All the whining immediately following any new product announcment.
Agree to some extent. But there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion whatever it may be. Besides, it's a only a small minority of users that complain constantly.
Quote:
Originally posted by staphbaby
There was a day when a 500Mhz speed bump would have been met with some pleasure... alas, no longer.
Well, the poll in this thread suggests less than 12% are unhappy with the speed increase
Yeah, people need some prozac. I don't understand the swing from unabashed love for IBM to vitriolic hatred and saying they are worse than Moto was.
Hint: It has something to do with totally screwing up the move to 90nm.
The new processors were supposed to run faster and cooler. They fall short on speed and are a bust as far as heat is concerned. At this rate if they get to 3Ghz they will need heatsinks submerged in heavy water for cooling. I think the problems are even worse than they have indicated. I wouldn't be surprised if we get nothing more than 2.7Ghz in January, that is assuming they don't wait until June again. They did say the PowerMac was on a one-year update cycle. Hopefully they will realize there are other things other than processor speed to improve upon and not sit on their asses hoping IBM comes through.
Well, the poll in this thread suggests less than 12% are unhappy with the speed increase
Exactly. Most people knew they were not going to make it to 3Ghz, especially after the articles posted by AppleInsider and ThinkSecret. It's the fact that Apple made no effort to improve on anything. A whole year went by and they just waited around for IBM to come through with faster processors. An entry-level model for $2000 with 256mb of ram, an NVidia 5200 Ultra graphics card and an 80gb hard drive? That's not competitive with anything in the Windows world. Of course some things like a FireGL graphics card or a 500gb hard drive should be BTO but they have to improve these specs.
Hint: It has something to do with totally screwing up the move to 90nm.
The new processors were supposed to run faster and cooler. They fall short on speed and are a bust as far as heat is concerned. At this rate if they get to 3Ghz they will need heatsinks submerged in heavy water for cooling. I think the problems are even worse than they have indicated. I wouldn't be surprised if we get nothing more than 2.7Ghz in January, that is assuming they don't wait until June again. They did say the PowerMac was on a one-year update cycle. Hopefully they will realize there are other things other than processor speed to improve upon and not sit on their asses hoping IBM comes through.
Yes, I don't think it's too fair to complain too much about IBM, it's silly to be vitriolic about it, because after all if Mighty Intel has problems it was probably more than likely that IBM would have had them too. 90nm is proving to be a much tougher transition than previously thought-for every CPU maker. And that's about it.
What really pisses me off big time-and that's how I voted-is that Apple didn't supplement this momentary lack of absolute clock speed with anything else: better GPUs, more RAM, at least bigger HDs, you name it, they could've done it to tempt buyers despite poor clock speeds, but they didn't.
And I also agree, if they had to use a different technology to cool the new top end 970FX-well, that's the farthest thing from a benefit/improvement. The blame of course here lies with IBM and the fabrication problems in Fishkill, but it pales compared to the dullness of the rest of the system, in terms of features and added accessories.
They fsck'd it up BIG time, and probably don't even realize it. I can just imagine some executives receiving reports from the fora (remember the iLife price debate? it was probably thanks to AI and other sites that they decided to give it for free) and wondering "how can these people be upset? the G5s are soooo cooool..." (think SJ, eating his hourly mushroom )
Just a quick poll. What ticks you off most about the new PowerMacs?
None of the above. You're stupid for not being happy with the pmac's. You sit there and bag about apple's superior computing power and all this stuff, then whine because you want 500Mhz more. Since when do Mac enthusiasts get pissy over 500Mhz??? I think we need a forum for Mac users and one for people without common sense.
So now what? Well, the new base-model is much better than the previous base-model, but you?d get the more bang for your buck if you bought the previous mid-range model as opposed to the new base model: you?d get twice the drive capacity and 3 PCI-X slots with the old mid-range system. So really, the new base model is just the previous mid-range model with half the drive space and without PCI-X. Hrm.
The new mid-range system is better than the previous mid-range, but it?s remarkably close the old top system. You?d get a new 8x SuperDrive, and you?d be getting a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 as opposed to an ATI Radeon 9600 ? if that matters to you ? in the new model. Hrm again.
