Well I think there are two key issues regarding the severe disappointment in the new powermacs. Speed has little to do with it (well at least actual speed)
1. The initial g5s were announced 12 months ago And for 12 months everyone has been waiting for this update (give or take a few weeks)
2. 3ghz in a year
So essentially everyone has waitied for 11+ months to go a measly 500mhz, when it was assured there would be more progress.
While these powermacs are sure to be some of the most impressive around, they are very expensive and similar amounts of power can be had for less money on the other platforms.
And Nick's post makes an important point, due to Apple's narrow product definitions and overlap allowances means that the rest of the consumer lineup will suck, for a fairly significant amount of time.
With the lack of a headless consumer machine, and powermacs starting at 2k, Apple is missing most of the computer buying market by a long shot. Especially when you look at the consumer hardware price performance ratio. The imacs/emacs are too slow and the powermacs are too expensive.
My problem is that switching to a Mac is an expensive proposition. I don't want to do it unless I am completely sure that Apple (which occupies a minority position in the market) have a long-term viable product, that is capable of competing over time with current PC hardware. So, for me to take the plunge, Apple need to compete performance and OS - wise with PCs for a period over time.
This is an important point. I don't do that much other than web, e-mail, word processing, a game every so often, and maybe an hour or two of real work-oriented number crunching (SPSS - statistics) per week.
But I want Apple to succeed because I'm a Mac user. I want their market share to grow so there's more software for me to buy. I want more people to buy their machines so they can become cheaper due to economy of scale. I want more people to buy their products so they have the money to come up with more cool stuff like Garageband. I want them to keep developing OS X.
And as trumptman said, I want their high-end prices and features to be excellent so my lower-to-middle-line needs can be met more cheaply and with better features.
Jade this thread is about what people are "actually" doing with their computers. Not about what we expected. There are other threads in which to voice complaints about what was expected. "Too slow" and "too expensive" are subjective terms. What are you doing that causes these macs to be too slow..what are you doing that prohibits you from affording these machines. You keep ranting about the same thing.
Therein lies the disconnect. We are constantly told by the enthusiasts that macs are too expensive or too slow but these people are never the ones getting work done. Doesn't anyone see the irony in that?
I don't use my mac for professional purposes, but I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast that do a lot of different stuff on it that often eats the CPUs of the dual G4 1 GHz I own currently.
Tasks I put it through:
- DivX/XviD encoding
- Final Cut Pro editing (occasional)
- Music creation in Reason
- 3D rendering in Cinema 4D (occasionally, but when I do it, I often do renders that take days to render.)
- Gaming (And I demand high framerates)
- Often browsing these boards ++ while doing multiple of these things
- Lighter photoshopping mostly (some heavy stuff from time to time)
And the reason I'm disappointed isn't that the 2.5 GHz G5 is slow, it's that it is too expensive, not expandable enough (Two slots for hard-drives isn't enough by a mile), and The Graphics Cards Suck?. I want the Mac to last longer than this old'n'crusty G4, and it doesn't seem like the current lineup is the right one. I'm not willing to pay the premium for big-ass FW drives, that also clutter up my desk (yes, the desk is small).
I would have liked to have seen a 3 Ghz G5 come about soon, but I don't plan on buying another Mac for at least another couple of years. I am a switcher, and I own a PowerMac G5 1.6 Ghz with 1.5GB ram.
Ironically, the very day I went to the Apple store to buy a G4 was the day the new G5's were announced, so I opted for the low end given the extra power and lower price ratio. Bought the 1.6 and a 20inch cinema display and I love it. Wouldn't trade it for anything except a faster machine (with duals).
I work in 2D and 3D design and animation, but currently none of my programs are optimized for my G5 so their running natively. I plan to change that in the near future and add some more ram.
I just want a much faster machine to cut down on renders. Right now it is a hobby. Just started in December and have tons to learn still. But when you start applying high polygon counts, multi layered materials, volumetrics, complex lighting, etc, the renders can get real slow, which in the future will be costing me money.
In a few years I'll upgrade to the fastest machine at that time, which I'm hoping is at least a dual 3 Ghz or even a dual 4. Then I'll just use my current machine as a server.
I don't use my mac for professional purposes, but I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast
Thanks. That's exactly my point. Enthusiast fret over things like clutter and HD bays and expense.
Pro's fret over whether to buy a u320 RAID or a Fibre Channel and who makes a decent FC switch that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Their issues go beyond differences of a few hundred dollars.
You know there's a reason why creatives don't like hanging out in AI in large numbers. They can't relate to people who feel like $500 is a huge insurmountable chasm. They don't want to spend time chatting with enthusiasts who become bipolar after every Apple event.
