The G3 is history. With 130nm G4's theres no longer a need for non Altivec processors. The range of G4-G5-GPUL allows Apple to offer more at the low end without sacrificing sales of the high end. Everyone is happy.
Shake users migrate wholesale to GPUL based machines and stop whining about their low cost Linux boxen.
The Moto G5 impresses Mac Enthusiasts but in their hearts they lust for GPUL and wait their turn when GPUL is in their price range.
Apple is a hit with Biotech..finally a Unix based OS with a decent GUI and excellent speed.
Thousands of MCSE's have permanent frowns on their face as OSX Server Experience becomes the "hot" item.
Apple hit's 17% Marketshare in 2006. Man....reading teh future ain't easy.
It would seem to be a big advantage for Apple to have the same processor bus on all Mac models. It just makes sense, for engineering and manufacturing economies. So, how difficult would it be for IBM to have a scaled down version of this chip, with a single, 32 bit core? If it is made with the 0.09 process and doesn't push the clock rate too high, it would be very low power. Essentially, an IBM G4 chip, but with other good stuff, such as the high speed bus, like the 64-bit chip. To me, this makes more sense than dealing with two different processor buses, one from IBM and the other from Motorola.
[quote]This pattern repeats throughout the Mac line-up. Machines simply cost too much, an the price-points are in dire need of re-alignment. Apple was deservedly roasted over the 100 price bump because the increased costs were an almost complete fallacy used to jack prices over a period of months when they at best account for little more than a week's worth of price increeases. At any time durning the months of Apple's price bump the retail price of RAM and LCD's did NOT increase (17-18" LCD's actually got cheaper!)<hr></blockquote>
I just bought a dual-1-ghz machine. it's fantastic. prior to going through with the purchase, i spec'd a Dell 2.53 ghz box (much faster, admittedly) and with a DVD burner, appropriate software and comparable features (except for speakers/subwoofer) it came to approximately $2100 (not incl. $200 rebate) which is very comparable to my dual-1-ghz and i think i got much better software (iDVD, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iCal, OmniOutliner, OmniGraffle and Snaps Pro X).
In all, it's pretty comparable when you compare name brands, similar specs and software bundles. Performance might be a bit better but this box is so fast, it hardly matters to me. Should Apple improve things by dropping prices and improving specs more rapidly on the Power Macs, definitely.
PS, this case is awesome... 3 ATA busses, easy to install and upgrade. It's a dream.
SpyMac says the G3 iMac will be gone after MWSF. The eMac seems like a worthy replacement.
With the G3 iMac gone, Apple's product line up will make more sense.
I think the overlap between the iMac and the eMac will disappear once the G5 arrives. The iMac could move to a much faster processor without canabolizing PowerMac sales. The eMac could stay the same speed and get a nice price cut, so even the SuperDrive model costs around $1000.
This is ideal, but I wonder what will happen once GPUL arrives? Will the iMac go G5, the eMac getting the fastest G4 available and the PowerMac getting GPUL? That would be nice.
Or is GPUL to expensive for a PowerMac, the PowerMac stays G5, the iMac stays G4, and another product line is added to the "matrix?" I hope not.
The G3 is at 1GHz, but Apple doesn't use any G3 above 700MHz. I mean, 1GHz iBook vs 667MHz PowerBook? That's bad karma.
Apple has a great line-up.
iMac G3 - really cheap (should be cheaper for what you get though - probably place-holding for the eMac)
eMac - fantastic CRT machine
iMac G4 - fantastic LCD machine
Power Mac - The fastest (or will be when the GPUL hits).
There is ONE area of overlap in the line-up. Do you want a Superdrive + CRT or a Combo drive + LCD for $1500, and do you want a Combo drive + CRT or a CD Burner + LCD for $1300.
It's choice, and not that confusing. The CD burning iMac should go though, I couldn't believe it when Apple switched from DVD-ROMs to CD-RWs.
By now Apple could have been shipping Mac OS X on DVD if they had switched to combo-drives. CD Burners are bad because they won't be compatible when software starts to arrive on DVDs.
iMac G3 - really cheap (should be cheaper for what you get though - probably place-holding for the eMac)
eMac - fantastic CRT machine
iMac G4 - fantastic LCD machine
Power Mac - The fastest (or will be when the GPUL hits).
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Barto- first off, this is not an attack on you, I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em.