Lastly, the new top-model has no current equal, though the only ?big? changes are in the processor speed (and associated FSB), the 8x SuperDrive, and the ATI Radeon 9600 card. The liquid cooling system doesn?t have an impact on the performance or included parts, so I?m not adding it to my ?equations.?
A resounding hrm, once again.
Don?t get me wrong: the new systems are good and all, but when you look at them compared to last year?s models, not much has changed. I can still get last year?s top-model for the same price as the current mid-range, and get basically the exact same computer ? for $500 less.
And this release ? I?ll even call it a paltry release ? brings another one of my Apple Pet Peeves to the surface again: the small amount of initial memory included. Steve, if you aren?t going to blow my socks off with the new Power Mac lineup, at least throw-in some additional memory! I think it?s crazy for the top models to have less than 1GHz RAM, stock, and the base models should ship with 512MB. I don?t know, friends. I hate to say it, but I?m disappointed.
My plans, then? I don?t know for sure. I was dead-ready to drop $3000 on the top model, but looking at the numbers, I don?t know if I can justify it. I?m leaning toward the old mid-level, but I just don?t know. Will I change my mind in the coming days? Maybe ? and I?ll be sure you continue posting my thoughts here?
Poor yields imply high prices. Given that IBM is just now getting projected yields on their 130nm 970 - and that's the easier stepping - I think it's fair to say that IBM is forced to charge a lot for the 970fx simply to avoid losing their shirts. IBM Semiconductor has not been profitable since Fishkill opened, and IBM is famously oriented toward the bottom line, so I doubt they have much room to price below cost. Even if they are doing that, the cost might be high enough that the end price is still higher than IBM or Apple expected.
So far, Freescale appears to be on schedule with the 90nm Crolles 2 fab, though. I'll laugh my ass off if they school IBM.
None of the above. You're stupid for not being happy with the pmac's. You sit there and bag about apple's superior computing power and all this stuff, then whine because you want 500Mhz more. Since when do Mac enthusiasts get pissy over 500Mhz??? I think we need a forum for Mac users and one for people without common sense.
If you took the time to read the posts and look at the poll you would see that most people here don't give a crap about not reaching 3Ghz. No one is talking about 500Mhz anymore. That's old news. They do give a crap that Apple has not done anything else to improve them. The only reason for creating the poll with only two choices was simply to prove that people are more upset that nothing else was improved as opposed to missing the 3Ghz speed. Hell, after a whole year they added only one new model and essentially just dropped two of the models down and raised the price on the entry-level one. Apple thinks they can rely on processor speeds alone and let the rest of the system lag behind. If no one calls them on this they will continue to do so and they will fall further behind. I want to see Apple do well as a company but I also want their customers to get their money's worth. So I'll complain all I want thank you. Wanker.
Yes, I don't think it's too fair to complain too much about IBM, it's silly to be vitriolic about it, because after all if Mighty Intel has problems it was probably more than likely that IBM would have had them too. 90nm is proving to be a much tougher transition than previously thought-for every CPU maker. And that's about it.
What really pisses me off big time-and that's how I voted-is that Apple didn't supplement this momentary lack of absolute clock speed with anything else: better GPUs, more RAM, at least bigger HDs, you name it, they could've done it to tempt buyers despite poor clock speeds, but they didn't.
And I also agree, if they had to use a different technology to cool the new top end 970FX-well, that's the farthest thing from a benefit/improvement. The blame of course here lies with IBM and the fabrication problems in Fishkill, but it pales compared to the dullness of the rest of the system, in terms of features and added accessories.
