores" are not, and never will, grow marketshare.... hence the Apple Stores.
Unlike the last Grand Experiment to grow marketshare (see Power Computing and the Clone Fiasco), this one has not been rushed out, will grow rather than slash sales, etc. We are in it for the long term, and we have the cash reserves in place to support a year or so of little/no retail store profit (as long as overall we are profitable), especially in the current climate where the majority of PC box maakers are "beleagured".
If anyone is wondering, I know the retail arena very well, having been paid by Marketsource to be an Apple rep for over 3 years now (and sold for a mom-pop Apple Specialist for 5 years before that). If anyone from Apple Legal happens to be paying attention, I am quite sure that the above statements do NOT violate my NDA, as it is not Apple Confidential Information, but purely my own opinion and NOT the opinion of Marketsource and/or Apple Computer.....
[quote]<strong>
The G4 is more efficient by a large margin being that the P4's behemoth pipeline depth squanders every single piece of special gadgtery they shoved in it.
The P4 is a makerting tool, and not as efficient as the P3! As long as Intel can lap up the masses with the MHZ myth.....
How does one stupify the messgae of efficiency enough so that the public would buy it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are exactly right. I said it before and I will say it again because it bears repeating.....
The MHz Myth, and the associated concepts of pipelines, etc, is explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and based on whose commercial they just saw on TV, and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them.
Ignoring the fact that the last sentence of your post directly contridicts the first one, here's what I believe is happening:
Apple is basically coasting on their core user base (thus the "milking" comments on the first page of this thread), and will do so until at least mid-2002....the G5 will not explode on the scene till Apple has at least 40-50 retail stores open... that's when "5 down and 95 to go" gets really serious!!!
Meanwhile, a large percentage of the creative, power-user crowd will buy whatever Apple has in the latest Power Mac every year or two, as long as the (perceived AND real) performance increase is there. The Power Mac line is currently rebounding from a most ugly stagnation.
Think about it - if you owned a G3/400, how anxious were you to upgrade to a G4/450 a year ago? OTOH, today, if you own a G3/400, you can replace it with a 733 or 867 - now THAT is a reason to upgrade!! And so, that is a reason for Apple to milk the G4 for another 6 months minimum.
I don't see the message of the MHz being "stupified" enough to make a difference till we see the G5, and until Apple Stores are widespread enough to get the message to the masses like TV commercials and superstore sales reps never will do. See Godzappa's post above....
[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>
My 2 year old G4 is still going strong after friends' PCs bought at the same time are being used as door stops, but we're preaching to the preachers here...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
E X A C T L Y !
WHEW - this went WAY longer than I intended... but then there are so many thoughtful posts to reply to here... "welcome back" to AI, and "C-ya" to a good night's sleep!
Final random thought for the night - Jobs should give an Apple board seat to John Lassiter, to help secure Apple's place as THE computer for creative/showbiz people.
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd, but I bet they could get away with selling MP G5s as servers.
Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope.
The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!
Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.
ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.
The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!
Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.
ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.
My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense?
My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does, as what I said seems to, for you.
Furthermore, I'm not looking to flame anyone I disagree with - I very much like the tenor of intelligent discussion on these revived boards so far - AI always had it, MacNN never did and never will...
Gotta go get some sleep now, but I'll leave you with this agreement to disagree...
<strong> [quote]
For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thought One:
"Why Be Normal?" bumper sticker = "Think Different"
Perhaps you should re-think your use of the term "normal" in this context
Thought Two:
Your theorized "Prosumer/low-end Pro" market was the target market for the G4 Cube.
I own a Cube, and I'm incredibly thrilled with (and emotionally attatched to) it, but I understand that not enough people Thought as Different as I did...
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much</strong><hr></blockquote>
Weeellll....
I would love to have dual or even quad engines to run my web servers on.
Now that Lasso comes with an embedded MySQL db and speed is possible, I want as much as I can get.
hell, whatever ships in a new enclosure better frikken have 2 full bays instead of 1.5 have we have now. Thats just the stupidist thing in the world.
Regarding G5s in January... I would love to believe it, but I don't think it will happen.
What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock, is offer dual G4s as entry, then faster and fastest as G5s for the early adopters.
But then again, why would they have to get RID of G4s. I can only logically think that G4s would FINALLY be used in iMacs as soon as the G5 goes mainstream in the Pro line.
Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. My dad got a G4 500 in May 2000 and I got a G4 500 DP in July 2000. Right now, both are running OS X.1 and mostly the same software, and mine is definately far superior. In everything.
While I agree that some of the other machine improvements have something to do with it, the dual processors are the main factor. Ripping a DVD in the background while listening to iTunes 2 while compiling a new Java 2 Applet (thanks for the Dev Tools Apple) works without missing a beat on my machine, his becomes nearly unusable and typing is sporadic at best.
