# Apple just doesn't get it.



## jocknerd (Jun 23, 2003)

They announce the baddest computers on the planet yet price them out of most peoples reach. $1999 for entry level? Come on Steve, this isn't 1997. Have you looked at the price of PC's? You've got to stay competitive. Here's what I suggest:

iMac ==  $999 - $1499

1.6ghz G5 == $1499

1.8ghz G5 == $1799

2.0ghz G5 == $2499


----------



## Randman (Jun 23, 2003)

And how did you come up with your price range? My suggestion would be a 2.0 for free for me, but it's just a suggestioon. Like everything, prices will drop. I'm sure many will sell at the announced price, though everyone would love to have one for cheaper.


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 23, 2003)

Steve Jobs told Apple investors that he wanted to increase market share. This ain't gonna do it. In fact, fewer people will buy now. Apple got close to PC's a few years ago in price, but PC's dropped again. Apple can't continue to play this "superior" machine crap no matter how true it is. People won't care if the machine costs twice as much. In fact I think the 2.0ghz G5 should retail for $1999. That would really get people's attention. To tell you the truth, I don't really get this entry level, mid-level, professional level stuff anyway. If they've got a 2ghz, just sell that one. Sell it in either a 1 processor or 2 processor. Thats it.


----------



## Kazrog (Jun 23, 2003)

These are HIGH END machines. Want an affordable Mac? Get an eMac.


----------



## paulie-mafia (Jun 23, 2003)

I agree, Macs do carry a somewhat difficult to swallow (for the rest of the world) price tag, but look at the difference between the two markets.  Anyone can make a PC and everyone does.  If you're in the market for a new Windows-based machine then there's probably a few hundred manufacturers worldwide to choose from.  Now, say, you want something that runs Mac OSX.  You get a choice of.....Apple!

Until other manufacturers start building machines capable of running OSX then Apple can set prices at whatever level it feels the market can tolerate.

Why does no-one else make a Mac?  Is it a legal issue (Steve J won't let them..) or a commerical issue (not worth the bother..)?


----------



## dave17lax (Jun 23, 2003)

These prices are not set by Steve and Co. on a whim. This is the best price that they can give you based on what their projected sales are. There are leagues of number crunchers, market people, etc that figure out how many macs they will conceivably sell. Apple will benefit more by selling a few less macs at a much higher price, than busting their butts at a loss. market share is one thing, but so is margins and inventory. There are a bunch of G4's to be gotten rid of in the next few months.


----------



## Greystroke (Jun 23, 2003)

ont hat note which i will most likely purchase at a lower cost


----------



## monktus (Jun 23, 2003)

You have to remember that even though you can get a new PC for a few hundred quid, its not going to be 3GHz Xeon. Of course I'd like to see Apple drop its prices but remember that the PowerMacs are high end, its unrealistic to expect to buy one for the same price as a 2Ghz Celeron or whatever. Haven't there been a few articles about PowerBooks being more competitive than x86 laptops recently? To get market share Apple has to sell cheap G4 machines. Even if its feasible for Apple to drop the G5 prices much, they're still going to be an attractive machine to professional markets because they kick ass and, while I don't believe everything Steve says, look to be much cheaper than an equivilantily specced x86. Enough of the 'Why can't I buy a 64bit state of the art Apple workstation for $600' rubbish.


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 23, 2003)

but, the entry level 1.6 needs to fall. The G4's are going away. Maybe when Apple has no more G4's left, the 1.6ghz G5 will fall to a more reasonable $1499 or so.

I am impressed with the specs. These machines will rock.


----------



## ccuilla (Jun 23, 2003)

Look for them to begin scaling up the iMac and eMac now. Dual G4 across the board on iMac and eMac? At the same (current) prices?

Who knows. This is just "Act 1".


----------



## thisbechuck (Jun 23, 2003)

but fo' real... if you watched the keynote, a comparative PC to these processors (performance wise) will cost you atleast $500 more, so they actually are cheaper now for the high ends atleast.