They fsck'd it up BIG time, and probably don't even realize it. I can just imagine some executives receiving reports from the fora (remember the iLife price debate? it was probably thanks to AI and other sites that they decided to give it for free) and wondering "how can these people be upset? the G5s are soooo cooool..." (think SJ, eating his hourly mushroom )
You hit the nail on the head. I blame the whole industry for all the pie in the sky 90nm hype. It seems everyone is hitting a brick wall with the process so its time to look at other components of the system for improvements. There is a lot that can be done here. I'm actually happy with the 2.5 speeds. I wouldn't get one now but I might next June when it is the mid-level model. It's the other two models and the lack of other system improvements or spec upgrades across all three that tick me off. I really think we are going to be stuck with sub-3Ghz speeds for a long, long time so I'm hoping SJ stops eating those mushrooms and realizes there are other ways to improve upon them. In the meantime I'm ordering an Airport Express or two and ignoring this Powermacs announcement. I think once yields of the 2.5 improve they will introduce a 2.2 or 2.3 into the lineup and drop the 1.8. Then things will start looking normal again.
If Apple is going to move the PowerMac to a 12 month cycle, then they must improve more than the clock speed. Remember, Apple introduced the whole "Megahertz Myth" concept.
Back in January even if Apple couldn't improve clock speeds they could have improved the motherboard to fix the slow FW800 write speed thing. They could have introduced new graphic cards. They could have made the whole line dual and improved the superdrive.
A 12 month product cycle is so STUPID in the computing world. To me it's as if the New York Times said, "Let's make our newspaper weekly."
Then again maybe Apple did market research and discovered that people feel better about buying a computer if they know it will be top of the line for one year.
Hint: It has something to do with totally screwing up the move to 90nm.
The new processors were supposed to run faster and cooler. They fall short on speed and are a bust as far as heat is concerned. At this rate if they get to 3Ghz they will need heatsinks submerged in heavy water for cooling. I think the problems are even worse than they have indicated. I wouldn't be surprised if we get nothing more than 2.7Ghz in January, that is assuming they don't wait until June again. They did say the PowerMac was on a one-year update cycle. Hopefully they will realize there are other things other than processor speed to improve upon and not sit on their asses hoping IBM comes through.
Amen. I'm ok with 2.5Ghz. They would have had my order on Tuesday if they put PCIe in the graphics slot.
First off, the G5 hasn't been out a whole year, they shipped September or October. Second, these machines where supposed to be released March. That's a time span of 6 months.
You know, people say that the 3 GHZ isn't pissing them off, but thats absolute horseshit, because there would be no complaints if Apple shipped the system as is with dual 3ghz.
So just so we're all clear here ...
"Everything would be fine if Apple made the difference up with OTHER components to make-up for not hitting Dual 3ghz"
Yet, not achieving 3ghz is not the problem ..... hmmmm. Yeah, you should rethink that arguement.
There's a current disconnect right now with Mac users.
PCI Express- Not enough time to implement PCI Express. This is a huge update. Apple cannot live in perpetual Rev1 motherboards. Apple could have rejiggered the motherboar and added PCI but who's shipping PCI Express cards? No one is and supplies are not guaranteed. Who wants to wait for potential months on a graphics card?
The effort to design a motherboard has to be amortized at least a year. We can't expect major architectural advances with every revision.
I see the 5200fx as a courtesy to nvidia. Yes we know it's a poor choice but so does Apple witnessed by a mere $50 upgrade to a $149 9600XT 128MB card.
Give someone an inch they'll take a mile. That's what has happened to expectations within the Mac community. It's as if they are so eager to push "3gh" in their PC lovin' friends faces that they feel personally disrespected by Apple for failing to give them that power.
Macs are expensive..but that's a double edged sword. Yes you pay alot of money but you have built in price protection courtesy of Apple. Think about this now. Those that bought dual 2ghz PM's a year ago have this day a computer still valued at $2499. That's encouraging. So if you need a Mac and it doesn't have PCI Express it doesn't matter if you're willing sell what you have, take solace in the use you've had and buy a new machine later.
Comments
Originally posted by dfiler
What ticks me off most?
All the whining immediately following any new product announcment.
Agree to some extent. But there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion whatever it may be. Besides, it's a only a small minority of users that complain constantly.
Originally posted by staphbaby
There was a day when a 500Mhz speed bump would have been met with some pleasure... alas, no longer.