No, with the increasingly popular OS X, dual processor systems need to stay. Finally dual processors are really twice as fast.
Releasing the G5 is only part of what Apple needs. Apple also needs smarter ads...cuz "Up to twice as fast" and "hahahah, there is no step 3" don't work as well as they should in this market.
They need to alter Steve Jobs psychopathic rage so that he doesn't throw hardware out the window while people are working on it.
They also need to dump "Power" and "i" cuz its cheap.
<strong>Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd totally agree. Sadly, for many pro users, the apps are still in 9. I find it pathetic that FCP is still not carbonized/cocoa-ified... Although I'm pretty sure it's DP-capable in 9 anyway.
This may not be logical, but I think a lot of people would update based on software concerns: once photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, FCP, After Effects, etc. are running natively in X, you'd want whatever new hardware you could get your hands on.
Nice to be back... although I've changed my username since then.
<strong>Some say that mosr's source is actually Apple non-employee Mea D. Ersass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ROTFLMAO.
MOSR is falling ever lower in terms of journalistic integrity. (I'm giving MOSR the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they had journalistic skills at some point.) Think Secret is well-written and reliable, but the news are usually not quite groundbreaking. I'm really curious to see how the "new AI with the same old sources" stacks up. But regardless of front page news, we now have stable and active AI boards once again. <crosses fingers>
At this time there will be a new i mac line based on G4 chip with no L3 cache. Probabily there will be a new case, and why not a lcd screen, considering that all apple's screen are lcd at this time.
Comments
BTW, I have a PowerMac with a single G4 800Mhz, with a vestigial appendange of another G4 800Mhz. It doesn't run my software any faster, but it lets me keep the thermostat down in my office.
*ducks and runs*
As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>I say January; they COULD be out by then. It really depends on whether Apple wants the power out there, or whether they wanna milk the G4 for all the cash they can. I don't think they'll sell many more with the advent of the G5 possibly so close.</strong><hr></blockquote>
woah! ::rubs eyes::
cipher? a junior member?
<strong>There is no way the G5 will appear in a laptop any time soon, if the rumored specs are anywhere near accurate. If MOSR is right (and that's a big if) then the earliest we'll see one is late fall 2002/MWSF 2003, when a lower power version of the G5 rolls off the lines. If the desktop G5 appears this next MWSF, I'd say that's optimistic, but not impossible.
As for how much the desktops cost, that depends on how much Mot charges for the chip, and the rumors are all over the map on that. I'm guessing that the 7450 bows in at $1599 and $2099, and the G5 starts at $2599 and goes up.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
well damn it, my birthday is in February and I wanted to get a fresh new PB, not a G5 but the fastest one
<strong>There is a strange assumption in this thread.
"Apple wants to milk the G4 for a bit longer"
Two problems with this:-
1. blah
2. blah blah
If they can manufcature a range of faster processors at similar yeilds they will do so without uping the price.
One caveat, if the roomers at MOSR were true, a 2.4GHZ G5. Apple would want to milk a premium price for the fastest desktop for a while. But volume is what is needed and without volume sales Apple will die. It is as important to Apple to provide the fastest processors as it is to us.
Apple will sell the fastest kit it can make.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One problem with this: -
You're assuming a perfect world where decisions are made based on engineering and technical data like chip yield alone.
That's not the case. Sometimes, the marketing department determines the release schedule.
I see it happening this way - G4 desktops get bumped in Jan. and break the GHz barrier before they are phased out of the PowerMac line. Meanwhile, the MHz bump in the G4 allows them to bump the iMac up to 9xx MHz at the top of the line.
Then in the summer, they can bump the PowerMac to G5 and the iMac to G4 (and LCD of course - ten thousand rumors can't be wrong)
[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>I want to see a Macworld where the Mhz Myth ISN'T explained, because the evidence that the new Macs are faster will be so crystal clear that Michael Dell will be dropping bunny turds for months on end.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
LOL
Well said! This is exactly what I expect/hope if the rumors of the G5 raw processing power are even halfway true.
[quote]Originally posted by Mac The Fork:
<strong>My sources report that it is more likely that the G5 will be delayed until Apple is done creating their Raycer graphics processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now CUT that out, Knife... uhhh, I mean "Fork"
You're probably kidding, but you're making me drool on my keyboard anyway!
Mmmmmmmmmm... Raaaaaacer Graaaaaaphics Chiiiiiiiip.. </homersimpson>
[quote]Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy:
<strong>Godzappa, the Mhz myth is very well explained.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you are missing this forest for the trees.
The MHz Myth is very well explained... to 90% of the non-trollers on this board. It's very well explained... to people like us.
It's explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and/or based on whose commercial they just saw on TV and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them. Apple said it best themselves at the launch of the retail stores... 95% of the people who bought a Windows computer instead of a Mac, never even considered a Mac as a prospective choice.
