I'm not very ticked off. I have a an "old" dual 2GHz and I'm loving it. I think the new offerings are jsut fine. Sure faster is always better, but I think there has been too much complaining only because of the expectations set by Steve's promise.
I dunno how it compares in terms of price per gigabyte, but G5 Jam gives you 4 internal drives--I'm not sure if it adds them or if 4 is the total number, but I dont tihnk it was too expensive. (refer to this month's MacAddict)
Price- Why does everyone keep telling me how expensive Powermacs are? Have you priced a Dual Xeon or Opteron system yet? Have you seen the Alienware configurations? The PC has fragmented into cheap sub $1k systems which foster the perception of being cheap but when you want the "good stuff" you're paying as much as Mac nowadays.
Hell considering what Apple charges for BTO upgrades i'm more inclined to have them ship me a box with as little as possible and let me configure the rest the way I want.
You are right in that hard drives, memory, and the default graphics card do not matter. You are also right in that making a Powermac equivalent (a specialized, parallel numbercruncher with maximal data throughput) is equally expensive to do with x86 hardware. But suppose that's not what you want? The "cheap" PC systems can easily be fast enough for most jobs. Apple is missing a big opportunity by staying out of that market.
This got me an idea that's best continued in its own thread .
2000 dollars = 256 MB ram, 80GB hard drive and 2 generation old motherboard.
Exactly. That's why I just ordered a refurbished dual 1.8. Double the RAM and HD, non-crippled motherboard, $200 less. The refurbished dual 2.0 is also a good deal at $2000; it's exactly the same as the "new" midrange except with a halfway decent GPU.
Exactly. That's why I just ordered a refurbished dual 1.8. Double the RAM and HD, non-crippled motherboard, $200 less. The refurbished dual 2.0 is also a good deal at $2000; it's exactly the same as the "new" midrange except with a halfway decent GPU.
PCI vs PCI-X doesn't matter much, but 4 RAM slots vs 8 does. 256 MB is completely unusable, so you have to fill all your slots right off the bat, and if you want to go past 2 GB, you have to buy 1GB sticks which are more than twice as expensive as 512. Having 8 slots gives you much more flexibility.
Yeah what is it about Apple that they always short us on memory. I don't understand it. If I was to order a new Mac they'd be losing out on money because I'd just order from a 3rd party. I guess not many people do that. I can forgive the lowend card but the memory was a slap in the face.
Your personal RDF almost matches that of Steve Jobs. Apple did learn that people value dual PMs over singles and adjusted to make that change. They have gone one more step and made the whole lineup dual now. Hindsight is 20/20, any of us can say "they should have done this a year ago". However none of us are privvy to what the chip supply was like.
It was never a question of hindsight in my case. I complained about the lack of dual processors across the whole line when they were announced in June 2003. In fact a whole bunch of people complained. Not only that, people largely ignored the single processor models making the dual model the top seller. More evidence (if any was needed) that Apple hadn't learned enough at the outset. They didn't even plan to introduce the dual 1.8GHz. That decision was brought on them by poor sales of single processor models.
Now, almost one year later Apple 'learns the lesson'. Well they are slow learners, that's all I can say. As for chip supply, no one on the outside can really know the numbers but here hindsight indicates that supply was good. Just look at how disappointed Apple has been with sales of single processor G5s. They admit they hoped to sell more. That is a tacit admission that they could have sold more (if people had bought them) and that they had enough processors to satisfy that demand.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
You may think the PMs are overpriced and underperforming but that opinion and 50 cents might buy me a cup of coffee. I know a lot of people making a good living off of these slow and overpriced computers.
Sorry to nit pick on this but I feel it's important to clear that point up. At launch I was unhappy with the single processor G5s for the reason you mentioned. I had no real issues with the dual 2GHz G5s at that point.
Now I have issues with the entire line for various reasons. People make a living off old PowerMac 7300s too but that has nothing to do with value for money.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
It's obvious you don't hang in Pro circles. Dual Optical bays a "Pro" feature? Perhaps in your RDF. Independant FW ports a Pro feature. Guess those foolish idiots with Aja IOs got taken right?
Why is it obvious and how do you define a 'pro' or 'pro circles'?