What you do with our Mac is central to how you view Mac updates. Everyone has their preferences and honestly a bit of me agrees in principal with every statement. I can understand the frustrations that many show here. They work hard for their money and really want the best value as they perceive it. I guess my only problem is when they go beyond their sphere of control. You can refuse to purchase for yourself but I frequently read "this lineup is going to bust" or "these aren't going to sell at all" and that's what I take issue with. The person stating that cannot shift their center long enough to realize that we all do not think monolithically.
Apple will soon snare these people with the right mix of product but until then the beat goes on and Pro's will continue to make money and enthusiasts will continue to learn using what they have. It all works out in the end.
I use my Mac to check Apple website 150 times a day and watch Steve's keynotes via web streaming (yeah, Steve looked so bad on my 7200/90, back in the good old days!).
No actually, I'm using my Macs to implement and run real-time algorithms (mainly vision algorithms, I'm Robotics research student), and those little things are resource-consuming as hell! Anyway, I don't have to complain about my Dual 2GHz G5! Never really managed to get it on its knees!
I was appalled to see some of the reactions to the latest PowerMac revisions.
The majority of posts on these and other boards were filled complaining and whining regarding the speed increase and the reports that the 3GHz barrier had not yet been reached.
By the way some of you were behaving it was like Apple had betrayed you!?
I was honestly puzzled as to why people were reacting in such a way- which begs the question: what you do actually use your mac for?
Do you use your Mac for employment or entrepreneurial ventures?
Will the magic 3GHz number enable you to do anything that you could not do on say a 1.8 or 2.5 G5 system?? Do you use all this power to just encode mp3's? or do you use for mac for playing video games?
To all those who were disappointed and complained - what do you want a Mac that fast for? And to all those that want these forth coming 2.5 systems- what will you actually do with all that grunt?
I have a dual 1.25 G4 gHz powermac with a gig of RAM.
I use it primarily for word processing (MS Word - I am a writer), e-mail, web searching, iChat, listening to mp3s, and also monkey around with Painter 8 and Photoshop (in classic environment) and do a little Flash 4. I also play Freedom Force and Americas Army on it.
It suits me just fine. I am in no need to upgrade at the moment and don't plan to in the near future. If I were to add to my computer holdings, it'd be an ibook for the same tasks I've listed above, only mobile.
I was appalled to see some of the reactions to the latest PowerMac revisions.
The majority of posts on these and other boards were filled complaining and whining regarding the speed increase and the reports that the 3GHz barrier had not yet been reached.
By the way some of you were behaving it was like Apple had betrayed you!?
I was honestly puzzled as to why people were reacting in such a way- which begs the question: what you do actually use your mac for?
I can't be bothered reading the other posts here so if this is repeating what's above... sorry.
It's not so much that the 3Ghz barrier hasn't been met/exceeded. It's the fact that after almost 12 months we see a 25% increase in processor speed after we were told by Steve himself that we would be at 3Ghz (50% increase) by about this time.
Now, I don't know how much of a Mac geek you are, but, Steve never, NEVER says anything definitive about upcoming machines etc and he rarely even alludes to future machines or their specs. So when Steve says 3Ghz in 12 months, you'd better listen.
That's why everyone is upset about it. Steve made a "promise" and he wasn't able to keep it.
Personally, I don't care about the 3Ghz at this stage. I don't have a desktop machine at all. When they get the G5 into a 17" PB case, ask me again about 3Ghz.
web development, retouching, graphic design and some multimedia stuff. personally i think the speeds are decent and i can always use more power. you can still tax the processors when you're dealing with photoshop because the program continues to get more complex. multi-layers, effects layers and probably filter layers in the next version will make the working files HUGE. i regularly have working files of 200 meg when the flatten final art would only be 30 meg.
Thanks. That's exactly my point. Enthusiast fret over things like clutter and HD bays and expense.
Pro's fret over whether to buy a u320 RAID or a Fibre Channel and who makes a decent FC switch that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Their issues go beyond differences of a few hundred dollars.
Exactly. I don't have any problems with recommending these boxes to the boss, they're fine (all we do at work is expand the RAM).
But I'm not getting one for myself.
It'd be interesting to find the enthusiast/pro ratio for PowerMac G5 buyers.
We are constantly told by the enthusiasts that macs are too expensive or too slow but these people are never the ones getting work done. Doesn't anyone see the irony in that?
irony at it's best.
On a personal note: I'm a creative working in the industry where Macintosh systems flourish. While price is an obvious choice its not the sole factor in such a decision.
Our primary challenge is keeping pace with the software turnover from Adobe, Quark and macromedia etc.
imo, while software capability and innovations are essential- there needs to be some revision as to how software is distributed and leased.