[quote]<strong>
If the public does not want to believe that processor efficiency is the generally important factor then thats life unless Apple is going to release a string of advertisements going through that.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We would all cheer and high-five each other if Apple/Chiat made a commercial to "to through" that. But unless they produce a 30-sec. masterpiece, they will just be preaching to the choir yet again.
Try to keep in mind - commercials don't educate, they create brand awareness.... they (subliminally) make you ("you" being an average consumer, as opposed to someone posting to AI on the first night of AI's return) want go check out ("check out" meaning not buying something today, but maybe bringing the spouse by to see what a Mac can do on your next mall trip) the Apple Store when you are wandering through your city's newest mall this holiday season.
[quote]<strong>
Apple's G4 line currently stands up to the Pentium 4 as well as it needs to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
NO it does NOT (except for Altivec-enhanced apps), and never will from a markeing standpoint because the majority of the public is not educated in regards to the Myth. It doesn't stand up to retail competitiveness and marketshare growth any more than the iMac's 15" monitor on a $1499 computer does in a 17" PC system for $899 marketplace.
Apple has paid (and is paying) big bucks to Marketsource to supply Apple Reps to Circuit City and CompUSA to keep display models in running orders and educate the sales staff. They have done a decent (and in many stores outstanding) job of educating the StuporStore sales reps on the Myth. I've even seen a few of these reps sell their PC to buy a Mac!
But, if you are a commissioned sales rep, are you going to bother telling the story of the Myth and the Mac Advantages to someone who wants to buy a 900 MHz or 1.1 GHz PC, or are you just going to shut up and make the sale of a Windoze machine?
95% of the people who buy a Mac from Circuit City or chumpUSA, do so ONLY because they came into the store intending to buy a Mac, and the sales rep managed to serve them well enough (thanks to the work of marketsource) to keep them from running home screaming to their MacWarehouse catalog.
All too seldom (but it does happen), the customer mentions an interest in digital video, and the well-trained sales rep shows them a quick demo of iMovie, and someone not intending to buy a Mac ends up with one anyway.
These "superstores" are not, and never will, grow marketshare.... hence the Apple Stores.
Unlike the last Grand Experiment to grow marketshare (see Power Computing and the Clone Fiasco), this one has not been rushed out, will grow rather than slash sales, etc. We are in it for the long term, and we have the cash reserves in place to support a year or so of little/no retail store profit (as long as overall we are profitable), especially in the current climate where the majority of PC box maakers are "beleagured".
If anyone is wondering, I know the retail arena very well, having been paid by Marketsource to be an Apple rep for over 3 years now (and sold for a mom-pop Apple Specialist for 5 years before that). If anyone from Apple Legal happens to be paying attention, I am quite sure that the above statements do NOT violate my NDA, as it is not Apple Confidential Information, but purely my own opinion and NOT the opinion of Marketsource and/or Apple Computer.....
[quote]<strong>
The G4 is more efficient by a large margin being that the P4's behemoth pipeline depth squanders every single piece of special gadgtery they shoved in it.
The P4 is a makerting tool, and not as efficient as the P3! As long as Intel can lap up the masses with the MHZ myth.....
How does one stupify the messgae of efficiency enough so that the public would buy it?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are exactly right. I said it before and I will say it again because it bears repeating.....
The MHz Myth, and the associated concepts of pipelines, etc, is explained to and/or understood by no more than 5% of the people buying computers at Circuit City, CompUSA, and based on whose commercial they just saw on TV, and what their friend/neighbor/relative the "PC expert" is telling them.
Ignoring the fact that the last sentence of your post directly contridicts the first one,
Apple is basically coasting on their core user base (thus the "milking" comments on the first page of this thread), and will do so until at least mid-2002....the G5 will not explode on the scene till Apple has at least 40-50 retail stores open... that's when "5 down and 95 to go" gets really serious!!!
Meanwhile, a large percentage of the creative, power-user crowd will buy whatever Apple has in the latest Power Mac every year or two, as long as the (perceived AND real) performance increase is there. The Power Mac line is currently rebounding from a most ugly stagnation.
Think about it - if you owned a G3/400, how anxious were you to upgrade to a G4/450 a year ago? OTOH, today, if you own a G3/400, you can replace it with a 733 or 867 - now THAT is a reason to upgrade!! And so, that is a reason for Apple to milk the G4 for another 6 months minimum.
I don't see the message of the MHz being "stupified" enough to make a difference till we see the G5, and until Apple Stores are widespread enough to get the message to the masses like TV commercials and superstore sales reps never will do. See Godzappa's post above....
[quote]Originally posted by Godzappa:
<strong>
My 2 year old G4 is still going strong after friends' PCs bought at the same time are being used as door stops, but we're preaching to the preachers here...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
E X A C T L Y !