As for dual optical bays being a 'pro' feature or not, let me give you my own personal take on this. I think all users, pro or not, should have the option of dual optical drive bays. In general I limited myself to speaking of the pro line because I knew what I just said would send some folks into guffaw spasms.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Funny how the bickering and complaining about Mac updates seems to go away once I'm on boards where people actually produce with their computers. What's the old proverb "The person who says it cannot be done is frequently interrupted by someone actually doing it".
Which boards?
As I said in my original post, no one is whining (or bickering or any such other term). These are valid complaints. production has absolutely nothing to do with anything per se. You do with your computer as you see fit. Of course if you equate computing power to production (easily and correctly done) then you are definitely being sold short with the current lower end models.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Price- Why does everyone keep telling me how expensive Powermacs are? Have you priced a Dual Xeon or Opteron system yet? Have you seen the Alienware configurations? The PC has fragmented into cheap sub $1k systems which foster the perception of being cheap but when you want the "good stuff" you're paying as much as Mac nowadays.
I have never compared to Opterons or Xeons. I compare to AMD64s and consumer Asus boards. Yes, the AMD64s are single processor but when the overall architecture is taken into account along with pricing, you can get substantially more for your money going AMD/Asus.
The Opteron/Xeons comparisons are for the flagship G5 (never for the lower end models).
Also, over the next six months all Opteron/Xeon/AMD64 systems will be price adjusted far more agressively than the Macs. The lower end G5s are expensive.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Hell considering what Apple charges for BTO upgrades i'm more inclined to have them ship me a box with as little as possible and let me configure the rest the way I want.
It's the only reasonable approach. Shame that the retail channel will get flooded with stock systems that can't be BTO'd. But even Apple's BTO options are poor. Why can't I BTO the OS, hard drive, graphics card etc off a mac? Well, we all know the answer to that one!
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple will likely address some of the issues that we see here but there will always be complaints. It's the human way.
'Likely'. You are going to make me even more pessimistic. Likely is not a valid word here. As I said, let's wait until WWDC, Expo Paris and the next Financial call and see what happens.
I fully expect this 'new' lineup to fall flat on its face until Apple does address these issues. Yes there are always complaints, some unwarranted, but not when evaluating the new lower end lineup.
Now, almost one year later Apple 'learns the lesson'. Well they are slow learners, that's all I can say. As for chip supply, no one on the outside can really know the numbers but here hindsight indicates that supply was good.
Really?
IBM just published a graph last month admitting that 970 yields - not 970fx yields - were finally about to catch up to expectations. It was widely believed last September that yields of the 970 were not a problem, but IBM just admitted that they were below expectations.
So we might have an economic case for the single G5s.
Quote:
It's the only reasonable approach. Shame that the retail channel will get flooded with stock systems that can't be BTO'd. But even Apple's BTO options are poor. Why can't I BTO the OS, hard drive, graphics card etc off a mac? Well, we all know the answer to that one!
Indeed: Systems that don't boot can't be reliably tested for QA, and they're a support nightmare. It's just much simpler to only ship machines that can boot, and in manufacturing simplicity translates directly to improved consistency and reduced costs.
Quote:
I fully expect this 'new' lineup to fall flat on its face until Apple does address these issues. Yes there are always complaints, some unwarranted, but not when evaluating the new lower end lineup.
I suspect Apple will introduce an all dual 2.0/2.2/2.5 lineup this fall when/if yields improve but raise the price of the then low-end 2.0 model to $2199. It is at this time we will see the single 1.8 featured in the service manual pics come in to play as a peace offering at $1799. What do you think?
IBM just published a graph last month admitting that 970 yields - not 970fx yields - were finally about to catch up to expectations. It was widely believed last September that yields of the 970 were not a problem, but IBM just admitted that they were below expectations.
Really! You are talking of IBM expectations not Apple's. Remember Apple is not IBMs only customer. IBM uses these chips for some of their own systems. As I explained, there's anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Apple did have access to enough processors (especially the lower rated ones).
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Indeed: Systems that don't boot can't be reliably tested for QA, and they're a support nightmare. It's just much simpler to only ship machines that can boot, and in manufacturing simplicity translates directly to improved consistency and reduced costs.
Where do you think most assembled BTO macs fail QA at boot? RAM issues? Hard drive Issues? Graphics cards Issues? Motherboard issues? What is the rate of such failures? Are they all even QA tested? I've heard of MANY cases of BTO DOAs.
There is no reason they can't ship a barebones BTO Mac.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Time will tell.