Well, the poll in this thread suggests less than 12% are unhappy with the speed increase
Originally posted by Flounder
Yeah, people need some prozac. I don't understand the swing from unabashed love for IBM to vitriolic hatred and saying they are worse than Moto was.
Hint: It has something to do with totally screwing up the move to 90nm.
The new processors were supposed to run faster and cooler. They fall short on speed and are a bust as far as heat is concerned. At this rate if they get to 3Ghz they will need heatsinks submerged in heavy water for cooling. I think the problems are even worse than they have indicated. I wouldn't be surprised if we get nothing more than 2.7Ghz in January, that is assuming they don't wait until June again. They did say the PowerMac was on a one-year update cycle. Hopefully they will realize there are other things other than processor speed to improve upon and not sit on their asses hoping IBM comes through.
Originally posted by kelib
Well, the poll in this thread suggests less than 12% are unhappy with the speed increase
Exactly. Most people knew they were not going to make it to 3Ghz, especially after the articles posted by AppleInsider and ThinkSecret. It's the fact that Apple made no effort to improve on anything. A whole year went by and they just waited around for IBM to come through with faster processors. An entry-level model for $2000 with 256mb of ram, an NVidia 5200 Ultra graphics card and an 80gb hard drive? That's not competitive with anything in the Windows world. Of course some things like a FireGL graphics card or a 500gb hard drive should be BTO but they have to improve these specs.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
Hint: It has something to do with totally screwing up the move to 90nm.
The new processors were supposed to run faster and cooler. They fall short on speed and are a bust as far as heat is concerned. At this rate if they get to 3Ghz they will need heatsinks submerged in heavy water for cooling. I think the problems are even worse than they have indicated. I wouldn't be surprised if we get nothing more than 2.7Ghz in January, that is assuming they don't wait until June again. They did say the PowerMac was on a one-year update cycle. Hopefully they will realize there are other things other than processor speed to improve upon and not sit on their asses hoping IBM comes through.
Yes, I don't think it's too fair to complain too much about IBM, it's silly to be vitriolic about it, because after all if Mighty Intel has problems it was probably more than likely that IBM would have had them too. 90nm is proving to be a much tougher transition than previously thought-for every CPU maker. And that's about it.
What really pisses me off big time-and that's how I voted-is that Apple didn't supplement this momentary lack of absolute clock speed with anything else: better GPUs, more RAM, at least bigger HDs, you name it, they could've done it to tempt buyers despite poor clock speeds, but they didn't.
And I also agree, if they had to use a different technology to cool the new top end 970FX-well, that's the farthest thing from a benefit/improvement. The blame of course here lies with IBM and the fabrication problems in Fishkill, but it pales compared to the dullness of the rest of the system, in terms of features and added accessories.
They fsck'd it up BIG time, and probably don't even realize it. I can just imagine some executives receiving reports from the fora (remember the iLife price debate? it was probably thanks to AI and other sites that they decided to give it for free) and wondering "how can these people be upset? the G5s are soooo cooool..." (think SJ, eating his hourly mushroom
ZoSo
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
i did want the dual 3s, but what really sucks is the bass-ackwards graphix options, i mean, wtf? give us a pro-sumer graphix card, please?
A 9800 XT is a pretty nice card, if you ask me. Sure, it's not a pro card, but the only thing that beats it is the x800/N6800
I don't play games.
I edit video and audio.
The 2.5GHz machine is perfect for me - it's incredibly fast, and I simply don't need the high level 3D performance.
Look at most of Apple's pro users - video, publishing. Both will be happy with 2.5G, neither needs spectacular 3D.
Originally posted by Ichiban_jay
the poll seems a bit biased... no "nothing ticked me off" option.
And you call yourself an AI member in good standing?!?!?!
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
Just a quick poll. What ticks you off most about the new PowerMacs?
None of the above. You're stupid for not being happy with the pmac's. You sit there and bag about apple's superior computing power and all this stuff, then whine because you want 500Mhz more. Since when do Mac enthusiasts get pissy over 500Mhz??? I think we need a forum for Mac users and one for people without common sense.
