To all those that said this new iMac won't make anyone switch:
I am switching to the iMac from a PC in Sept and I don't give a damn about the specs. Granted I have no desire whatsoever to even play solitare on a computer let alone Doom 3, but I am switching because of iLife, iPod, and OS X. It will be fast enough. It will be stable. And it will be easy to use. It may be a couple of hundred dollars more than a similar speced PC, but I have yet to see anyone factor in the extra costs a PC user needs to pay for something like iMovie or Garage Band, etc. Sheesh, some people are never satisfied.
Most people here need to open their eyes to who uses computers these days....everyone. Who has digital cameras these days...everyone. Hell my 85 year old grandmother has a digital camera and a PC....don't you think she'd be better off with a Mac? I do, then I wouldn't have to fix her damn HP PC all the time!
You guys do know that there are some people that only care about usability....we don't all have to be on the bleeding edge, you know?
And you guys ought to think about how you affect potential switchers. I came here a couple of months ago when I started thinking about switching. And I was glad I did, it was here I learned about an updated iMac coming out and I was saved from buying a G4.
But if I were someone who is thinking about switching who knew little about Macs but came here for research and opinions, I would never buy one. If all the so called Apple lovers do nothing but trash Apple, what will a newbie think?
The specs on the next iMac would satisfy the vast majority of computer users in the US.
But if I were someone who is thinking about switching who knew little about Macs but came here for research and opinions, I would never buy one. If all the so called Apple lovers do nothing but trash Apple, what will a newbie think?
Kind of says it all. AI is a forum for geeks by geeks and sometimes small things get blown out of proportion.
You're mistaken here. A 1.8 GHz G5 should be on average equivalent to a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV. [/B]
You are mistaken. Of all the benchmarks I've seen, on average, a 1.8GHz G5 is about equivalent to a 2.4GHz P4C while a 2GHz G5 is slightly slower than 2.6GHz P4C processors. There are also quite a few tasks where the G5 is significantly slower (eg. Java, Flash, OpenGL) but that's more of a software issue.
Finally, I'd like to add that the laptop is the new AIO in the market. Consumers that do not require power buy laptops these days, not desktops. Desktops are relegated to performance and price-sensitive markets, neither of which Apple competes in well. No wonder the iMac 2 was a failure.
Hmmmmmm Existence. I may be a little dull but aren't
Photoshop
Mental Ray
Mathematica
Cinema4D
Lightwave
all software too?
I think the thing missing here is logic. Here's how my brain works.
When I hear "A G5 1.8Ghz CPU is equivalent to a Pentium4 2.4Ghz CPU"
I begin to wonder about how foolish those Computer Science students at Virginia Tech are. Or how absolutely daft those engineers at COLSA must be. I mean didn't these dolts realize they could be a Cluster MUCH faster and cheaper than the Xserves by using Dell $399 2.4Ghz computers. Or heavens, imagine the wicked speed of a P4 3.2. That ought to secure 1st place easy since it would be equivalent to what a 2.8Ghz G5??
For the more sane out there. Benchmarks are folly. You cannot ascertain equivalent performance using benchmarks. Software design is far too malleable and dynamic. Even GCC performs differently on X86 versus PPC.
Another odd thing is that in Photoshop you can apply a blur at say 3pts or pixels or whatever and get one speed and merely changing the pixel to 4 gives a completely different score that does not scale linearly. This is why Apple can always run benches that show Powermacs demolishing PCs and vice versa.
Another case. Digidesigns Protools LE is so craptastic that it can't even hit its 32 track limitation on a fast Powermac. This leads people to exclaim that PCs are so much faster than Macs. But...why can a Logic Pro user easily hit 50-60 tracks with effects on most of them? Well because Emagic engineers don't suck and Core Audio works.
You are mistaken. Of all the benchmarks I've seen, on average, a 1.8GHz G5 is about equivalent to a 2.4GHz P4C while a 2GHz G5 is slightly slower than 2.6GHz P4C processors. There are also quite a few tasks where the G5 is significantly slower (eg. Java, Flash, OpenGL) but that's more of a software issue.
Both Mathematica and PS7Bench benchmarks from this very site seem to indicate a 1.8 GHz G5 is about the same as a 3 GHz P4 or Athlon 3000+.