"Fantastic" is not a word you should use lightly to describe Apple's current line-up. Apple's current machines are a far cry from what we were *used* to be able to buy back in the day. Listen. I've been buying Macs since the Apple II (I have 1), the CE (I have 2), the Quadra (I have 2), the Beige G3 (I have 3 of various configs - all beige), and the G4. IMHO the last, best, greatest machine Apple offered as far as price/performance was the Dual 533. Every other machine I've purchased since then has been a struggle of will betwen myself and Apple.
Listen. I *need* to buy machines regularly, and Apple hasn't come through for me in the last 2 years. 2 years. 2 friggin years!. In the last 2.5 years I've purchased only 3 new machines from Apple. None of those machines were *need* machines until yesterday. I found (after a hellava lot of searching) a Dual 1Ghz QS. Why not buy the new DP 1Ghz? Because, honestly, I'm fed up. I won't buy an obvious 'test of the faithful' machine. I need power. Pure, unobstructed, pre-'today's Apple' power. And last years machine is the best I could find. Sad.
I may sound bitter. I'm not. I'm frustrated. Apple's current line-up is a sad reminder of the 'what could have been' scenarios so often debated on these boards.
FWIW, I'm not 'switching', I'm not waiting for 'the next big thing', and I'm not going to speculate on any rumors. I'm waiting though, and I'm waiting for the company I love to love me back.
iMac G3 - really cheap (should be cheaper for what you get though - probably place-holding for the eMac)
eMac - fantastic CRT machine
iMac G4 - fantastic LCD machine
Power Mac - The fastest (or will be when the GPUL hits).</strong><hr></blockquote>
addendum (sp?):
I really wanted to address 'the 'fantastic' thing more thouroughly in my last post, but went off on a tangent.
iMac (CRT G3): Kill it. The eMac does more, is more, and is the perfect replacement. Drop the price and/or add a CD-RW model at the existing G3 iMac price.
eMac: the best machine Apple has to offer in its current line-up. (But...I have to ask. Why not 1600x1200? The eMac is basically a 17" Studio Display is it not?)
iMac G4: drop the 15" screen. Nobody actually liked it in the first place. The 17" screen 'fits' better on the base. Allow custom orders. Not everyone needs a 'SuperDrive' for web surfing.
PowerMac: Sad times (like I said, I'm not speculating).
There's nothing wrong with having a lot of products or overlapping products.
It's the size of the company that has to mannage it.
Tough times, it contracts.
Good times, it expands.
But on a more basic level. The Supplier, in this case probably IBM, can't really supply enough to justifly the cost so earily on even if they could satisfy the power/size requirements for portables.
G4s will be with us for a while yet. GPUL or whatever now on the other hand, we will need to know what IBM is planning to do with it before we can guess what macs it can be placed in. Guess it's the Oct15 date again.
"Fantastic" is not a word you should use lightly to describe Apple's current line-up. Apple's current machines are a far cry from what we were *used* to be able to buy back in the day. Listen. I've been buying Macs since the Apple II (I have 1), the CE (I have 2), the Quadra (I have 2), the Beige G3 (I have 3 of various configs - all beige), and the G4. IMHO the last, best, greatest machine Apple offered as far as price/performance was the Dual 533. Every other machine I've purchased since then has been a struggle of will betwen myself and Apple.
(snip)
- G</strong><hr></blockquote>
A little off topic but really don't you think the current stuff is fantastic? You don't remember buying a PM7300 (180MHz PPC 601, not even a G3) for $2,600? No writable optical drive. Tiny HD. No Firewire or USB. I understand that time marches on and there is always the desire for something faster. Yet, isn't it remarkable how far we've come? I remember a rumor on macosrumors.com predicting that someday we'll see a 400MHz G4 and won't that be remarkable.
That's around double the performance in 18 months, on par with the rest of the industry. So how is the Dual 1GHz not the same value as the Dual 533MHz?
Benchmark early DP against its contemporaries and benchmark the new DP against its contemporaries and you'll see. Then, look at where Mac prices have gone, abd look where PC prices have gone, and you'll see yet another level of inequity. Apart from pretty design on the hardware side, OSX is being asked to pull a lot of weight for the mac platform.
<strong>That's around double the performance in 18 months, on par with the rest of the industry. So how is the Dual 1GHz not the same value as the Dual 533MHz?
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're forgetting that what people want is for Apple to catch up with PCs and not to develop as fast but with a performance gap.
Else I can start a computer company selling 2 mhz PC and in two years to to 2 ghz and that will make me brake all CPU development speed records, but it wont mean that when using my 2ghz 5k $ computer you'll be able to render anything as fast as with a amd opteron rated 3600+.