So now what? Well, the new base-model is much better than the previous base-model, but you?d get the more bang for your buck if you bought the previous mid-range model as opposed to the new base model: you?d get twice the drive capacity and 3 PCI-X slots with the old mid-range system. So really, the new base model is just the previous mid-range model with half the drive space and without PCI-X. Hrm.
The new mid-range system is better than the previous mid-range, but it?s remarkably close the old top system. You?d get a new 8x SuperDrive, and you?d be getting a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 as opposed to an ATI Radeon 9600 ? if that matters to you ? in the new model. Hrm again.
Lastly, the new top-model has no current equal, though the only ?big? changes are in the processor speed (and associated FSB), the 8x SuperDrive, and the ATI Radeon 9600 card. The liquid cooling system doesn?t have an impact on the performance or included parts, so I?m not adding it to my ?equations.?
A resounding hrm, once again.
Don?t get me wrong: the new systems are good and all, but when you look at them compared to last year?s models, not much has changed. I can still get last year?s top-model for the same price as the current mid-range, and get basically the exact same computer ? for $500 less.
And this release ? I?ll even call it a paltry release ? brings another one of my Apple Pet Peeves to the surface again: the small amount of initial memory included. Steve, if you aren?t going to blow my socks off with the new Power Mac lineup, at least throw-in some additional memory! I think it?s crazy for the top models to have less than 1GHz RAM, stock, and the base models should ship with 512MB. I don?t know, friends. I hate to say it, but I?m disappointed.
My plans, then? I don?t know for sure. I was dead-ready to drop $3000 on the top model, but looking at the numbers, I don?t know if I can justify it. I?m leaning toward the old mid-level, but I just don?t know. Will I change my mind in the coming days? Maybe ? and I?ll be sure you continue posting my thoughts here?
I voted "Other:" The thing that ticks me off most is that I don't have the skrilla to score the dual 2.5.
Originally posted by applenut
im most dissapointed by pricing.
either
1. the G5 really isnt cheap at all
Poor yields imply high prices. Given that IBM is just now getting projected yields on their 130nm 970 - and that's the easier stepping - I think it's fair to say that IBM is forced to charge a lot for the 970fx simply to avoid losing their shirts. IBM Semiconductor has not been profitable since Fishkill opened, and IBM is famously oriented toward the bottom line, so I doubt they have much room to price below cost. Even if they are doing that, the cost might be high enough that the end price is still higher than IBM or Apple expected.
So far, Freescale appears to be on schedule with the 90nm Crolles 2 fab, though. I'll laugh my ass off if they school IBM.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
None of the above. You're stupid for not being happy with the pmac's. You sit there and bag about apple's superior computing power and all this stuff, then whine because you want 500Mhz more. Since when do Mac enthusiasts get pissy over 500Mhz??? I think we need a forum for Mac users and one for people without common sense.
If you took the time to read the posts and look at the poll you would see that most people here don't give a crap about not reaching 3Ghz. No one is talking about 500Mhz anymore. That's old news. They do give a crap that Apple has not done anything else to improve them. The only reason for creating the poll with only two choices was simply to prove that people are more upset that nothing else was improved as opposed to missing the 3Ghz speed. Hell, after a whole year they added only one new model and essentially just dropped two of the models down and raised the price on the entry-level one. Apple thinks they can rely on processor speeds alone and let the rest of the system lag behind. If no one calls them on this they will continue to do so and they will fall further behind. I want to see Apple do well as a company but I also want their customers to get their money's worth. So I'll complain all I want thank you. Wanker.
Originally posted by ZoSo
Yes, I don't think it's too fair to complain too much about IBM, it's silly to be vitriolic about it, because after all if Mighty Intel has problems it was probably more than likely that IBM would have had them too. 90nm is proving to be a much tougher transition than previously thought-for every CPU maker. And that's about it.
What really pisses me off big time-and that's how I voted-is that Apple didn't supplement this momentary lack of absolute clock speed with anything else: better GPUs, more RAM, at least bigger HDs, you name it, they could've done it to tempt buyers despite poor clock speeds, but they didn't.