The Cinebench scores say that a 2 GHz G5 is equivalent to a 2.73 GHz P4.
The Maya benchmark supports your assertion. The Lightwave and Mental Ray benchmarks are sort of confusing without knowing the SMP efficiency of the benchmarks. IBM's XL compiler SPEC2000 benchmarks for the 1.8 GHz 970 are also comparable to 2.8 to 3 GHz P4 Intel compiler SPEC2000 benchmarks. There are quite a few tasks where a G5 is slower than its x86 equivalents, yes, but there are quite a few tasks where a G5 will be faster than its equivalents. I don't think you can make your assertion of 1.8 G5 = 2.4 P4 and 2 GHz G5 = 2.6 GHz P4 based on these benchmarks. I'll trust IBM's SPEC2000 benches for now.
So basically everything you say in these forums needs to be mentally prefaced with the intro "After the revolution, man..."
When you say that a 17" G5 iMac "should be" $999, this doesn't have much to do with present reality, but rather some theoretical ideal-in-your-mind world where, at your demand, all profits for all computer makers have been slashed to the barest razor thin margins, and 17" LCD displays have to be given away practically for free because everyone really wants to use their TVs as their computer displays instead.
It's under those circumstances that a 17" G5 iMac "should" cost $999.
Ah, it helps to have a little context to better understand things!
That's where things are going, I don't expect to be there soon. In fact, I don't think we'll ever see "499" pro quality desktops, but as time marches on we will see the equivalent in year 20xx dollars. Sort of like the way a litre of gas is cheaper today than it was 50 years ago -- if you adjust the dollar values to account for inflation -- though nobody realizes it.
But ultimately, as a piece of electronics, the computer will be commoditized, if only because it depreciates so much faster than just about any piece of electronics you're ever likely to buy. TVs, stereos, appliances, etc etc... all have a much longer lifespan than a computer.
Any hardware company that wants to stay in business will have to come to terms with that, or disappear. It's part and parcel of the ubquity of computers that they continue to drop in cost. They're getting more and more powerful -- but that also means you need less and less computer to get your work done. Office tasks don't task even the cheapest computer. The world of desktop publishing will soon undergo a similar transition, the cheapest computer will run the kinds of software that graphic artists need, at that point it will get harder to justify a high cost system to that group of pros. That will keep on happening... music, video, 3-d... distributed computing is even poised to kill dedicated supercomputer business by making it orders of magnitude cheaper to do the same job. This is happening everywhere. The computer is a disposable tool that you use and throw away when it is superceded -- its price will reflect that.
We often talk about the atypical user represented in this forum, how we don't represent the average computer user, and Apple can't build to tis demographic. Indeed, but we never realize what it means to say that. To this crowd, the computer is a lust object, it represents a style/image/philosophy. To the average user, it's a tool that gets replaced. It is NOT a lust object, it's a geek object. Cars, clothes, apartments... might get you laid, your iMac might too, but by who?
So that mac is special, but you only get limited leeway because as special as it may be, it's only special for a computer. A TV, a stereo, a phone, home cinema, whatever... they last at least 2-3X as long as a computer and you can turn to them for hassle free leisure enjoyment.
Anyway, the point of all this is that the price points for an acceptable entry level, just like the performance metric, are not what they were 5 years ago. To continue to be viable today, you have to offer a greater degree of performance relative to the times, and do it at a lower price.
We often talk about the atypical user represented in this forum, how we don't represent the average computer user, and Apple can't build to tis demographic. Indeed, but we never realize what it means to say that. To this crowd, the computer is a lust object, it represents a style/image/philosophy. To the average user, it's a tool that gets replaced. It is NOT a lust object, it's a geek object.
1299 was fine 5 years ago, not so today.
You hit on a very key point and then come back to your mantra. Apple will not go to the commodity ideal because they do not go for the average user. They have created a loyal, fervent user base that they show time and time again they are comfortable with.
I see this as a good thing. Who cares about the majority? Who cares about the guy that wants the $499 machine with the free camera and free printer? It is fine for that crowd but that is not where Apple will ever go.