It certainly will. Hopefully they will fail so badly that the next real revision will be sooner rather than later.
It's terrible to think that way but that's how Apple works these days.
I suspect Apple will introduce an all dual 2.0/2.2/2.5 lineup this fall when/if yields improve but raise the price of the then low-end 2.0 model to $2199. It is at this time we will see the single 1.8 featured in the service manual pics come in to play as a peace offering at $1799. What do you think?
I think those prices would die a death. If the original single 1.6GHz debuted at $1699 (I can't remember exactly) then 200MHz more, way over a year later, for a higher asking price would be suicide. 970FX chips are supposed to be cheaper than straight 970s although volume clearly plays a role in pricing too.
I think the timing could be right especially for the lower end G5s. Maybe the Paris Expo would be an option but only if Steve Jobs has really new Macs to show off. And if the service manual photos are of new Macs then I won't be happy (no dual optical bays).
I want to see a major update to the G5 architecture before MWSF. I think Apple does too. If we have to wait til MWSF to see really new pro hardware Apple will get lambasted like never before. IMO the new hardware is already finished or very nearly finished.
There's a lot to speculate on and a lot of variables.
I'm still looking for 100% confirmation that the chips in the 'new' lower end G5s are 970FXs.
With so many variables I prefer to leave it in Apple's hands, see what gets announced, then evaluate it.
Sometime between now and the end of the year. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument. When polled 97% of Mac users said they never used the second bay, and or didn't actually need it. I cant find it in my search, but I did read that. I think it's a matter of only 3% of actual customers that would like a second optical drive should just get an external rather than make the other 97% of users pay for the inconvenience, and extra expense of having the internal. I have a second optical drive (external) The only time I use it now (it collects dust) is to see if there is something wrong with a disc that is not coming up in my first drive. Basically I used it twice, and it was a fairly pointless purchase. I could have saved myself the $120.00
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument.
Having more than one accessible drive bay is actually very desirable on the pro side of the fence. Tape drives (a must and we use two different kinds of tape drives), Zip drives (yes, we still see a lot of Zips go through our shop), card reader bays (though I only see these on the PC side of the fence) along with other misc units out there for things like audio controls and case fan and temp controls (again, more on the PC side), etc.
Hell, we still see the odd floppy disc come through our shop...
It would be good if Apple made the tower system more modular (say with 4-6 bays [perhaps even hot swappable, if this is feasible]) so that you could choose how many and what type of hard drive, optical drive or other media (including tape) you wanted. The case design (with the grate on the front) is rather restrictive.
Back in the dim dark 90's Apple had a tower that offered this (can't recall which it was (9100??)), but it was a very fine product in its day.
The Powermacs do not have pro video cards. Why? the cost to produce the drivers to make them pro cards would be too much compared to the 3 people that would actually buy the damn things to use for 3d (and one of those would be a journalist taking it for a test run).
The nVidia card is in there simply to keep nVidia producing mac cards basically, it's an option, a fail safe. Remember when the GeForce series were used as the most pweorful cards in Apple's machines, now ATi has the most powerful cards, what does Apple use as their high end offerings? Exactly.
As said before, no PCI Express? TS, no PCI express cards exist in enough quantity to enable the Powermac range to survive on them alone.
They are expensive, yes so what, come on stop kidding yourself. Macs are in a different market to PCs, ffs get this in your head, Mac users pay for more, design, ergonomics, the label, stop comparing it to Dell or home made Dual Opterons on steriods. Macs are fast finally.
Also the latest ATi cards have just become available, don't bite Apple's head off for not having them.
2.5Ghz is good, that's higher than what AMD has to offer. The 1.25Ghz FSB is higher than expected. Also remember, this is the 970fx in all machines, it'll be interesting to see if a Dual 2Ghz 970fx Powermac is faster than a Dual 2Ghz 970.
The Powermacs do not have pro video cards. Why? the cost to produce the drivers to make them pro cards would be too much compared to the 3 people that would actually buy the damn things to use for 3d (and one of those would be a journalist taking it for a test run).
I don't have any need for a card of that type but I can assure you that many more than 3 mac users DO want such cards.
Aren't something like 20% of all Maya sales mac sales? Isn't there a study (commisioned by Architosh) laying out the market factors of 3D on the mac? Isn't AutoCAD at least being evaluated for a possible Mac version? Can't this be considered a chicken and egg situation?