Normal users can of course work fine with 1ghz - and for those I think Apple could drop the mhz rating away altogether and maybe rate them like "1.2" meaning they're equivalent to a 1.2 ghz Pentium 3 or not rate them at all.
But people who buy top notch machines (and who in turn are likely to spend huge loads on cash on their equipment) are very, very keen on getting the best for their money. If a 3D animation studio buys new computers they wont settle for something that's 20% slower because time is money and slower rendering means more time spent on it.
Apple can choose to get after that market (nice profits!) or to leave it, but you wont sell a dual ghz G4 to anyone caliming that it's FAST. Because it's not, and people buying high-level machines don't buy them to surf the net or use Word. For that the iMac is perfect.
I'm not saying I wont buy a mac and am not bitching about the G4 - but one has to keep things in perspective.
I know people want Apple to catch up. But 709 suggested that the 533MHz DP is better value in its day than the 1GHz DDR is today. In terms of features, no-one appears to disagree. 40GB v 80GB, 2 sound jacks v 4 sound jacks, 2x optical drive bays...
But then Matsu suggested that the 1GHz DDR isn't, in raw performance, better value than the 533MHz DP.
Well Matsu, here's some Quake 3 (Mac OS X) benchmarks. These are from Bare Feets.
<strong>Well Matsu, here's some Quake 3 (Mac OS X) benchmarks. These are from Bare Feets.
533/Fastest--------69.9
533/High Quality---53.2
1GHz/Fastest-------222
1GHz/High Quailty--101
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do all these have the same graphics card? I know the dual ghz machines are nice and even the dual 867 should be very cute to work with. Yet 111 fps in high quality mode quake3 isn't mind blowing (if I understand the numbers correctly). Surely, however, most of the blame goes to the bus...
A little off topic but really don't you think the current stuff is fantastic? You don't remember buying a PM7300 (180MHz PPC 601, not even a G3) for $2,600? No writable optical drive. Tiny HD. No Firewire or USB. I understand that time marches on and there is always the desire for something faster. Yet, isn't it remarkable how far we've come? I remember a rumor on macosrumors.com predicting that someday we'll see a 400MHz G4 and won't that be remarkable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For the time, the PM 7300 was more competative in its price range in fearutes and speed than the low end, and dare I say high end systems that Apple is selling today.
I have read some forums on ars technica and it appears that even there, everybdoy seems to agree that Altivec is the best SIMD unit ever built in a desktop, some said that it's not technically possible to do the same thing in X86 chips, others said that only marketing decision.
Long live the Altivec unit, hoping that the next chip will have the same or better SIMD unit.
Comments
Shake users migrate wholesale to GPUL based machines and stop whining about their low cost Linux boxen.
The Moto G5 impresses Mac Enthusiasts but in their hearts they lust for GPUL and wait their turn when GPUL is in their price range.
Apple is a hit with Biotech..finally a Unix based OS with a decent GUI and excellent speed.
Thousands of MCSE's have permanent frowns on their face as OSX Server Experience becomes the "hot" item.
Apple hit's 17% Marketshare in 2006. Man....reading teh future ain't easy.
That's the IBM PowerPC 700MHz I was refering to. Shipping now for a couple of months
It would seem to be a big advantage for Apple to have the same processor bus on all Mac models. It just makes sense, for engineering and manufacturing economies. So, how difficult would it be for IBM to have a scaled down version of this chip, with a single, 32 bit core? If it is made with the 0.09 process and doesn't push the clock rate too high, it would be very low power. Essentially, an IBM G4 chip, but with other good stuff, such as the high speed bus, like the 64-bit chip. To me, this makes more sense than dealing with two different processor buses, one from IBM and the other from Motorola.
I just bought a dual-1-ghz machine. it's fantastic. prior to going through with the purchase, i spec'd a Dell 2.53 ghz box (much faster, admittedly) and with a DVD burner, appropriate software and comparable features (except for speakers/subwoofer) it came to approximately $2100 (not incl. $200 rebate) which is very comparable to my dual-1-ghz and i think i got much better software (iDVD, iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iCal, OmniOutliner, OmniGraffle and Snaps Pro X).
In all, it's pretty comparable when you compare name brands, similar specs and software bundles. Performance might be a bit better but this box is so fast, it hardly matters to me. Should Apple improve things by dropping prices and improving specs more rapidly on the Power Macs, definitely.
PS, this case is awesome... 3 ATA busses, easy to install and upgrade. It's a dream.
na
With the G3 iMac gone, Apple's product line up will make more sense.