Look at how hard it is for MS to fix their OS because they are positioned deep into the majority, the commodity pipeline. Change the smallest thing and no one will upgrade or be extremely slow about it. Then you have thousands of varying systems, tweeks running around making it even harder. (Of course it would help if they had a better OS to start with.)
Dell and the other makers can't inspire the masses with hardware design because they have convinced everyone it doesn't matter. Price is king. Rebates rule.
You will not see your dream machine at the price you want. But you will be attracted as you are now to the company that won't settle for average man or woman. And I bet you will buy again.
It is OK to kick and scream along the way and I truly enjoy your thoughts. Just how long it will take for you to realize it ain't going to happen the way you want is the real mystery here.
I can't really see how a 1.6GHz 970 can get close to a 2.5GHz P4 using the figures you've just quoted, even assuming the "G4 1.2 times as fast as P3" statistic (which doesn't match my experience, but, whatever. I'd be interested in easily verifiable benchmarks that show this.)
The G5 stuff can be seen in my reply to Existence. As for the G4/P3, I always have to do the work:
Code:
SpecINT95 SpecFP95
--------- --------
8.7 6.8 200 MHz PPro
11.9 8.6 300 MHz PII (Klamath)
14.0 9.4 300 MHz Moto PPC 750
15.8 12.4 400 MHz PII (Deschutes)
19.2 13.1 400 MHz Moto PPC 750
21.4 20.4 450 MHz Moto PPC 7400
24.0 15.9 600 MHz PIII (Katmai)
27.9 16.3 667 MHz IBM PPC 750cxe
31.7 24.0 700 MHz Athlon (K7)
32.1 23.9 733 MHz Moto PPC 7450
33.0 29.0 700 MHz PIII (Coppermine) (1)
39.9 21.8 900 MHz IBM PPC 750fx
(1) To this day, I do not believe the Coppermine specFP95 score, and to a lessor extent integer score. I believe that Intel spiked the scores to out-market the newly introduced AMD Athlon, and such performance was never achieved in Coppermine systems when compared to Athlon or G4 systems. Intel is basically saying they achieved a 40% improvement in specINT95 and an 82% improvement in specFP95 with a 22% increase in MHz and a change in core from Katmai to Coppermine.
Now, I said the same to 1.2 times the performance of PIII per MHz. Given the shorter pipeline depth of 74xx based processors (7 stages) compared to the deeply pipeline Intel P6 based processors (PPro/PII/PIII/P-M at 12+ stages), I think it maintains its "same to 1.2x per MHz" advantage compared to the P3/P-M on the vast bulk of integer code, especially random integer code mixes which kill deeply pipelined processors.
The price I want has to do with what's a fair deal in the context of the market. Macs can carry a slight premium but they have to be in the ball park. There are other solutions with similar quality that are available for a lot less and offer a lot more flexibility. Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
The price I want has to do with what's a fair deal in the context of the market. Macs can carry a slight premium but they have to be in the ball park. There are other solutions with similar quality that are available for a lot less and offer a lot more flexibility. Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
I don't think it has anything to do with fan boy goggles. Apple offers something that to a select few is compelling enough to warrant charging more money. Do we all wish the computers were cheaper ..yup just like I wish that Mercedes E320 was closer to my price range.
Yes I like my computing to represent a level of class that is beyond the commodity box market. Apple is a niche and they like being a niche. They don't have dellusions of grandeur and actually think they can topple Microsoft. Apple is content to grow and make money and have fun in the process creating cool things.
I just cannot get myself worked up over the pricing of computers. I will maximize the money I get from my job and make due with what I have but I'm not begging Apple for a damn thing.
The price I want has to do with what's a fair deal in the context of the market. Macs can carry a slight premium but they have to be in the ball park. There are other solutions with similar quality that are available for a lot less and offer a lot more flexibility. Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
Yah, I'm wearin' the goggles, I drink the cool-aid, yadayada.
Trouble is, I have used PC's at work for as long as I can remember, (I'm in my mid 40's) have had PC laptops (from work) that I have tried using at home. Used MS home style and corporate style OS's. Used desktop machines. Never could find a pair of Windows goggles that fit.