I would like to see actually some figures of production price though


----------



## pwharff (Jun 23, 2003)

Remember this is the FIRST set of G5's. I'm sure you'll be able to get a Dual 2.0Ghz G5 in 12 months time for $1,800 and if not sooner.


----------



## uoba (Jun 23, 2003)

And lets not forget, you'll be using these babies just right up to the minute you receive your G8 in 4-5 years time! PC hardware does hardly have this lifespan. But of course, you knew this already


----------



## pwharff (Jun 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by uoba _
> *And lets not forget, you'll be using these babies just right up to the minute you receive your G8 in 4-5 years time! PC hardware does hardly have this lifespan. But of course, you knew this already  *



YEP! Now I wonder if Sonnet Tech. will lower their G4 upgrade cards?


----------



## buggerit (Jun 23, 2003)

these are INCREDIBLE machines.  they beat the pants off any wintel machine, and as such, are priced accordingly.  You can now get a 1.0 GHZ G4 in oz for $1999, which is roughly equivelant price point to the mysterious US$999 golden price barrier.  this is huge news for us down under, and makes a tower machine extremely affordable.

My problem is this:  apple has 'done it again' in terms of supply.  this is almost certainly going to be a 17" supply fiascoe.  they're not going to ship till August, and there is still plenty of existing G4 stock in the australian channel.  who on earth would buy a G4 now?  the only model we will conceivably sell is the low end $1999 1Ghz G4. Price comparison now:
$4499 for Dual 1.4G4/512/80G/SD
$4499 for Sgle 1.8G5/512/160G/SD

Seeing as (according to those french nuts MacBidoulle) a _SINGLE_ 1.4 G5 kicks the pants off a DUAL 1.4 G4, why on earth would you buy old technology?  Now we will have TWO MONTHS worth of pent up demand for G5's, and then stock will trickle in just like the 17"'s did...  ugh, i'm going to have to field a million calls from fed up customers who want to know when their machine is going to ship.

Classic apple - introduce a machine that is ultra-desirable and reasonably priced (yes, i think so), but dont give us actual MACHINES.  it's as if they understand exactly what people want, and what their prepared to pay, but have no idea how to supply the goods!

welcome to the same era of computing.


----------



## drustar (Jun 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kazrog _
> *These are HIGH END machines. Want an affordable Mac? Get an eMac. *


If I were to get a PC machine (just the tower, keyboard, and a mouse) that is at least running 2 ghz, top notch memory - the cost would be equivalent to an eMac. jocknerd has a point. These G5s should be a tad affordable. If a dual 1.8ghz is 1799 - I'm sold.


----------



## Zeigan (Jun 23, 2003)

you guys are forgetting that apples retain their vvalue..  Go to ebay and look up a cube.  At least 700 at the final price.  That computer is 5-6 years old.  Find a pc that can retain its value like a mac.  Im using a 1.5 year old powerbook and i have no complaints about speed.  With a pc, i was upgrading every 6 months to retain that new feeling.

They may be expensive, but you are buying a quality computer.


----------



## fryke (Jun 23, 2003)

I want to see benchmarks comparing the G4 Dual 1.42 GHz to a G5 Single 1.6 GHz, but I guess the G5 simply rocks, seeing those benchmarks that are up at apple.com right now.

So... Apple did get it, haven't they. Finally we're up to speed, I'd say. Now I want those in PowerBooks. Or at least PowerBooks that get a similar degree of speed.


----------



## chabig (Jun 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by drustar _
> *If I were to get a PC machine (just the tower, keyboard, and a mouse) that is at least running 2 ghz, top notch memory - the cost would be equivalent to an eMac. *



...and so would the performance. The new G5 PowerMacs would blow away your 2GHz Pentium.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 23, 2003)

Normally I am not confrontational, but I have to say this is the single most inane thread I have ever read.

Let me get this straight...Apple delivers on a stellar machine running a stellar OS to its PRO users, who are fully used to paying a premium and somehow this is "not getting it". You have got to be kidding me.

