I'm surprised no one's called you a troll yet, concord, because that's a good definition for you based on your posts to this thread. Nine months is a long time for you? How could you possibly call anyone else childish?
I'm surprised no one's called you a troll yet, concord, because that's a good definition for you based on your posts to this thread. Nine months is a long time for you? How could you possibly call anyone else childish?
He has a point, 9 months is a long time for a products life. For example, the graphics card options are ridiculous by todays standards. No 256MB card, and the mid and low are only 64 and 128 respectivly? And the cost to upgrade to the 128 card is absured by todays street prices for the cards. Don't even talk about the system ram (256 on the low, and only 512 on the top end model...) Apples problem is they only update everything at once. So by the end of a products life, the components and costs just seem stupid.
It seems like it would make sense if Apple either adopted a faster turnaround between updates (6 months), or they take a different aproach where they would update various components (ram, hd, optical, vid card for example) and prices in between major updates (new cases, faster processors, etc).
Don't even talk about the system ram (256 on the low, and only 512 on the top end model...)
Quote:
...or they take a different aproach where they would update various components (ram, hd, optical, vid card for example) and prices in between major updates (new cases, faster processors, etc).
That's exactly what I would like very much see. I am wondering though how easy would be for Apple to do this, with the current update strategy and secrecy.
Slightly off topic, but still relevant (well, just for fun): it seems Apple is no longer a computer hardware company. Their main page does not have any computer displayed. Only software and iPod-iTunes related stuff. Now guess how long it will go like that...
Yeah, what are you talking about? Does a die shrink not count?
I meant more from an end user's perspective...
Quote:
I'm surprised no one's called you a troll yet, concord, because that's a good definition for you based on your posts to this thread. Nine months is a long time for you? How could you possibly call anyone else childish?
I'm not calling on anyone to "give up", just disappointed that things haven't progressed more quickly as we were led to believe. PowerMacs are usually updated roughly every 6 months. We've just lost a Mac at work and it would have been nice to have replaced it with the next revision.
Quote:
And he "clarified" that at Paris Expo to be 3GHz by the end of Summer.
Ahh... I missed that little bit of backpedalling. Thanks!
Slightly off topic, but still relevant (well, just for fun): it seems Apple is no longer a computer hardware company. Their main page does not have any computer displayed. Only software and iPod-iTunes related stuff. Now guess how long it will go like that...
Yah you're right PB. Only thing is... thats how its always been with apple's hardware. Nothing has changed between the date that the iPod was released until now. It seems apple is always focusing on something else and the hardware comes "2nd".
----------
Replying to G5's being out by end of summer. The only way that will happen is if Apple doesn't release an update before that, that doesn't have a 3ghz in it. Apple isn't going to update the g5's to 2.x ghz then update to 3ghz 4-5 months later. I also can't see them waiting a year+ for powermac updates. Deadlines slip... if anything we should know that after dealing with Motorola for 10 years. Steve Jobs can't control what happens in the manufacturing plants... anything could have happened.
My prediction is 3ghz will be out around October / early November.
Why are you eye rolling at my RAM comment? Maybe (maybe) back when teh G5s came out this made some sense. But today, right now, it seem crazy. I will bet that Apple updates this to 512, 512, 1GB in teh next udpate. I mean, the G5s are supposed to be the "Pro" machines, having only 256 on the base is crazy. Apple is being a little stingy here.
Quote:
That's exactly what I would like very much see. I am wondering though how easy would be for Apple to do this, with the current update strategy and secrecy.
How would secrecy get involved? Changing around the RAM, HD, video card, or optical would have no baring on the secrecy of a major update. I think it is pretty doable, but I doubt this is not an aproach Apple wants.
Oh, don't act so childish. Thing is, we know Intel is in troubled waters right now and to be fair they did also introduce a new class of processor recently as well (as sucky as it is). What does that say about IBM?
All I've said was that (at least so far) IBM doesn't seem to be able to produce faster chips any quicker than Motorola. 9 months without a peep is getting into Motorola territory for delays... and people expect to see 3 Ghz machines in 4 months?!?
C.
Childish? Not worthy of a comment.Let me spell out what is wrong with your cynical view.