WHEW - this went WAY longer than I intended... but then there are so many thoughtful posts to reply to here... "welcome back" to AI, and "C-ya" to a good night's sleep!
Final random thought for the night - Jobs should give an Apple board seat to John Lassiter, to help secure Apple's place as THE computer for creative/showbiz people.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd, but I bet they could get away with selling MP G5s as servers.
<strong>
Maybe for an MP G5 would be too much for the "normal" PowerMac crowd.....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope.
The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!
Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.
ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
<strong>
Nope.
The hard-core creative crowd (AKA the "normal" PowerMac crowd) will pay to push their pixels and render their frames faster - time is $$$$ !!
Make a MP G5 running an optimized 10.2, and you'll not only get the current power-creative users to upgrade, you'll also get back those who defected over the last few years for the price/performance of NT on x86 but still really miss the elegance of their Macs.
ROI is king in both the creative and number-crunching business world, and a MP G5, even at $4999, makes a LOT of financial and business sense for a large chunk of Apple's core ("high-margin, thanks-for-keeping-us-in-business") mkt. of Creative Pro Users.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense?
<strong>
My mistake, I should have explained myself better. For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that). In short, I agree with you, even though you're disagreeing with me. Make sense?
Yes it does, as what I said seems to, for you.
Furthermore, I'm not looking to flame anyone I disagree with - I very much like the tenor of intelligent discussion on these revived boards so far - AI always had it, MacNN never did and never will...
Gotta go get some sleep now, but I'll leave you with this agreement to disagree...
<strong> [quote]
For some odd reason, I thought "normal" meant exclusively Prosumer and low-end Professional (or something like that).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thought One:
"Why Be Normal?" bumper sticker = "Think Different"
Perhaps you should re-think your use of the term "normal" in this context
Thought Two:
Your theorized "Prosumer/low-end Pro" market was the target market for the G4 Cube.
I own a Cube, and I'm incredibly thrilled with (and emotionally attatched to) it, but I understand that not enough people Thought as Different as I did...
<strong>My guess is that if they do G5s, they'll stop with the duals. They'll be too expensive, and they just don't help most people very much</strong><hr></blockquote>
Weeellll....
I would love to have dual or even quad engines to run my web servers on.
Now that Lasso comes with an embedded MySQL db and speed is possible, I want as much as I can get.
Oh...
And rack sized.
Regarding G5s in January... I would love to believe it, but I don't think it will happen.
What they could do, to get rid of G4 stock, is offer dual G4s as entry, then faster and fastest as G5s for the early adopters.
But then again, why would they have to get RID of G4s. I can only logically think that G4s would FINALLY be used in iMacs as soon as the G5 goes mainstream in the Pro line.
Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. My dad got a G4 500 in May 2000 and I got a G4 500 DP in July 2000. Right now, both are running OS X.1 and mostly the same software, and mine is definately far superior. In everything.
While I agree that some of the other machine improvements have something to do with it, the dual processors are the main factor. Ripping a DVD in the background while listening to iTunes 2 while compiling a new Java 2 Applet (thanks for the Dev Tools Apple) works without missing a beat on my machine, his becomes nearly unusable and typing is sporadic at best.
No, with the increasingly popular OS X, dual processor systems need to stay. Finally dual processors are really twice as fast.
$0.02
-Ender
So, wouldn't it be logic to release both an adapted OS with the new G5.
This scenario would match the predicted timeframes for release of both products.
Only some ideas.
They need to alter Steve Jobs psychopathic rage so that he doesn't throw hardware out the window while people are working on it.
They also need to dump "Power" and "i" cuz its cheap.
<strong>Unless you are spending all of your time in OS 9, I think that dual processors fall into the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread category of Mac improvements. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd totally agree. Sadly, for many pro users, the apps are still in 9. I find it pathetic that FCP is still not carbonized/cocoa-ified... Although I'm pretty sure it's DP-capable in 9 anyway.
This may not be logical, but I think a lot of people would update based on software concerns: once photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, FCP, After Effects, etc. are running natively in X, you'd want whatever new hardware you could get your hands on.
Nice to be back... although I've changed my username since then.
<strong>Some say that mosr's source is actually Apple non-employee Mea D. Ersass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ROTFLMAO.
MOSR is falling ever lower in terms of journalistic integrity. (I'm giving MOSR the benefit of the doubt in assuming that they had journalistic skills at some point.) Think Secret is well-written and reliable, but the news are usually not quite groundbreaking. I'm really curious to see how the "new AI with the same old sources" stacks up. But regardless of front page news, we now have stable and active AI boards once again. <crosses fingers>
Escher
At this time there will be a new i mac line based on G4 chip with no L3 cache. Probabily there will be a new case, and why not a lcd screen, considering that all apple's screen are lcd at this time.