As far as my knowledge; Apple have always been good with speed and expandability on their pro lines. I also think that Apple is looking stronger than ever and is turning heads once again. The Macintosh turned my head a few years back
I think the enthusiast suffer from intel envy. Or arrive at the conclusion that the speed of ones cpu is directly proportional to the size of ones shlong.
Web and print design. Photoshop, Illustrator, Quark, Flash, Director, Protools, BBedit. Most of what I really sweat is detail and I think I'd have a hard time noticing the minute speedup over small operations a current G5 would bring. My 15" Al and DP800 work great for what I do - they're just fabulously reliable and a pleasure to use. I will get a later revision G5 ca.3-4Ghz.
Comments
1. The initial g5s were announced 12 months ago And for 12 months everyone has been waiting for this update (give or take a few weeks)
2. 3ghz in a year
So essentially everyone has waitied for 11+ months to go a measly 500mhz, when it was assured there would be more progress.
While these powermacs are sure to be some of the most impressive around, they are very expensive and similar amounts of power can be had for less money on the other platforms.
And Nick's post makes an important point, due to Apple's narrow product definitions and overlap allowances means that the rest of the consumer lineup will suck, for a fairly significant amount of time.
With the lack of a headless consumer machine, and powermacs starting at 2k, Apple is missing most of the computer buying market by a long shot. Especially when you look at the consumer hardware price performance ratio. The imacs/emacs are too slow and the powermacs are too expensive.
Originally posted by brendonhumphrey
My problem is that switching to a Mac is an expensive proposition. I don't want to do it unless I am completely sure that Apple (which occupies a minority position in the market) have a long-term viable product, that is capable of competing over time with current PC hardware. So, for me to take the plunge, Apple need to compete performance and OS - wise with PCs for a period over time.
This is an important point. I don't do that much other than web, e-mail, word processing, a game every so often, and maybe an hour or two of real work-oriented number crunching (SPSS - statistics) per week.
But I want Apple to succeed because I'm a Mac user. I want their market share to grow so there's more software for me to buy. I want more people to buy their machines so they can become cheaper due to economy of scale. I want more people to buy their products so they have the money to come up with more cool stuff like Garageband. I want them to keep developing OS X.
And as trumptman said, I want their high-end prices and features to be excellent so my lower-to-middle-line needs can be met more cheaply and with better features.
Therein lies the disconnect. We are constantly told by the enthusiasts that macs are too expensive or too slow but these people are never the ones getting work done. Doesn't anyone see the irony in that?
Tasks I put it through:
- DivX/XviD encoding
- Final Cut Pro editing (occasional)
- Music creation in Reason
- 3D rendering in Cinema 4D (occasionally, but when I do it, I often do renders that take days to render.)
- Gaming (And I demand high framerates)
- Often browsing these boards ++ while doing multiple of these things
- Lighter photoshopping mostly (some heavy stuff from time to time)
And the reason I'm disappointed isn't that the 2.5 GHz G5 is slow, it's that it is too expensive, not expandable enough (Two slots for hard-drives isn't enough by a mile), and The Graphics Cards Suck?. I want the Mac to last longer than this old'n'crusty G4, and it doesn't seem like the current lineup is the right one. I'm not willing to pay the premium for big-ass FW drives, that also clutter up my desk (yes, the desk is small).
Ironically, the very day I went to the Apple store to buy a G4 was the day the new G5's were announced, so I opted for the low end given the extra power and lower price ratio. Bought the 1.6 and a 20inch cinema display and I love it. Wouldn't trade it for anything except a faster machine (with duals).
I work in 2D and 3D design and animation, but currently none of my programs are optimized for my G5 so their running natively. I plan to change that in the near future and add some more ram.
I just want a much faster machine to cut down on renders. Right now it is a hobby. Just started in December and have tons to learn still. But when you start applying high polygon counts, multi layered materials, volumetrics, complex lighting, etc, the renders can get real slow, which in the future will be costing me money.
In a few years I'll upgrade to the fastest machine at that time, which I'm hoping is at least a dual 3 Ghz or even a dual 4. Then I'll just use my current machine as a server.
I don't use my mac for professional purposes, but I'm a hobbyist/enthusiast
Thanks. That's exactly my point. Enthusiast fret over things like clutter and HD bays and expense.
Pro's fret over whether to buy a u320 RAID or a Fibre Channel and who makes a decent FC switch that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Their issues go beyond differences of a few hundred dollars.
You know there's a reason why creatives don't like hanging out in AI in large numbers. They can't relate to people who feel like $500 is a huge insurmountable chasm. They don't want to spend time chatting with enthusiasts who become bipolar after every Apple event.