1) The G5's have only been shipping for around 6 months or so (not 9 months).They were announced long before production began.
2)The only fact we know about the state of the 970fx is that they have just begun production on the 90 nm process and all reports are excellent.Great numbers on power consumption and about a 2.5 ghz clock speed (the one that was mentioned at the conference).And of course a new dynamic power usage feature. Anything else you think you know about it is bull.
3)Just because Apple hasnt put a new G5 in your hand doesnt mean there is a problems at Ibm.The problem is Apple.They only do upgrades about 2 times a year and it is near time now as the G5's actually shipped about September.
4) How does Ibm stack up against the others? They just moved to the 90 nm process and as I said it sounds excellent. Intel did the same and their new process looks pretty poor,especially in power consumption.They recently pushed back their timetables,so no 4 ghz this year.The pentium M is still awaiting the 90 nm process,I believe it is due in May now-many months late.Amd has a 2.4 ghz amd64 planned for may but 2.6 ghz is due in the first quarter of next year when their 90 nm process is due to be ready.
Both Intel and Amd seem pretty lame next to Ibm.
5) Motorola only moved to the 13 nm process over a year after everyone else did and they havnt had a higher clocked G4 in over a year and their next offerings due in "3 to 6 months" are not any faster and certainly useless for any desktop Apple has any bussiness trying to market.So in what way is Ibm in the same boat? Clearly it is not at all!
In the face of facts your cynicism is unfounded.The G5's will come when Apple is ready.At this point we have no evidence that Ibm is the hold up.It is FUD,plain and simple.I dont believe they will go to 3 ghz in "4 months".
I believe we will see 2.5 ghz in a few weeks or maybe less.I believe the 3 ghz system will come at the end of the summer,about a year after the first ones shipped.
Why are you eye rolling at my RAM comment? Maybe (maybe) back when teh G5s came out this made some sense. But today, right now, it seem crazy.
You just answered your own question: rolling eyes don't point to you, but to Apple. Offering today a professional 64-bit, mind you, machine of the class of the G5 with 256 MB RAM is beyond ridiculous. It would not be so if RAM was too expensive, but that's not the case.
Quote:
How would secrecy get involved? Changing around the RAM, HD, video card, or optical would have no baring on the secrecy of a major update. I think it is pretty doable, but I doubt this is not an aproach Apple wants.
That's how: updating regularly the components, except processor, would make the hardware updates much less significant (for Apple, that is). Apple sells computers as complete packages, not processors. It seems they (still) love update this computing package as a whole, so most components take at the same time a bump, while no one knows until the introduction moment, what will come exactly.
That's how: updating regularly the components, except processor, would make the hardware updates much less significant (for Apple, that is). Apple sells computers as complete packages, not processors. It seems they (still) love update this computing package as a whole, so most components take at the same time a bump, while no one knows until the introduction moment, what will come exactly. [/B]
Truer words were never spoken: "... while no one knows until the introduction moment, what will come exactly."
You just answered your own question: rolling eyes don't point to you, but to Apple. Offering today a professional 64-bit, mind you, machine of the class of the G5 with 256 MB RAM is beyond ridiculous. It would not be so if RAM was too expensive, but that's not the case.
Their resellers would howl if they were too aggressive with this. Extra RAM is one of the main ways they attract people, since Apple doesn't let the MAP (minimum advertised price) budge very much. And MAP stays put mostly to prevent predatory pricing and protect the little guys.
Quote:
That's how: updating regularly the components, except processor, would make the hardware updates much less significant (for Apple, that is).
It would also raise the cost of the components (since they couldn't lock in a supply for nearly as long), raise the cost of manufacturing, and draw howls from their resellers. There is an average of 4-5 weeks of inventory in the channel at any given time. Regular updates would just leave retail outlets charging MAP for yesterday's stuff on a more or less constant basis.
Dell can update constantly because 1) they don't have a retail channel; 2) they're big enough that they don't need the supplier lock-in that Apple does; 3) they don't do the level of integration testing that Apple does. When you sell "complete packages" there's a lot of pressure to settle on one package that works and ship it as long as possible. Every change is a chance for something to break, and Mac users aren't as tolerant of that as PC users are, because Apple is a systems integrator.