It is the entire experience. It is the hardware, the software, the look, the feel. Dang, maybe I am wearing more than one pair of goggles...8)
All I know is that I am buying something as soon as the iMac comes out. Depends on what the iMac turns out to be. But it will be a Mac.
If the iMac fails to impress here, or frustrates too many desires, either because it's too expensive, or because it's not flexible enough, what do you think it will do in the broader market? Want display/headless/gfx card options? The entry is then 2000USD. The AIO already has one big strike against it, shall we make it expensive too?
Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
If the iMac fails to impress here, or frustrates too many desires, either because it's too expensive, or because it's not flexible enough, what do you think it will do in the broader market? Want display/headless/gfx card options? The entry is then 2000USD. The AIO already has one big strike against it, shall we make it expensive too?
Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
Apple is selling less machines? Since when? They have been selling the same amount of machines for almost 3 years now. If it weren't for the ridiculous G4 problems back in the days and the ridiculous G5 problems today, Apple would be selling *more* machines.
If the iMac fails to impress here, or frustrates too many desires, either because it's too expensive, or because it's not flexible enough, what do you think it will do in the broader market? Want display/headless/gfx card options? The entry is then 2000USD. The AIO already has one big strike against it, shall we make it expensive too?
Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
I really like the Powerbooks and am still trying to decide. Might just get the 17".
The last time I checked, Apple is making money.
List one PC that inspires you. Tell us all how Windows XP is so alluring. Then gloat about the price. You aren't going to find all 3. You might get 2. But I bet you really get 1.
Apple tries to attract by design. They are always pushing the envelope in technology and manufacturing. Do we really want them to stop this so we can have a cheap box or a kit of parts?
Apple makes a great OS. This is the overriding factor for me.
The iPod has proven that more of the masses will pay a premium. That is the win win Apple is looking for and I believe will always strive for.
Your win win is much different and focuses non stop on price. Better get ready for many more years of aggravation.
...Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
Grammar nitpick: Apple is selling fewer machines. "Apple is selling less machines" means that they are selling without any machines (which may be true too since the iMac is out of stock!). Surprised at you, Matsu, you usually write very well.
If it weren't for the ridiculous G4 problems back in the days and the ridiculous G5 problems today, Apple would be selling *more* machines.
One could argue that the introduction of Apple stores around the world and an aggressive "Switcher" ad campaign would offset that, but it didn't. There's many reasons why Apple is not selling more machines. More than just the processor.
I bought the PowerBook G4 Titanium in 2001 because I was drawn to the design, as well as the promise of OS X.
I will stay with Apple because of OS X, XCode, Cocoa & Obj-C, and iLife suite. Right now fancy cases (outside of laptops) don't do it for me. It's all the stuff that Apple does to make their hardware and software just *work* together.
It took me 3-4 months to "get" the Apple experience. After those few months I realized that I hadn't had weird driver issues; I could just plug into any network and the laptop/OS did all the autodetecting and got me up and running on the network in about 10 seconds. Heck, I could change my IP and not have to reboot! I could get onto a website, disconnect the TiBook from the LAN, turn on airport, wait for connection and then continue surfing!
I compared directions to connect my laptop to my uni's wireless network to the PC directions. My instructions fit onto 1 page, even with screenshots. The PC's directions were several pages long. My labmate had to reconfigure his PC laptop once every couple of weeks because the settings would vaporize for no apparent reason.
I could go on, but I'm sure we all have anecdotes about how much better the Apple experience is. To me, this ease of use and the intuitiveness of Apple's software is worth a premium. I'd say easily a 100 - 200 premium wouldn't make me balk one bit.
It's the lack of expandability in a *desktop* that gives me pause. If Apple is putting out a new iMac with the TS specs, they better have some great BTO options.
Just thought I'd add, the argument Apple doesn't need to increase unit sales, is profitable and can continue it's present course is in direct contradiction to what Apple, themselves, have stated. Yes, Apple is profitable, but they have stated they want to increase market share, were not happy with the iMac sales volume and would like to meet the <$1000 price point.
Question is, "Do they truly believe this or was this just market speak for the benefit of investors?". I think they truly believe what was said and will do what they can about it, but introducing a monitorless consumer desktop won't be in their plans.