I think the overlap between the iMac and the eMac will disappear once the G5 arrives. The iMac could move to a much faster processor without canabolizing PowerMac sales. The eMac could stay the same speed and get a nice price cut, so even the SuperDrive model costs around $1000.
This is ideal, but I wonder what will happen once GPUL arrives? Will the iMac go G5, the eMac getting the fastest G4 available and the PowerMac getting GPUL? That would be nice.
Or is GPUL to expensive for a PowerMac, the PowerMac stays G5, the iMac stays G4, and another product line is added to the "matrix?" I hope not.
Apple has a great line-up.
iMac G3 - really cheap (should be cheaper for what you get though - probably place-holding for the eMac)
eMac - fantastic CRT machine
iMac G4 - fantastic LCD machine
Power Mac - The fastest (or will be when the GPUL hits).
There is ONE area of overlap in the line-up. Do you want a Superdrive + CRT or a Combo drive + LCD for $1500, and do you want a Combo drive + CRT or a CD Burner + LCD for $1300.
It's choice, and not that confusing. The CD burning iMac should go though, I couldn't believe it when Apple switched from DVD-ROMs to CD-RWs.
By now Apple could have been shipping Mac OS X on DVD if they had switched to combo-drives. CD Burners are bad because they won't be compatible when software starts to arrive on DVDs.
Barto
[ 09-23-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>
iMac G3 - really cheap (should be cheaper for what you get though - probably place-holding for the eMac)
eMac - fantastic CRT machine
iMac G4 - fantastic LCD machine
Power Mac - The fastest (or will be when the GPUL hits).
]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Barto- first off, this is not an attack on you, I'm simply calling 'em as I see 'em.
"Fantastic" is not a word you should use lightly to describe Apple's current line-up. Apple's current machines are a far cry from what we were *used* to be able to buy back in the day. Listen. I've been buying Macs since the Apple II (I have 1), the CE (I have 2), the Quadra (I have 2), the Beige G3 (I have 3 of various configs - all beige), and the G4. IMHO the last, best, greatest machine Apple offered as far as price/performance was the Dual 533. Every other machine I've purchased since then has been a struggle of will betwen myself and Apple.
Listen. I *need* to buy machines regularly, and Apple hasn't come through for me in the last 2 years. 2 years. 2 friggin years!. In the last 2.5 years I've purchased only 3 new machines from Apple. None of those machines were *need* machines until yesterday. I found (after a hellava lot of searching) a Dual 1Ghz QS. Why not buy the new DP 1Ghz? Because, honestly, I'm fed up. I won't buy an obvious 'test of the faithful' machine. I need power. Pure, unobstructed, pre-'today's Apple' power. And last years machine is the best I could find. Sad.
I may sound bitter. I'm not. I'm frustrated. Apple's current line-up is a sad reminder of the 'what could have been' scenarios so often debated on these boards.
FWIW, I'm not 'switching', I'm not waiting for 'the next big thing', and I'm not going to speculate on any rumors. I'm waiting though, and I'm waiting for the company I love to love me back.
- G
<strong>
iMac G3 - really cheap (should be cheaper for what you get though - probably place-holding for the eMac)
eMac - fantastic CRT machine
iMac G4 - fantastic LCD machine
Power Mac - The fastest (or will be when the GPUL hits).</strong><hr></blockquote>
addendum (sp?):
I really wanted to address 'the 'fantastic' thing more thouroughly in my last post, but went off on a tangent.
iMac (CRT G3): Kill it. The eMac does more, is more, and is the perfect replacement. Drop the price and/or add a CD-RW model at the existing G3 iMac price.
eMac: the best machine Apple has to offer in its current line-up. (But...I have to ask. Why not 1600x1200? The eMac is basically a 17" Studio Display is it not?)
iMac G4: drop the 15" screen. Nobody actually liked it in the first place. The 17" screen 'fits' better on the base. Allow custom orders. Not everyone needs a 'SuperDrive' for web surfing.
PowerMac: Sad times (like I said, I'm not speculating).
-G
[ 09-24-2002: Message edited by: 709 ]</p>
It's the size of the company that has to mannage it.
Tough times, it contracts.
Good times, it expands.
But on a more basic level. The Supplier, in this case probably IBM, can't really supply enough to justifly the cost so earily on even if they could satisfy the power/size requirements for portables.
G4s will be with us for a while yet. GPUL or whatever now on the other hand, we will need to know what IBM is planning to do with it before we can guess what macs it can be placed in. Guess it's the Oct15 date again.