...And MAP stays put mostly to prevent predatory pricing and protect the little guys...
Maybe a strategy that has run it's course, and is time to change to be more competative at minimal cost to Apple. I have noticed that when CompUSA advertises Apple products in my area they NEVER list the low end price for Macs, and most of the time they list the high end price. This does nothing for Apple's image but hurt it. At the same time, there is no incentive for CompUSA to advertise Apple products at all since their fliers are "Sales" but there are never any "Sales" that they can advertise. It's no wonder Apple is viewed as bieng over priced.
It would also raise the cost of the components (since they couldn't lock in a supply for nearly as long), raise the cost of manufacturing, and draw howls from their resellers. There is an average of 4-5 weeks of inventory in the channel at any given time. Regular updates would just leave retail outlets charging MAP for yesterday's stuff on a more or less constant basis.
Dell can update constantly because 1) they don't have a retail channel; 2) they're big enough that they don't need the supplier lock-in that Apple does; 3) they don't do the level of integration testing that Apple does. When you sell "complete packages" there's a lot of pressure to settle on one package that works and ship it as long as possible. Every change is a chance for something to break, and Mac users aren't as tolerant of that as PC users are, because Apple is a systems integrator.
Fair points, Amorph. I was trying to explain somehow the "secrecy" part of my statement, but you backed up very well the "strategy" part, which remained without comments. Thanks .
I might be wrong but about two years ago did Mr. Jobs not coin the phase two brains are better than one. There could be no chance of a single processor at the high-end.
The reason SJ was so sure that Apple would be able to offer 3GHz machines this summer is because he probably had a dual 8GHz G5 sitting at home as he said it.
Thus, he knew that 3GHz was do-able - Apple would just have to bide their time whilst IBM figured out how to mass produce them reliably.
Apple probably has stockpiles of the forthcoming parts already - it's just waiting for the right time to make it's move.
Am I correct in saying that when Apple announces a speed bump to an existing line, the new machine are usually available immediately? Isn't usually the new product announcements that we have to wait for?
Comments
Originally posted by Big Mac
I'm surprised no one's called you a troll yet, concord, because that's a good definition for you based on your posts to this thread. Nine months is a long time for you? How could you possibly call anyone else childish?
He has a point, 9 months is a long time for a products life. For example, the graphics card options are ridiculous by todays standards. No 256MB card, and the mid and low are only 64 and 128 respectivly? And the cost to upgrade to the 128 card is absured by todays street prices for the cards. Don't even talk about the system ram (256 on the low, and only 512 on the top end model...) Apples problem is they only update everything at once. So by the end of a products life, the components and costs just seem stupid.
It seems like it would make sense if Apple either adopted a faster turnaround between updates (6 months), or they take a different aproach where they would update various components (ram, hd, optical, vid card for example) and prices in between major updates (new cases, faster processors, etc).
Originally posted by kupan787
Don't even talk about the system ram (256 on the low, and only 512 on the top end model...)
...or they take a different aproach where they would update various components (ram, hd, optical, vid card for example) and prices in between major updates (new cases, faster processors, etc).
That's exactly what I would like very much see. I am wondering though how easy would be for Apple to do this, with the current update strategy and secrecy.
Yeah, what are you talking about? Does a die shrink not count?
I meant more from an end user's perspective...
I'm surprised no one's called you a troll yet, concord, because that's a good definition for you based on your posts to this thread. Nine months is a long time for you? How could you possibly call anyone else childish?
I'm not calling on anyone to "give up", just disappointed that things haven't progressed more quickly as we were led to believe. PowerMacs are usually updated roughly every 6 months. We've just lost a Mac at work and it would have been nice to have replaced it with the next revision.
And he "clarified" that at Paris Expo to be 3GHz by the end of Summer.
Ahh... I missed that little bit of backpedalling.
Cheers,
C.
Originally posted by PB
Slightly off topic, but still relevant (well, just for fun): it seems Apple is no longer a computer hardware company. Their main page does not have any computer displayed. Only software and iPod-iTunes related stuff. Now guess how long it will go like that...
Yah you're right PB. Only thing is... thats how its always been with apple's hardware. Nothing has changed between the date that the iPod was released until now. It seems apple is always focusing on something else and the hardware comes "2nd".