Of course we'd all like things to be cheaper. Sorry if the lineup doesn't fit your budget, but the fact of the matter is that it squarely fits in the budgets of its audience and delivers on virtually everything in a BIG way. These buyers will be happy (ecstatic) to pay those prices (which really aren't that bad, for crying out loud, they're less than previous models with way less ability).

Apple gets it and in a few months I'll be getting it too. It'll take me about three days in productivity to make up for the small premium in price.


----------



## spuchee (Jun 23, 2003)

It would be better if the two lower models are a bit less expensive.  The G4 desktops should naturally be cut in prices accordingly.  However, the top end G5 is well worth its price.  As long as Apple puts on a compelling marketing campaign, there should be a lot of willing customers.


----------



## nordex (Jun 23, 2003)

SUCK IT UP THERE BUDDY- go get yourself an equal pc so thats what dual xeons and your still not close?


----------



## Randman (Jun 23, 2003)

Next, we need a G5 PowerBook.


----------



## bolindilly (Jun 23, 2003)

do you think apple just sets an arbitrary price? please. they have R&D to cover. they have raw materials to cover. they have ibm to pay. they have assembly and all their workers to pay. they have a slim profit margin to keep.
what do you think they're doing over there? picking $s out of a hat and saying, "eh, this sounds like a good price." if it was cheaper to make, it'd be cheaper to buy. it's like preschool economics, people.


----------



## chabig (Jun 23, 2003)

> The G4 desktops should naturally be cut in prices accordingly.



I think they DID cut prices today. The 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMac is $1299 and the dual 1.25 GHz is $1499.

Chris


----------



## themacko (Jun 23, 2003)

You get what you pay for.  If you can't afford dropping 15+ hundo on a computer, get yerself an eMac (like me  )


----------



## Stridder44 (Jun 24, 2003)

Its true. The price is well worth it. The Computer will last for years and years (and with 8 GBs of expandable RAM...heh...). My friend has a PowerMac G4 @ 450MHz and it has worked wonderfully for all of 4 and a half years now! I do admit tho, it is _now_ finally showing its starting to age, but nonetheless...4 and a half freaking years! I bought a Gateway Comp with an Athlon @1.1Ghz about a year and a half ago and it's already showing its age.

I'd have to honestly say that's why I switched from PC to Mac (I bought a 17inch iMac about a year after i bought the Gateway). I knew that the iMac would last MUCH longer than any PC I could by, so I switched.


----------



## strobe (Jun 24, 2003)

Compare with Xeon prices. Apple's prices are VERY competative!


----------



## sliced-t (Jun 24, 2003)

Even when gold is laid before peoples feet, most will still complain about the glare...


----------



## drustar (Jun 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chabig _
> *...and so would the performance. The new G5 PowerMacs would blow away your 2GHz Pentium. *



Fortunately, I don't have a p4 2ghz pc. I have an eMac. I could use an upgrade though. I'm tired of using Illustrator with this eMac.


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 24, 2003)

There is this interesting quandry about Apple announcements. 

Everybody looks forward to MacWorld events (and I guess the WWDC now) because Apple usually shows off some great new products. Unfortunately, product development cycles don't always match show cycles, so sometimes we get shipping products like Safari 1.0 and sometimes we get delays like with the new G5 machines.

Most of us would be just as astounded if Apple waited until August to announce the new G5 machines, but at the same time we want big trade show surprises and big trade shows help Apple get newspeople to show up and cover an announcement, therefore getting the word out about products.

So here's your choice; shows with less product announcements and more shipping machines or big announcements and product shipping delays.

If he could get it both ways, Steve would sell G5's off the stage to the crowd loaded with 10.3.


----------



## Giaguara (Jun 24, 2003)

And sure Ferraris would sell more cars if they dropped their prices to 49,900 $. If you have no money for a Ferrari, get a Toyota or something cheap and don't complain your car lacks features. 

I don't complain about those prices. I just wish i had money to get a G5.


----------



## uoba (Jun 24, 2003)

A clear space is staring to emerge amongst pro Mac users with the G5. Graphic and web designers, students, general users (who desire a pro mechine), can quite easily exist on a G4. A G5 is perhaps overkill for these tasks. Sooo, people are complaining of the price, because, as stated, the power within the G5, they may never fully utilise.