Doesn't all of the above suggest that for 3D on the mac to move forward the necessary hardware must be available to those that consider they need it? Even if it meant losing money while it gained traction?
BTW, writing drivers for these cards is NOT the kind of expense you make it out to be.
If that were the case then there really is no reason as to why Apple cannot provide these card offerings. So Apple has done it's research thinking it's not worth it, or has been waiting for the G5s to pick up momentum so it can go into the 3d arena. Perhaps this is the case, weren't the G4s not too good at 3d compared to x86 counterparts?
Comments
Originally posted by applenut
was that part of your "i want to ram it up Jobs' ass" graduation speech?
Nope, and I got a 110 out of 100 on that speech. It was actually a part of a George Carlin stand up routine, you son of a bitch.
http://www.promax.com/Movie/32772
...but it's $1000 per 500GB.
Originally posted by Existence
It is possible to fit 5 drives into a G5...
http://www.promax.com/Movie/32772
...but it's $1000 per 500GB.
I dunno how it compares in terms of price per gigabyte, but G5 Jam gives you 4 internal drives--I'm not sure if it adds them or if 4 is the total number, but I dont tihnk it was too expensive. (refer to this month's MacAddict)
Originally posted by hmurchison
Price- Why does everyone keep telling me how expensive Powermacs are? Have you priced a Dual Xeon or Opteron system yet? Have you seen the Alienware configurations? The PC has fragmented into cheap sub $1k systems which foster the perception of being cheap but when you want the "good stuff" you're paying as much as Mac nowadays.
Hell considering what Apple charges for BTO upgrades i'm more inclined to have them ship me a box with as little as possible and let me configure the rest the way I want.
You are right in that hard drives, memory, and the default graphics card do not matter. You are also right in that making a Powermac equivalent (a specialized, parallel numbercruncher with maximal data throughput) is equally expensive to do with x86 hardware. But suppose that's not what you want? The "cheap" PC systems can easily be fast enough for most jobs. Apple is missing a big opportunity by staying out of that market.
This got me an idea that's best continued in its own thread .
Originally posted by applenut
2000 dollars = 256 MB ram, 80GB hard drive and 2 generation old motherboard.
Exactly. That's why I just ordered a refurbished dual 1.8. Double the RAM and HD, non-crippled motherboard, $200 less. The refurbished dual 2.0 is also a good deal at $2000; it's exactly the same as the "new" midrange except with a halfway decent GPU.
Originally posted by 3.1416
Exactly. That's why I just ordered a refurbished dual 1.8. Double the RAM and HD, non-crippled motherboard, $200 less. The refurbished dual 2.0 is also a good deal at $2000; it's exactly the same as the "new" midrange except with a halfway decent GPU.
PCI is not crippled!
Originally posted by hmurchison
PCI is not crippled!
PCI vs PCI-X doesn't matter much, but 4 RAM slots vs 8 does. 256 MB is completely unusable, so you have to fill all your slots right off the bat, and if you want to go past 2 GB, you have to buy 1GB sticks which are more than twice as expensive as 512. Having 8 slots gives you much more flexibility.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Avon
Your personal RDF almost matches that of Steve Jobs. Apple did learn that people value dual PMs over singles and adjusted to make that change. They have gone one more step and made the whole lineup dual now. Hindsight is 20/20, any of us can say "they should have done this a year ago". However none of us are privvy to what the chip supply was like.
It was never a question of hindsight in my case. I complained about the lack of dual processors across the whole line when they were announced in June 2003. In fact a whole bunch of people complained. Not only that, people largely ignored the single processor models making the dual model the top seller. More evidence (if any was needed) that Apple hadn't learned enough at the outset. They didn't even plan to introduce the dual 1.8GHz. That decision was brought on them by poor sales of single processor models.
Now, almost one year later Apple 'learns the lesson'. Well they are slow learners, that's all I can say. As for chip supply, no one on the outside can really know the numbers but here hindsight indicates that supply was good. Just look at how disappointed Apple has been with sales of single processor G5s. They admit they hoped to sell more. That is a tacit admission that they could have sold more (if people had bought them) and that they had enough processors to satisfy that demand.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You may think the PMs are overpriced and underperforming but that opinion and 50 cents might buy me a cup of coffee. I know a lot of people making a good living off of these slow and overpriced computers.