----------
Replying to G5's being out by end of summer. The only way that will happen is if Apple doesn't release an update before that, that doesn't have a 3ghz in it. Apple isn't going to update the g5's to 2.x ghz then update to 3ghz 4-5 months later. I also can't see them waiting a year+ for powermac updates. Deadlines slip... if anything we should know that after dealing with Motorola for 10 years. Steve Jobs can't control what happens in the manufacturing plants... anything could have happened.
My prediction is 3ghz will be out around October / early November.
It would be nice though to have a ~2.4GHz revision to the line to tide it over until 3GHz.
Originally posted by PB
Why are you eye rolling at my RAM comment? Maybe (maybe) back when teh G5s came out this made some sense. But today, right now, it seem crazy. I will bet that Apple updates this to 512, 512, 1GB in teh next udpate. I mean, the G5s are supposed to be the "Pro" machines, having only 256 on the base is crazy. Apple is being a little stingy here.
That's exactly what I would like very much see. I am wondering though how easy would be for Apple to do this, with the current update strategy and secrecy.
How would secrecy get involved? Changing around the RAM, HD, video card, or optical would have no baring on the secrecy of a major update. I think it is pretty doable, but I doubt this is not an aproach Apple wants.
Originally posted by Concord
Oh, don't act so childish. Thing is, we know Intel is in troubled waters right now and to be fair they did also introduce a new class of processor recently as well (as sucky as it is). What does that say about IBM?
All I've said was that (at least so far) IBM doesn't seem to be able to produce faster chips any quicker than Motorola. 9 months without a peep is getting into Motorola territory for delays... and people expect to see 3 Ghz machines in 4 months?!?
C.
Childish? Not worthy of a comment.Let me spell out what is wrong with your cynical view.
1) The G5's have only been shipping for around 6 months or so (not 9 months).They were announced long before production began.
2)The only fact we know about the state of the 970fx is that they have just begun production on the 90 nm process and all reports are excellent.Great numbers on power consumption and about a 2.5 ghz clock speed (the one that was mentioned at the conference).And of course a new dynamic power usage feature. Anything else you think you know about it is bull.
3)Just because Apple hasnt put a new G5 in your hand doesnt mean there is a problems at Ibm.The problem is Apple.They only do upgrades about 2 times a year and it is near time now as the G5's actually shipped about September.
4) How does Ibm stack up against the others? They just moved to the 90 nm process and as I said it sounds excellent. Intel did the same and their new process looks pretty poor,especially in power consumption.They recently pushed back their timetables,so no 4 ghz this year.The pentium M is still awaiting the 90 nm process,I believe it is due in May now-many months late.Amd has a 2.4 ghz amd64 planned for may but 2.6 ghz is due in the first quarter of next year when their 90 nm process is due to be ready.
Both Intel and Amd seem pretty lame next to Ibm.
5) Motorola only moved to the 13 nm process over a year after everyone else did and they havnt had a higher clocked G4 in over a year and their next offerings due in "3 to 6 months" are not any faster and certainly useless for any desktop Apple has any bussiness trying to market.So in what way is Ibm in the same boat? Clearly it is not at all!
In the face of facts your cynicism is unfounded.The G5's will come when Apple is ready.At this point we have no evidence that Ibm is the hold up.It is FUD,plain and simple.I dont believe they will go to 3 ghz in "4 months".
I believe we will see 2.5 ghz in a few weeks or maybe less.I believe the 3 ghz system will come at the end of the summer,about a year after the first ones shipped.
Originally posted by kupan787
Why are you eye rolling at my RAM comment? Maybe (maybe) back when teh G5s came out this made some sense. But today, right now, it seem crazy.
You just answered your own question: rolling eyes don't point to you, but to Apple. Offering today a professional 64-bit, mind you, machine of the class of the G5 with 256 MB RAM is beyond ridiculous. It would not be so if RAM was too expensive, but that's not the case.
How would secrecy get involved? Changing around the RAM, HD, video card, or optical would have no baring on the secrecy of a major update. I think it is pretty doable, but I doubt this is not an aproach Apple wants.