Now, most of the people Jobs brought out on stage where from software development companies who NEED the full power for there apps (that Mathmatica guy, Emagic's guy). Even Apple's site gives speed tests in high-level real-world apps such as some genome development etc. Not, as would be useless, in Fireworks, Illustrator etc.

Video, Audio, and scientifically intense projects is where the G5 will really make it's name. Great, Panther will runner hell of a lot better, and Photoshop will zip along a lot nicer, but, I think, and we are all entitled to feel this way, that a lot of desire for the next new Apple machine, is clouding the fact that we may just not need one.

Saying that, I do, and I'm gonna bust the bank to get it (honestly, I do need it, 400Mhz starting to feel pedestrian.)


----------



## Randman (Jun 24, 2003)

Hey, few people are going to complain if Apple ever drops the prices on anything. But I personally don't want Apple to do what M$ does on the XBox and lose $50 or so on every machine that goes out the door. 
  Maybe M$ can afford that loss, but I don't think Apple's up there in that range. I'm still happy with my laptop and heck, even my old clamshell Graphite still gets the job done.
  Anyway, in 12 months, prices will drop some to clear inventory and some troll will be griping left and right that the 3 Ghz Macs are $499.99 too expensive.


----------



## pds (Jun 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bolindilly _
> * if it was cheaper to make, it'd be cheaper to buy. it's like preschool economics, people.*





> _Originally posted by Giaguara _
> *I don't complain about those prices. I just wish i had money to get a G5. *



Like Stan the man - 'nuff said!


----------



## craymond (Jun 24, 2003)

hey- after you get steve to bring down the prices could you deal with Subaru, because I would love a Forester Turbo at cost.

thanks in advance.


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 24, 2003)

People just don't get it!

Boom!


----------



## TRITON (Jun 24, 2003)

So  Apple sais the G5 is the "worlds fastest desktop computer" what about AMD OPTERON, or HAMMER?
those are 64 bit . opteron is out and available, to buy as a desktop pc.
lets compare 64 to 64, ppc 970, vs, opteron. were the benchmarsk based on 32 bit apps, vs, the xeon32, or 64 bit against the xeon32?


----------



## hulkaros (Jun 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by TRITON _
> *So  Apple sais the G5 is the "worlds fastest desktop computer" what about AMD OPTERON, or HAMMER?
> those are 64 bit . opteron is out and available, to buy as a desktop pc.
> lets compare 64 to 64, ppc 970, vs, opteron. were the benchmarsk based on 32 bit apps, vs, the xeon32, or 64 bit against the xeon32? *



...one of the cheapest fastest desktop computer too! 

Supposedly Dual XEON 3GHz is faster than Dual Opteron/anyGHz so there is actually no real competition betweem a Dual Opteron/Xeon/Whatever against G5... 

Damn even Adobe's CEO (yeah that Adobe with the PC Preferred fiasco) said that G5 is a monster computer! Well, not exactly in those words! 

Boom!


----------



## nordex (Jun 24, 2003)

ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS WHOEVER STARTED THIS TOPIC POBABLYDRIVES A FORD TOPAZ AND THINKS ITS A PORCHE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT REALIZE  QUALITY COSTS MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ex2bot (Jun 24, 2003)

Ooh, Topaz. That's a low blow!  

Doug


----------



## MDLarson (Jun 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Randman _
> *I personally don't want Apple to do what M$ does on the XBox and lose $50 or so on every machine that goes out the door.*


Dude, maybe I should get an XBox now!  

I guess the only thing I'm annoyed at is my desire to get *more* drive bays, not less... 

And for the record, I don't think the prices are too much at all.  I want one, but first I'll give my 450 G4 a processor upgrade.


----------



## mindbend (Jun 24, 2003)

This is just my opinion, others will disagree, but as for processor upgrades DON'T DO IT.