Sorry to nit pick on this but I feel it's important to clear that point up. At launch I was unhappy with the single processor G5s for the reason you mentioned. I had no real issues with the dual 2GHz G5s at that point.
Now I have issues with the entire line for various reasons. People make a living off old PowerMac 7300s too but that has nothing to do with value for money.
Originally posted by hmurchison
It's obvious you don't hang in Pro circles. Dual Optical bays a "Pro" feature? Perhaps in your RDF. Independant FW ports a Pro feature. Guess those foolish idiots with Aja IOs got taken right?
Why is it obvious and how do you define a 'pro' or 'pro circles'?
As for dual optical bays being a 'pro' feature or not, let me give you my own personal take on this. I think all users, pro or not, should have the option of dual optical drive bays. In general I limited myself to speaking of the pro line because I knew what I just said would send some folks into guffaw spasms.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Funny how the bickering and complaining about Mac updates seems to go away once I'm on boards where people actually produce with their computers. What's the old proverb "The person who says it cannot be done is frequently interrupted by someone actually doing it".
Which boards?
As I said in my original post, no one is whining (or bickering or any such other term). These are valid complaints. production has absolutely nothing to do with anything per se. You do with your computer as you see fit. Of course if you equate computing power to production (easily and correctly done) then you are definitely being sold short with the current lower end models.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Price- Why does everyone keep telling me how expensive Powermacs are? Have you priced a Dual Xeon or Opteron system yet? Have you seen the Alienware configurations? The PC has fragmented into cheap sub $1k systems which foster the perception of being cheap but when you want the "good stuff" you're paying as much as Mac nowadays.
I have never compared to Opterons or Xeons. I compare to AMD64s and consumer Asus boards. Yes, the AMD64s are single processor but when the overall architecture is taken into account along with pricing, you can get substantially more for your money going AMD/Asus.
The Opteron/Xeons comparisons are for the flagship G5 (never for the lower end models).
Also, over the next six months all Opteron/Xeon/AMD64 systems will be price adjusted far more agressively than the Macs. The lower end G5s are expensive.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Hell considering what Apple charges for BTO upgrades i'm more inclined to have them ship me a box with as little as possible and let me configure the rest the way I want.
It's the only reasonable approach. Shame that the retail channel will get flooded with stock systems that can't be BTO'd. But even Apple's BTO options are poor. Why can't I BTO the OS, hard drive, graphics card etc off a mac? Well, we all know the answer to that one!
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple will likely address some of the issues that we see here but there will always be complaints. It's the human way.
'Likely'. You are going to make me even more pessimistic. Likely is not a valid word here. As I said, let's wait until WWDC, Expo Paris and the next Financial call and see what happens.
I fully expect this 'new' lineup to fall flat on its face until Apple does address these issues. Yes there are always complaints, some unwarranted, but not when evaluating the new lower end lineup.
Originally posted by Avon B7
Now, almost one year later Apple 'learns the lesson'. Well they are slow learners, that's all I can say. As for chip supply, no one on the outside can really know the numbers but here hindsight indicates that supply was good.
Really?
IBM just published a graph last month admitting that 970 yields - not 970fx yields - were finally about to catch up to expectations. It was widely believed last September that yields of the 970 were not a problem, but IBM just admitted that they were below expectations.
So we might have an economic case for the single G5s.
It's the only reasonable approach. Shame that the retail channel will get flooded with stock systems that can't be BTO'd. But even Apple's BTO options are poor. Why can't I BTO the OS, hard drive, graphics card etc off a mac? Well, we all know the answer to that one!
Indeed: Systems that don't boot can't be reliably tested for QA, and they're a support nightmare. It's just much simpler to only ship machines that can boot, and in manufacturing simplicity translates directly to improved consistency and reduced costs.
I fully expect this 'new' lineup to fall flat on its face until Apple does address these issues. Yes there are always complaints, some unwarranted, but not when evaluating the new lower end lineup.
Time will tell.
Originally posted by Amorph
Really?
IBM just published a graph last month admitting that 970 yields - not 970fx yields - were finally about to catch up to expectations. It was widely believed last September that yields of the 970 were not a problem, but IBM just admitted that they were below expectations.
Really! You are talking of IBM expectations not Apple's. Remember Apple is not IBMs only customer. IBM uses these chips for some of their own systems. As I explained, there's anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Apple did have access to enough processors (especially the lower rated ones).