What you do with our Mac is central to how you view Mac updates. Everyone has their preferences and honestly a bit of me agrees in principal with every statement. I can understand the frustrations that many show here. They work hard for their money and really want the best value as they perceive it. I guess my only problem is when they go beyond their sphere of control. You can refuse to purchase for yourself but I frequently read "this lineup is going to bust" or "these aren't going to sell at all" and that's what I take issue with. The person stating that cannot shift their center long enough to realize that we all do not think monolithically.
Apple will soon snare these people with the right mix of product but until then the beat goes on and Pro's will continue to make money and enthusiasts will continue to learn using what they have. It all works out in the end.
No actually, I'm using my Macs to implement and run real-time algorithms (mainly vision algorithms, I'm Robotics research student), and those little things are resource-consuming as hell! Anyway, I don't have to complain about my Dual 2GHz G5! Never really managed to get it on its knees!
Originally posted by Stylesheet
I was appalled to see some of the reactions to the latest PowerMac revisions.
The majority of posts on these and other boards were filled complaining and whining regarding the speed increase and the reports that the 3GHz barrier had not yet been reached.
By the way some of you were behaving it was like Apple had betrayed you!?
I was honestly puzzled as to why people were reacting in such a way- which begs the question: what you do actually use your mac for?
Do you use your Mac for employment or entrepreneurial ventures?
Will the magic 3GHz number enable you to do anything that you could not do on say a 1.8 or 2.5 G5 system?? Do you use all this power to just encode mp3's? or do you use for mac for playing video games?
To all those who were disappointed and complained - what do you want a Mac that fast for? And to all those that want these forth coming 2.5 systems- what will you actually do with all that grunt?
I have a dual 1.25 G4 gHz powermac with a gig of RAM.
I use it primarily for word processing (MS Word - I am a writer), e-mail, web searching, iChat, listening to mp3s, and also monkey around with Painter 8 and Photoshop (in classic environment) and do a little Flash 4. I also play Freedom Force and Americas Army on it.
It suits me just fine. I am in no need to upgrade at the moment and don't plan to in the near future. If I were to add to my computer holdings, it'd be an ibook for the same tasks I've listed above, only mobile.
Originally posted by Stylesheet
I was appalled to see some of the reactions to the latest PowerMac revisions.
The majority of posts on these and other boards were filled complaining and whining regarding the speed increase and the reports that the 3GHz barrier had not yet been reached.
By the way some of you were behaving it was like Apple had betrayed you!?
I was honestly puzzled as to why people were reacting in such a way- which begs the question: what you do actually use your mac for?
I can't be bothered reading the other posts here so if this is repeating what's above... sorry.
It's not so much that the 3Ghz barrier hasn't been met/exceeded. It's the fact that after almost 12 months we see a 25% increase in processor speed after we were told by Steve himself that we would be at 3Ghz (50% increase) by about this time.
Now, I don't know how much of a Mac geek you are, but, Steve never, NEVER says anything definitive about upcoming machines etc and he rarely even alludes to future machines or their specs. So when Steve says 3Ghz in 12 months, you'd better listen.
That's why everyone is upset about it. Steve made a "promise" and he wasn't able to keep it.
Personally, I don't care about the 3Ghz at this stage. I don't have a desktop machine at all. When they get the G5 into a 17" PB case, ask me again about 3Ghz.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Thanks. That's exactly my point. Enthusiast fret over things like clutter and HD bays and expense.
Pro's fret over whether to buy a u320 RAID or a Fibre Channel and who makes a decent FC switch that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Their issues go beyond differences of a few hundred dollars.
Exactly. I don't have any problems with recommending these boxes to the boss, they're fine (all we do at work is expand the RAM).
But I'm not getting one for myself.
It'd be interesting to find the enthusiast/pro ratio for PowerMac G5 buyers.
Originally posted by hmurchison
We are constantly told by the enthusiasts that macs are too expensive or too slow but these people are never the ones getting work done. Doesn't anyone see the irony in that?
irony at it's best.
On a personal note: I'm a creative working in the industry where Macintosh systems flourish. While price is an obvious choice its not the sole factor in such a decision.
Our primary challenge is keeping pace with the software turnover from Adobe, Quark and macromedia etc.
imo, while software capability and innovations are essential- there needs to be some revision as to how software is distributed and leased.
As far as my knowledge; Apple have always been good with speed and expandability on their pro lines. I also think that Apple is looking stronger than ever and is turning heads once again. The Macintosh turned my head a few years back
I think the enthusiast suffer from intel envy. Or arrive at the conclusion that the speed of ones cpu is directly proportional to the size of ones shlong.