I have done it twice and found the net result to be almost worthless. Sure, there's some raw CPU gain, but there's no architecture gain. Also, by the time you need a procesor upgrade, the software you use typically has advanced with the more current machines (read: bloatware), therefore the processor upgrade again doesn't get you much.

Just my experience. If t were me, I'd save the cash and buy a whole new box.


----------



## kcwookie (Jun 24, 2003)

I think it is well priced and will fly off the shelf.


----------



## monktus (Jun 24, 2003)

I got an 800 Mhz upgrade for my Sawtooth 350 and it was well worth it. Of course I knew that I wouldn't get the benefits of the updated architecture in a 1.4 Ghz PowerMac or whatever but I also knew that I wasn't going to get a new computer for at least six months and spending £220 (or whatever) was a very effective stopgap. I also got a Radeon for 30 squid and I've seen a great improvement in my 4 year old machine. Processor upgrades are more useful for some people than others, for example if you've got quite a recent G4 and want to add a couple of hundred MHz to it, but for people like me it worked out really well, especially as the cost of upgrades has dropped significantly over the past year or so.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Jun 24, 2003)

if apple lowers the prices, they wont make any money. and everyone knows you have to make money to stay in business.
the last lineup of G4s were supposedly being sold at around a 300 dollar profit to apple.
2000 - 3000 is a very fair price for the G5 IMO. I was really amazed that the top end was only 3k when the low end started at 2k [i was expecting 3.5 - 4k].
when i bought my dual 500 [the day they came out] it was 3600... so being 300 dollars cheaper for the top end machine is quite impressive.


----------



## mdnky (Jun 25, 2003)

Does this quell the dispute of too much?  You get a faster machine with faster memory, more disc space, and more connections (firewire/1394, USB/USB2.0, Optical Audio, etc.), and a very stable OS for *$840 LESS!*  Normally you get what you pay for, here you get a whole lot more for less.  Remind me again why we're complaining?!?!?

Dell 450 Workstation
 Dual Xeon 3.06
 Windows XP SP1
 512mb DDR 2600 ram
 120gb 7200rpm drive
 64mb ATI Fire Video
 4x DVD RW/R
 1394 card
 No modem
-------------------------------
$3839  (No office software selected)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Apple G5
 Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
 Mac OS X
 512MB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x256
 160GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
 ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
 SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
 56k V.92 internal modem
-------------------------------
$2999


----------



## pyroboy (Jun 25, 2003)

*A Special Note to Those Complaining About High Apple Prices Regarding G5's:*

Due to overwhelming demand, if you put your order in today, you should be able to get a G5 by September. 

I know, many of you are unwilling to buy such an expensive box, but it seems lots of people are more than willing to cough up the cash.

Although I would like to see G5s starting at $599, (a guy could dream) Maybe Apple knows what they are doing.


----------



## Koelling (Jun 25, 2003)

"It's always the people who complain the loudest about price that aren't in the market anyway." I read that on Slashdot I think but I could be wrong. The point is valid tho. If the price were a little lower, the complaining might be quieter but there still would be no machine sold. I'm not saying that Apple can charge whatever they want and we should stay quiet about it, I'm saying that the types of people who complain are not the types that buy computers as tools but as toys. They want to have the biggest freudian bragging rights and enough money left over to pay off the computer they got 6 months ago.


----------



## Cat (Jun 25, 2003)

Apple just raised their performance by 100% and the prices by 10%. Thus they effectively increased their price/performance ratio A LOT.
This means you now get a lot more more bang for little more buck. 

Moreover, G4 prices are plummeting, both new and second hand. Machines that yesterday were great, now are second rate, and priced as such. I wouldn't mind to get a Dual G4 1.42 for half the price at which it was originally introduced ... 

Don't complain: Rejoice! Apple's back in the pro market and the MHz gap is as good as closed.