Comments
I am switching to the iMac from a PC in Sept and I don't give a damn about the specs. Granted I have no desire whatsoever to even play solitare on a computer let alone Doom 3, but I am switching because of iLife, iPod, and OS X. It will be fast enough. It will be stable. And it will be easy to use. It may be a couple of hundred dollars more than a similar speced PC, but I have yet to see anyone factor in the extra costs a PC user needs to pay for something like iMovie or Garage Band, etc. Sheesh, some people are never satisfied.
Most people here need to open their eyes to who uses computers these days....everyone. Who has digital cameras these days...everyone. Hell my 85 year old grandmother has a digital camera and a PC....don't you think she'd be better off with a Mac? I do, then I wouldn't have to fix her damn HP PC all the time!
You guys do know that there are some people that only care about usability....we don't all have to be on the bleeding edge, you know?
And you guys ought to think about how you affect potential switchers. I came here a couple of months ago when I started thinking about switching. And I was glad I did, it was here I learned about an updated iMac coming out and I was saved from buying a G4.
But if I were someone who is thinking about switching who knew little about Macs but came here for research and opinions, I would never buy one. If all the so called Apple lovers do nothing but trash Apple, what will a newbie think?
The specs on the next iMac would satisfy the vast majority of computer users in the US.
But if I were someone who is thinking about switching who knew little about Macs but came here for research and opinions, I would never buy one. If all the so called Apple lovers do nothing but trash Apple, what will a newbie think?
Kind of says it all. AI is a forum for geeks by geeks and sometimes small things get blown out of proportion.
Originally posted by THT
You're mistaken here. A 1.8 GHz G5 should be on average equivalent to a 2.8 GHz Pentium IV. [/B]
You are mistaken. Of all the benchmarks I've seen, on average, a 1.8GHz G5 is about equivalent to a 2.4GHz P4C while a 2GHz G5 is slightly slower than 2.6GHz P4C processors. There are also quite a few tasks where the G5 is significantly slower (eg. Java, Flash, OpenGL) but that's more of a software issue.
See here for a sample.
Finally, I'd like to add that the laptop is the new AIO in the market. Consumers that do not require power buy laptops these days, not desktops. Desktops are relegated to performance and price-sensitive markets, neither of which Apple competes in well. No wonder the iMac 2 was a failure.
This new iMac will also be a failure.
Photoshop
Mental Ray
Mathematica
Cinema4D
Lightwave
all software too?
I think the thing missing here is logic. Here's how my brain works.
When I hear "A G5 1.8Ghz CPU is equivalent to a Pentium4 2.4Ghz CPU"
I begin to wonder about how foolish those Computer Science students at Virginia Tech are. Or how absolutely daft those engineers at COLSA must be. I mean didn't these dolts realize they could be a Cluster MUCH faster and cheaper than the Xserves by using Dell $399 2.4Ghz computers. Or heavens, imagine the wicked speed of a P4 3.2. That ought to secure 1st place easy since it would be equivalent to what a 2.8Ghz G5??
For the more sane out there. Benchmarks are folly. You cannot ascertain equivalent performance using benchmarks. Software design is far too malleable and dynamic. Even GCC performs differently on X86 versus PPC.
Another odd thing is that in Photoshop you can apply a blur at say 3pts or pixels or whatever and get one speed and merely changing the pixel to 4 gives a completely different score that does not scale linearly. This is why Apple can always run benches that show Powermacs demolishing PCs and vice versa.
Another case. Digidesigns Protools LE is so craptastic that it can't even hit its 32 track limitation on a fast Powermac. This leads people to exclaim that PCs are so much faster than Macs. But...why can a Logic Pro user easily hit 50-60 tracks with effects on most of them? Well because Emagic engineers don't suck and Core Audio works.
Originally posted by Existence
You are mistaken. Of all the benchmarks I've seen, on average, a 1.8GHz G5 is about equivalent to a 2.4GHz P4C while a 2GHz G5 is slightly slower than 2.6GHz P4C processors. There are also quite a few tasks where the G5 is significantly slower (eg. Java, Flash, OpenGL) but that's more of a software issue.
See here for a sample.