Originally posted by Amorph
Indeed: Systems that don't boot can't be reliably tested for QA, and they're a support nightmare. It's just much simpler to only ship machines that can boot, and in manufacturing simplicity translates directly to improved consistency and reduced costs.
Where do you think most assembled BTO macs fail QA at boot? RAM issues? Hard drive Issues? Graphics cards Issues? Motherboard issues? What is the rate of such failures? Are they all even QA tested? I've heard of MANY cases of BTO DOAs.
There is no reason they can't ship a barebones BTO Mac.
Originally posted by Amorph
Time will tell.
It certainly will. Hopefully they will fail so badly that the next real revision will be sooner rather than later.
It's terrible to think that way but that's how Apple works these days.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
I suspect Apple will introduce an all dual 2.0/2.2/2.5 lineup this fall when/if yields improve but raise the price of the then low-end 2.0 model to $2199. It is at this time we will see the single 1.8 featured in the service manual pics come in to play as a peace offering at $1799. What do you think?
I think those prices would die a death. If the original single 1.6GHz debuted at $1699 (I can't remember exactly) then 200MHz more, way over a year later, for a higher asking price would be suicide. 970FX chips are supposed to be cheaper than straight 970s although volume clearly plays a role in pricing too.
I think the timing could be right especially for the lower end G5s. Maybe the Paris Expo would be an option but only if Steve Jobs has really new Macs to show off. And if the service manual photos are of new Macs then I won't be happy (no dual optical bays).
I want to see a major update to the G5 architecture before MWSF. I think Apple does too. If we have to wait til MWSF to see really new pro hardware Apple will get lambasted like never before. IMO the new hardware is already finished or very nearly finished.
There's a lot to speculate on and a lot of variables.
I'm still looking for 100% confirmation that the chips in the 'new' lower end G5s are 970FXs.
With so many variables I prefer to leave it in Apple's hands, see what gets announced, then evaluate it.
Sometime between now and the end of the year. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
my 2¢
Originally posted by onlooker:
This dual optical drive bay thing seems like an old argument.
Having more than one accessible drive bay is actually very desirable on the pro side of the fence. Tape drives (a must and we use two different kinds of tape drives), Zip drives (yes, we still see a lot of Zips go through our shop), card reader bays (though I only see these on the PC side of the fence) along with other misc units out there for things like audio controls and case fan and temp controls (again, more on the PC side), etc.
Hell, we still see the odd floppy disc come through our shop...
Cheers,
C.
Back in the dim dark 90's Apple had a tower that offered this (can't recall which it was (9100??)), but it was a very fine product in its day.
The nVidia card is in there simply to keep nVidia producing mac cards basically, it's an option, a fail safe. Remember when the GeForce series were used as the most pweorful cards in Apple's machines, now ATi has the most powerful cards, what does Apple use as their high end offerings? Exactly.
As said before, no PCI Express? TS, no PCI express cards exist in enough quantity to enable the Powermac range to survive on them alone.
They are expensive, yes so what, come on stop kidding yourself. Macs are in a different market to PCs, ffs get this in your head, Mac users pay for more, design, ergonomics, the label, stop comparing it to Dell or home made Dual Opterons on steriods. Macs are fast finally.
Also the latest ATi cards have just become available, don't bite Apple's head off for not having them.
2.5Ghz is good, that's higher than what AMD has to offer. The 1.25Ghz FSB is higher than expected. Also remember, this is the 970fx in all machines, it'll be interesting to see if a Dual 2Ghz 970fx Powermac is faster than a Dual 2Ghz 970.
Originally posted by mattyj
The Powermacs do not have pro video cards. Why? the cost to produce the drivers to make them pro cards would be too much compared to the 3 people that would actually buy the damn things to use for 3d (and one of those would be a journalist taking it for a test run).
I don't have any need for a card of that type but I can assure you that many more than 3 mac users DO want such cards.
Aren't something like 20% of all Maya sales mac sales? Isn't there a study (commisioned by Architosh) laying out the market factors of 3D on the mac? Isn't AutoCAD at least being evaluated for a possible Mac version? Can't this be considered a chicken and egg situation?
Doesn't all of the above suggest that for 3D on the mac to move forward the necessary hardware must be available to those that consider they need it? Even if it meant losing money while it gained traction?
BTW, writing drivers for these cards is NOT the kind of expense you make it out to be.