----------



## Lazzo (Jun 25, 2003)

I purchase gear for my business. As ugly as the new G5 is (to me - Jonathan Ive must have been strangled with all those airholes) nothing will stop me buying the top-of-the-range version at these prices:

3 years ago: 450GHz DP, 768 ram, 30GB HD, SCSI card, *no* Superdrive, *standard* video, internal Zip etc: £2,850-ish

This year: 2GHz DP, 2 gigs ram, 160GB HD, don't use SCSI anymore, Superdrive, Radion 9700 Pro card, probably won't bother with Zip this time, Bluetooth, etc: £2,200-ish including VAT.

Wait for Panther to appear and save £600 or so between old mid-range and new top-range. Suits my business's 3-year Mac budget just fine!


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 25, 2003)

Yes, everyone has spoken. The G5's are priced well for their market. I guess what I'm looking for is a G5 in the iMac. Entry level machines in the PC world run circles around the iMacs in performance. So a low end G5 would be a perfect solution down the road. Maybe by MacWorld next January?


----------



## designer (Jun 25, 2003)

It's very good to be true. We alll know that G4 wasn't as good as they said or fast. But with G5 and 10.3, they got my money.

I just can't wait until August.

I still hope that they will release 2 button with scroll wheel that works as third button  Is that too much to ask?

I happy with my DP500 but I will very happy with G5


----------



## garethwi (Jun 25, 2003)

If you want a cheap box, then Apple is not for you.  Ever since I stopped buying PCs, and moved over Mac (my initial reason was that I wanted a Unix box that did multimedia without headaches), I've never ceased to be amazed by the whole experience.  

It's rather like that moment in life when you can for the first time buy a decent car, rather than just one that fits into a meagre budget.  I love my eMac, and I worship my TiBook, and I think OS X should rule the world.


----------



## Ripcord (Jun 25, 2003)

Hmmm...  I just caught myself thinking "wait, the WWDC keynote was on Monday.  Where's my new stuff on Tuesday?"

How greedy am I??

Rip


----------



## RC23 (Jun 26, 2003)

Apples dont really retain there value.. they just seem to because they stay high priced, because they are VERY high priced to begin with..

What im thinking is you would have to be stupid or desperate to get a g5 when they first release, i mean wait for panther, and the dual 3ghz, when those release, im anticipating a good price drop on the dual 2ghz..

and as for g4's when the g5's release in stores, a dual 1.42 is prolly gonna be in the 1600 range.. if so im sold.


----------



## Arden (Jun 26, 2003)

What do you mean, Apples don't retain their value?  I am currently typing this on a beige, 233 Mhz G3 tower that my family bought in Feb. 1998, and it can still run software like Adobe Photoshop 7.  Show me a PC that's 5.5 years old that runs nearly as well on new software.

The new G5's are priced higher than the G4's because they have new technologies in them.  They have: G5 PPC 970 processors; a frontside bus that runs at _half the machine's clock speed_; 8X AGP Pro graphics slots; a _minimum_ of 80 GB hard drive; an expensive Superdrive; PCI-X slots on the mid-range and über-range; Firewire 800 and USB 2.0; and a completely new redesign.  As the costs of these new technologies decrease, so too will the cost of the entire line decrease.


----------



## bobbyfett (Jun 26, 2003)

Modern computers are so quick now that even an old machine take the B&W G3 will do what the majority of people ask of a computer and also keep the majority of business users happy. Apple towers have always been Medium to hi-end machines specd at the print and digital media industry, however as the lifespan of productivity has increased the need for businesses to renew workstations reduces. PCs have a short cycle compared with Macs, they are bought cheaply and disposed of without much care. Macs are generally loved and retained until they are on their last legs.

I think thats the paradox right there if Apple wish to increase market share.

New Macs used to be bought as a matter of proceeder, when a new mac came out  it ment a notable speed gain and work became more productive. This notable speed gain is now only reserved for hi-end users in digital video and 3d arenas. So now even a print graphics company, the steadfast of Apple buyers will be thinking twice about the necessity of a new machine at these prices. 

Now look at the PC market; Surfing a web page, writing a word doc, calculating an excel spreadsheet??? This is what the majority of businesses require a computer for.

If Apple want to tap into the PC market share, which is a different kettle of fish from the current Mac one, then prices need to fall, especially as times and pursestrings are tight.