Both Mathematica and PS7Bench benchmarks from this very site seem to indicate a 1.8 GHz G5 is about the same as a 3 GHz P4 or Athlon 3000+.
The Cinebench scores say that a 2 GHz G5 is equivalent to a 2.73 GHz P4.
The Maya benchmark supports your assertion. The Lightwave and Mental Ray benchmarks are sort of confusing without knowing the SMP efficiency of the benchmarks. IBM's XL compiler SPEC2000 benchmarks for the 1.8 GHz 970 are also comparable to 2.8 to 3 GHz P4 Intel compiler SPEC2000 benchmarks. There are quite a few tasks where a G5 is slower than its x86 equivalents, yes, but there are quite a few tasks where a G5 will be faster than its equivalents. I don't think you can make your assertion of 1.8 G5 = 2.4 P4 and 2 GHz G5 = 2.6 GHz P4 based on these benchmarks. I'll trust IBM's SPEC2000 benches for now.
Originally posted by shetline
So basically everything you say in these forums needs to be mentally prefaced with the intro "After the revolution, man..."
When you say that a 17" G5 iMac "should be" $999, this doesn't have much to do with present reality, but rather some theoretical ideal-in-your-mind world where, at your demand, all profits for all computer makers have been slashed to the barest razor thin margins, and 17" LCD displays have to be given away practically for free because everyone really wants to use their TVs as their computer displays instead.
It's under those circumstances that a 17" G5 iMac "should" cost $999.
Ah, it helps to have a little context to better understand things!
That's where things are going, I don't expect to be there soon. In fact, I don't think we'll ever see "499" pro quality desktops, but as time marches on we will see the equivalent in year 20xx dollars. Sort of like the way a litre of gas is cheaper today than it was 50 years ago -- if you adjust the dollar values to account for inflation -- though nobody realizes it.
But ultimately, as a piece of electronics, the computer will be commoditized, if only because it depreciates so much faster than just about any piece of electronics you're ever likely to buy. TVs, stereos, appliances, etc etc... all have a much longer lifespan than a computer.
Any hardware company that wants to stay in business will have to come to terms with that, or disappear. It's part and parcel of the ubquity of computers that they continue to drop in cost. They're getting more and more powerful -- but that also means you need less and less computer to get your work done. Office tasks don't task even the cheapest computer. The world of desktop publishing will soon undergo a similar transition, the cheapest computer will run the kinds of software that graphic artists need, at that point it will get harder to justify a high cost system to that group of pros. That will keep on happening... music, video, 3-d... distributed computing is even poised to kill dedicated supercomputer business by making it orders of magnitude cheaper to do the same job. This is happening everywhere. The computer is a disposable tool that you use and throw away when it is superceded -- its price will reflect that.
We often talk about the atypical user represented in this forum, how we don't represent the average computer user, and Apple can't build to tis demographic. Indeed, but we never realize what it means to say that. To this crowd, the computer is a lust object, it represents a style/image/philosophy. To the average user, it's a tool that gets replaced. It is NOT a lust object, it's a geek object. Cars, clothes, apartments... might get you laid, your iMac might too, but by who?
So that mac is special, but you only get limited leeway because as special as it may be, it's only special for a computer. A TV, a stereo, a phone, home cinema, whatever... they last at least 2-3X as long as a computer and you can turn to them for hassle free leisure enjoyment.
Anyway, the point of all this is that the price points for an acceptable entry level, just like the performance metric, are not what they were 5 years ago. To continue to be viable today, you have to offer a greater degree of performance relative to the times, and do it at a lower price.
1299 was fine 5 years ago, not so today.
Originally posted by Matsu
We often talk about the atypical user represented in this forum, how we don't represent the average computer user, and Apple can't build to tis demographic. Indeed, but we never realize what it means to say that. To this crowd, the computer is a lust object, it represents a style/image/philosophy. To the average user, it's a tool that gets replaced. It is NOT a lust object, it's a geek object.
1299 was fine 5 years ago, not so today.
You hit on a very key point and then come back to your mantra. Apple will not go to the commodity ideal because they do not go for the average user. They have created a loyal, fervent user base that they show time and time again they are comfortable with.