~Kuku
<strong>(snip)
"Fantastic" is not a word you should use lightly to describe Apple's current line-up. Apple's current machines are a far cry from what we were *used* to be able to buy back in the day. Listen. I've been buying Macs since the Apple II (I have 1), the CE (I have 2), the Quadra (I have 2), the Beige G3 (I have 3 of various configs - all beige), and the G4. IMHO the last, best, greatest machine Apple offered as far as price/performance was the Dual 533. Every other machine I've purchased since then has been a struggle of will betwen myself and Apple.
(snip)
- G</strong><hr></blockquote>
A little off topic but really don't you think the current stuff is fantastic? You don't remember buying a PM7300 (180MHz PPC 601, not even a G3) for $2,600? No writable optical drive. Tiny HD. No Firewire or USB. I understand that time marches on and there is always the desire for something faster. Yet, isn't it remarkable how far we've come? I remember a rumor on macosrumors.com predicting that someday we'll see a 400MHz G4 and won't that be remarkable.
Dual 533 (133MHz bus)
128MB RAM (PC133, up to 1.5GB)
32MB GeForce 2 MX
40GB Hard Drive (ATA-66)
CD Burner (1 Drive Bay)
August 2002 ~$2500 Power Mac
Dual 1GHz (167MHz bus)
256MB RAM (DDR333, up to 2GB)
64MB GeForce 4 MX
80GB Hard Drive (2x ATA-100)
SuperDrive (2 Drive Bays)
That's around double the performance in 18 months, on par with the rest of the industry. So how is the Dual 1GHz not the same value as the Dual 533MHz?
Barto
<strong>That's around double the performance in 18 months, on par with the rest of the industry. So how is the Dual 1GHz not the same value as the Dual 533MHz?
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're forgetting that what people want is for Apple to catch up with PCs and not to develop as fast but with a performance gap.
Else I can start a computer company selling 2 mhz PC and in two years to to 2 ghz and that will make me brake all CPU development speed records, but it wont mean that when using my 2ghz 5k $ computer you'll be able to render anything as fast as with a amd opteron rated 3600+.
Normal users can of course work fine with 1ghz - and for those I think Apple could drop the mhz rating away altogether and maybe rate them like "1.2" meaning they're equivalent to a 1.2 ghz Pentium 3 or not rate them at all.
But people who buy top notch machines (and who in turn are likely to spend huge loads on cash on their equipment) are very, very keen on getting the best for their money. If a 3D animation studio buys new computers they wont settle for something that's 20% slower because time is money and slower rendering means more time spent on it.
Apple can choose to get after that market (nice profits!) or to leave it, but you wont sell a dual ghz G4 to anyone caliming that it's FAST. Because it's not, and people buying high-level machines don't buy them to surf the net or use Word. For that the iMac is perfect.
I'm not saying I wont buy a mac and am not bitching about the G4 - but one has to keep things in perspective.
But then Matsu suggested that the 1GHz DDR isn't, in raw performance, better value than the 533MHz DP.
Well Matsu, here's some Quake 3 (Mac OS X) benchmarks. These are from Bare Feets.
533/Fastest--------69.9
533/High Quality---53.2
1GHz/Fastest-------222
1GHz/High Quailty--101
We've come a long way (in 18 months), baby.
Barto
<strong>Well Matsu, here's some Quake 3 (Mac OS X) benchmarks. These are from Bare Feets.
533/Fastest--------69.9
533/High Quality---53.2
1GHz/Fastest-------222
1GHz/High Quailty--101
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do all these have the same graphics card? I know the dual ghz machines are nice and even the dual 867 should be very cute to work with. Yet 111 fps in high quality mode quake3 isn't mind blowing (if I understand the numbers correctly). Surely, however, most of the blame goes to the bus...
The better bus is already here, with the support of DDR 333 by the Apple's Asic (but not by the 7455).
Apple just need a good chip, like the supposed GPUL.
<strong>
A little off topic but really don't you think the current stuff is fantastic? You don't remember buying a PM7300 (180MHz PPC 601, not even a G3) for $2,600? No writable optical drive. Tiny HD. No Firewire or USB. I understand that time marches on and there is always the desire for something faster. Yet, isn't it remarkable how far we've come? I remember a rumor on macosrumors.com predicting that someday we'll see a 400MHz G4 and won't that be remarkable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For the time, the PM 7300 was more competative in its price range in fearutes and speed than the low end, and dare I say high end systems that Apple is selling today.
Long live the Altivec unit, hoping that the next chip will have the same or better SIMD unit.