That's how: updating regularly the components, except processor, would make the hardware updates much less significant (for Apple, that is). Apple sells computers as complete packages, not processors. It seems they (still) love update this computing package as a whole, so most components take at the same time a bump, while no one knows until the introduction moment, what will come exactly.
Originally posted by PB
That's how: updating regularly the components, except processor, would make the hardware updates much less significant (for Apple, that is). Apple sells computers as complete packages, not processors. It seems they (still) love update this computing package as a whole, so most components take at the same time a bump, while no one knows until the introduction moment, what will come exactly. [/B]
Truer words were never spoken: "... while no one knows until the introduction moment, what will come exactly."
Originally posted by PB
You just answered your own question: rolling eyes don't point to you, but to Apple. Offering today a professional 64-bit, mind you, machine of the class of the G5 with 256 MB RAM is beyond ridiculous. It would not be so if RAM was too expensive, but that's not the case.
Their resellers would howl if they were too aggressive with this. Extra RAM is one of the main ways they attract people, since Apple doesn't let the MAP (minimum advertised price) budge very much. And MAP stays put mostly to prevent predatory pricing and protect the little guys.
That's how: updating regularly the components, except processor, would make the hardware updates much less significant (for Apple, that is).
It would also raise the cost of the components (since they couldn't lock in a supply for nearly as long), raise the cost of manufacturing, and draw howls from their resellers. There is an average of 4-5 weeks of inventory in the channel at any given time. Regular updates would just leave retail outlets charging MAP for yesterday's stuff on a more or less constant basis.
Dell can update constantly because 1) they don't have a retail channel; 2) they're big enough that they don't need the supplier lock-in that Apple does; 3) they don't do the level of integration testing that Apple does. When you sell "complete packages" there's a lot of pressure to settle on one package that works and ship it as long as possible. Every change is a chance for something to break, and Mac users aren't as tolerant of that as PC users are, because Apple is a systems integrator.
Originally posted by Amorph
...And MAP stays put mostly to prevent predatory pricing and protect the little guys...
Maybe a strategy that has run it's course, and is time to change to be more competative at minimal cost to Apple. I have noticed that when CompUSA advertises Apple products in my area they NEVER list the low end price for Macs, and most of the time they list the high end price. This does nothing for Apple's image but hurt it. At the same time, there is no incentive for CompUSA to advertise Apple products at all since their fliers are "Sales" but there are never any "Sales" that they can advertise. It's no wonder Apple is viewed as bieng over priced.
Originally posted by Amorph
It would also raise the cost of the components (since they couldn't lock in a supply for nearly as long), raise the cost of manufacturing, and draw howls from their resellers. There is an average of 4-5 weeks of inventory in the channel at any given time. Regular updates would just leave retail outlets charging MAP for yesterday's stuff on a more or less constant basis.
Dell can update constantly because 1) they don't have a retail channel; 2) they're big enough that they don't need the supplier lock-in that Apple does; 3) they don't do the level of integration testing that Apple does. When you sell "complete packages" there's a lot of pressure to settle on one package that works and ship it as long as possible. Every change is a chance for something to break, and Mac users aren't as tolerant of that as PC users are, because Apple is a systems integrator.
Fair points, Amorph. I was trying to explain somehow the "secrecy" part of my statement, but you backed up very well the "strategy" part, which remained without comments. Thanks
I am smelling Moto again.
Anyways, its all about iPod at Apple now anyways.
The good thing is my 2.0 GHZ dualie still holds the title as fastest Mac ever.
Originally posted by SwitchingSoon
Guys, does the 3 ghz model mean dual 3ghz, or just 3 ghz?
Steve will be executed on-stage by fanatics if 3Ghz is single only, and no dual at higher clockspeed is offered.
Originally posted by Zapchud
Steve will be executed on-stage by fanatics if 3Ghz is single only, and no dual at higher clockspeed is offered.
I am afraid that the consequences would be far more profound than this one.
Johnny
Thus, he knew that 3GHz was do-able - Apple would just have to bide their time whilst IBM figured out how to mass produce them reliably.
Apple probably has stockpiles of the forthcoming parts already - it's just waiting for the right time to make it's move.
Am I correct in saying that when Apple announces a speed bump to an existing line, the new machine are usually available immediately? Isn't usually the new product announcements that we have to wait for?