I see this as a good thing. Who cares about the majority? Who cares about the guy that wants the $499 machine with the free camera and free printer? It is fine for that crowd but that is not where Apple will ever go.
Look at how hard it is for MS to fix their OS because they are positioned deep into the majority, the commodity pipeline. Change the smallest thing and no one will upgrade or be extremely slow about it. Then you have thousands of varying systems, tweeks running around making it even harder. (Of course it would help if they had a better OS to start with.)
Dell and the other makers can't inspire the masses with hardware design because they have convinced everyone it doesn't matter. Price is king. Rebates rule.
You will not see your dream machine at the price you want. But you will be attracted as you are now to the company that won't settle for average man or woman. And I bet you will buy again.
It is OK to kick and scream along the way and I truly enjoy your thoughts. Just how long it will take for you to realize it ain't going to happen the way you want is the real mystery here.
Originally posted by peharri
I can't really see how a 1.6GHz 970 can get close to a 2.5GHz P4 using the figures you've just quoted, even assuming the "G4 1.2 times as fast as P3" statistic (which doesn't match my experience, but, whatever. I'd be interested in easily verifiable benchmarks that show this.)
The G5 stuff can be seen in my reply to Existence. As for the G4/P3, I always have to do the work:
SpecINT95 SpecFP95
--------- --------
8.7 6.8 200 MHz PPro
11.9 8.6 300 MHz PII (Klamath)
14.0 9.4 300 MHz Moto PPC 750
15.8 12.4 400 MHz PII (Deschutes)
19.2 13.1 400 MHz Moto PPC 750
21.4 20.4 450 MHz Moto PPC 7400
24.0 15.9 600 MHz PIII (Katmai)
27.9 16.3 667 MHz IBM PPC 750cxe
31.7 24.0 700 MHz Athlon (K7)
32.1 23.9 733 MHz Moto PPC 7450
33.0 29.0 700 MHz PIII (Coppermine) (1)
39.9 21.8 900 MHz IBM PPC 750fx
(1) To this day, I do not believe the Coppermine specFP95 score, and to a lessor extent integer score. I believe that Intel spiked the scores to out-market the newly introduced AMD Athlon, and such performance was never achieved in Coppermine systems when compared to Athlon or G4 systems. Intel is basically saying they achieved a 40% improvement in specINT95 and an 82% improvement in specFP95 with a 22% increase in MHz and a change in core from Katmai to Coppermine.
Now, I said the same to 1.2 times the performance of PIII per MHz. Given the shorter pipeline depth of 74xx based processors (7 stages) compared to the deeply pipeline Intel P6 based processors (PPro/PII/PIII/P-M at 12+ stages), I think it maintains its "same to 1.2x per MHz" advantage compared to the P3/P-M on the vast bulk of integer code, especially random integer code mixes which kill deeply pipelined processors.
Originally posted by Matsu
The price I want has to do with what's a fair deal in the context of the market. Macs can carry a slight premium but they have to be in the ball park. There are other solutions with similar quality that are available for a lot less and offer a lot more flexibility. Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
I don't think it has anything to do with fan boy goggles. Apple offers something that to a select few is compelling enough to warrant charging more money. Do we all wish the computers were cheaper ..yup just like I wish that Mercedes E320 was closer to my price range.
Yes I like my computing to represent a level of class that is beyond the commodity box market. Apple is a niche and they like being a niche. They don't have dellusions of grandeur and actually think they can topple Microsoft. Apple is content to grow and make money and have fun in the process creating cool things.
I just cannot get myself worked up over the pricing of computers. I will maximize the money I get from my job and make due with what I have but I'm not begging Apple for a damn thing.
Originally posted by Matsu
The price I want has to do with what's a fair deal in the context of the market. Macs can carry a slight premium but they have to be in the ball park. There are other solutions with similar quality that are available for a lot less and offer a lot more flexibility. Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
It's...about...the...OS!
Originally posted by Matsu
Apple has to compete because the other guys do offer computers that can be just as good if you take off the fan boy goggles for a second.
Yah, I'm wearin' the goggles, I drink the cool-aid, yadayada.