And I also agree, if they had to use a different technology to cool the new top end 970FX-well, that's the farthest thing from a benefit/improvement. The blame of course here lies with IBM and the fabrication problems in Fishkill, but it pales compared to the dullness of the rest of the system, in terms of features and added accessories.
They fsck'd it up BIG time, and probably don't even realize it. I can just imagine some executives receiving reports from the fora (remember the iLife price debate? it was probably thanks to AI and other sites that they decided to give it for free) and wondering "how can these people be upset? the G5s are soooo cooool..." (think SJ, eating his hourly mushroom
You hit the nail on the head. I blame the whole industry for all the pie in the sky 90nm hype. It seems everyone is hitting a brick wall with the process so its time to look at other components of the system for improvements. There is a lot that can be done here. I'm actually happy with the 2.5 speeds. I wouldn't get one now but I might next June when it is the mid-level model. It's the other two models and the lack of other system improvements or spec upgrades across all three that tick me off. I really think we are going to be stuck with sub-3Ghz speeds for a long, long time so I'm hoping SJ stops eating those mushrooms and realizes there are other ways to improve upon them. In the meantime I'm ordering an Airport Express or two and ignoring this Powermacs announcement. I think once yields of the 2.5 improve they will introduce a 2.2 or 2.3 into the lineup and drop the 1.8. Then things will start looking normal again.
Back in January even if Apple couldn't improve clock speeds they could have improved the motherboard to fix the slow FW800 write speed thing. They could have introduced new graphic cards. They could have made the whole line dual and improved the superdrive.
A 12 month product cycle is so STUPID in the computing world. To me it's as if the New York Times said, "Let's make our newspaper weekly."
Then again maybe Apple did market research and discovered that people feel better about buying a computer if they know it will be top of the line for one year.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
Hint: It has something to do with totally screwing up the move to 90nm.
The new processors were supposed to run faster and cooler. They fall short on speed and are a bust as far as heat is concerned. At this rate if they get to 3Ghz they will need heatsinks submerged in heavy water for cooling. I think the problems are even worse than they have indicated. I wouldn't be surprised if we get nothing more than 2.7Ghz in January, that is assuming they don't wait until June again. They did say the PowerMac was on a one-year update cycle. Hopefully they will realize there are other things other than processor speed to improve upon and not sit on their asses hoping IBM comes through.
Amen. I'm ok with 2.5Ghz. They would have had my order on Tuesday if they put PCIe in the graphics slot.
You know, people say that the 3 GHZ isn't pissing them off, but thats absolute horseshit, because there would be no complaints if Apple shipped the system as is with dual 3ghz.
So just so we're all clear here ...
"Everything would be fine if Apple made the difference up with OTHER components to make-up for not hitting Dual 3ghz"
Yet, not achieving 3ghz is not the problem ..... hmmmm. Yeah, you should rethink that arguement.
And a 250 GB drive is only $100 more
and you can upgrade graphics for $50
Babies.
PCI Express- Not enough time to implement PCI Express. This is a huge update. Apple cannot live in perpetual Rev1 motherboards. Apple could have rejiggered the motherboar and added PCI but who's shipping PCI Express cards? No one is and supplies are not guaranteed. Who wants to wait for potential months on a graphics card?
The effort to design a motherboard has to be amortized at least a year. We can't expect major architectural advances with every revision.
I see the 5200fx as a courtesy to nvidia. Yes we know it's a poor choice but so does Apple witnessed by a mere $50 upgrade to a $149 9600XT 128MB card.
Give someone an inch they'll take a mile. That's what has happened to expectations within the Mac community. It's as if they are so eager to push "3gh" in their PC lovin' friends faces that they feel personally disrespected by Apple for failing to give them that power.
Macs are expensive..but that's a double edged sword. Yes you pay alot of money but you have built in price protection courtesy of Apple. Think about this now. Those that bought dual 2ghz PM's a year ago have this day a computer still valued at $2499. That's encouraging. So if you need a Mac and it doesn't have PCI Express it doesn't matter if you're willing sell what you have, take solace in the use you've had and buy a new machine later.