Trouble is, I have used PC's at work for as long as I can remember, (I'm in my mid 40's) have had PC laptops (from work) that I have tried using at home. Used MS home style and corporate style OS's. Used desktop machines. Never could find a pair of Windows goggles that fit.
It is the entire experience. It is the hardware, the software, the look, the feel. Dang, maybe I am wearing more than one pair of goggles...8)
All I know is that I am buying something as soon as the iMac comes out. Depends on what the iMac turns out to be. But it will be a Mac.
If the iMac fails to impress here, or frustrates too many desires, either because it's too expensive, or because it's not flexible enough, what do you think it will do in the broader market? Want display/headless/gfx card options? The entry is then 2000USD. The AIO already has one big strike against it, shall we make it expensive too?
Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
Originally posted by Matsu
But it may not be an iMac?
If the iMac fails to impress here, or frustrates too many desires, either because it's too expensive, or because it's not flexible enough, what do you think it will do in the broader market? Want display/headless/gfx card options? The entry is then 2000USD. The AIO already has one big strike against it, shall we make it expensive too?
Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
Apple is selling less machines? Since when? They have been selling the same amount of machines for almost 3 years now. If it weren't for the ridiculous G4 problems back in the days and the ridiculous G5 problems today, Apple would be selling *more* machines.
Originally posted by Matsu
But it may not be an iMac?
If the iMac fails to impress here, or frustrates too many desires, either because it's too expensive, or because it's not flexible enough, what do you think it will do in the broader market? Want display/headless/gfx card options? The entry is then 2000USD. The AIO already has one big strike against it, shall we make it expensive too?
Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
I really like the Powerbooks and am still trying to decide. Might just get the 17".
The last time I checked, Apple is making money.
List one PC that inspires you. Tell us all how Windows XP is so alluring. Then gloat about the price. You aren't going to find all 3. You might get 2. But I bet you really get 1.
Apple tries to attract by design. They are always pushing the envelope in technology and manufacturing. Do we really want them to stop this so we can have a cheap box or a kit of parts?
Apple makes a great OS. This is the overriding factor for me.
The iPod has proven that more of the masses will pay a premium. That is the win win Apple is looking for and I believe will always strive for.
Your win win is much different and focuses non stop on price. Better get ready for many more years of aggravation.
Originally posted by Matsu
...Apple is selling less machines. Can they go on being Apple if they don't start selling more machines?
Grammar nitpick: Apple is selling fewer machines. "Apple is selling less machines" means that they are selling without any machines (which may be true too since the iMac is out of stock!). Surprised at you, Matsu, you usually write very well.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If it weren't for the ridiculous G4 problems back in the days and the ridiculous G5 problems today, Apple would be selling *more* machines.
One could argue that the introduction of Apple stores around the world and an aggressive "Switcher" ad campaign would offset that, but it didn't. There's many reasons why Apple is not selling more machines. More than just the processor.
I will stay with Apple because of OS X, XCode, Cocoa & Obj-C, and iLife suite. Right now fancy cases (outside of laptops) don't do it for me. It's all the stuff that Apple does to make their hardware and software just *work* together.
It took me 3-4 months to "get" the Apple experience. After those few months I realized that I hadn't had weird driver issues; I could just plug into any network and the laptop/OS did all the autodetecting and got me up and running on the network in about 10 seconds. Heck, I could change my IP and not have to reboot! I could get onto a website, disconnect the TiBook from the LAN, turn on airport, wait for connection and then continue surfing!
I compared directions to connect my laptop to my uni's wireless network to the PC directions. My instructions fit onto 1 page, even with screenshots. The PC's directions were several pages long. My labmate had to reconfigure his PC laptop once every couple of weeks because the settings would vaporize for no apparent reason.
I could go on, but I'm sure we all have anecdotes about how much better the Apple experience is. To me, this ease of use and the intuitiveness of Apple's software is worth a premium. I'd say easily a 100 - 200 premium wouldn't make me balk one bit.
It's the lack of expandability in a *desktop* that gives me pause. If Apple is putting out a new iMac with the TS specs, they better have some great BTO options.
Question is, "Do they truly believe this or was this just market speak for the benefit of investors?". I think they truly believe what was said and will do what they can about it, but introducing a monitorless consumer desktop won't be in their plans.