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 26, 2003)

"The new G5's are priced higher than the G4's because they have new technologies in them."

What the ...? Computers will always have newer technology in them. Apple seems to think its in the car business. Technology should get cheaper not more expensive.

The dual 2ghz is priced right. The 1.6ghz is way overpriced. Apple needs a Power Mac around $1100 or so.


----------



## fryke (Jun 26, 2003)

To all those who want a G5 in an iMac. Look at those processor cages, read the stuff about the 9 fans and look at the air-flow pictures. Then look at the base of an iMac and go: "Hmm..." (I guess that's Jonathan Ive's main 'thing' right now: Looking at the iMac, the G5, those air-flow pictures and going 'Hmm...'.)


----------



## gwynarion (Jun 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jocknerd _
> *"The new G5's are priced higher than the G4's because they have new technologies in them."
> 
> What the ...? Computers will always have newer technology in them. Apple seems to think its in the car business. Technology should get cheaper not more expensive.
> ...


Saying there should be a G5 for $1k is like asking for dual P4s for $500.  If you want to spend $500 on a PC you're probably going to get a Celeron and if you want to spend $1k on a Macintosh you're going to get a G4.  That's just the way it is.  Eventually the price on the PowerMacs will come down, but I wouldn't count on seeing one below $1,500 for a good long time -- probably not until the G5 has cooled down a lot and filtered down into the consumer machines and the PowerMacs are sporting  G6s.


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 26, 2003)

If the G5 is putting out this much heat, I'm surprised. I thought it was supposed to be use less power than the G4 and put out less heat. If it IS putting out a lot of heat, then Apple is in trouble on the low end. They need to get it in the iMac. I don't care what Apple people say, a G4 just doesn't cut it. I talked my mom into an iMac a couple of months ago and then built my sister an AMD 1.8ghz system last month for less than $700. It runs circles around the iMac. The iMac is a 1ghz with maxed out memory. The AMD machine has 512MB of memory. Maybe it isn't totally the processor. The FSB may have something to do with it. But Apple needs to get something faster in the consumer line otherwise they will be a workstation only computer company.

And market share does matter. Software developers look at market share.

By the way, I'm an Apple fan. I'm just not blinded by love.


----------



## gwynarion (Jun 26, 2003)

Well at 1.8GHz it has a power dissipation of 42W -- 12W higher than a 1GHz G4.  While this is pretty good for how much of a speed increase it is, it is still more.  As for getting it in to the iMac, how long was it between the introduction of the G4 and its inclusion in an iMac or eMac?  I think that based on what we're seeing coming out of Motorola right now combined with Apple's general pattern of behaviour the iMac will continue to be G4 powered for quite a while to come.

Regarding that 1.8GHz AMD system you built, did you squeeze it in to a case the size of the iMac?  Was there an LCD floating overhead on a metal boom?  Did it have low power consumption and only one, practically silent fan?  No?  Maybe that's because it's a different computer.  Yes, anyone who compares the two is going to find that the peecee is faster.  But anyone who absolutely must have the fastest computer and values that aspect above all others is going to go for the AMD or Intel powered machine anyway.  Most people who buy Macs aren't doing so because they unconditionally trust in the MHz myth and simply can't believe than anything could be faster than a Mac.  They are doing it for other reasons entirely.  I won't bother trying to enumerate all of the reasons since I'm sure we all know them.  Suffice it to say that there is more on the side of the Mac than processor speed.

So I don't think it is greatly important for the G5 to make it into the iMac within the next six or even twelve months.  I don't think Apple will keel over dead if the iMac is still G4 powered in eighteen months.  I think the places we need to see the G5 are in the Powerbook and the Xserve.  And for that I am willing to pay a premium.


----------



## Cat (Jun 26, 2003)

Hear, Hear!  Well said, gwynarion.


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 26, 2003)

I think you guys are missing the point. You are power users. My sister is not. I talked my mom into getting an iMac. My sister was living with her up until a couple of weeks ago. So she was using my moms iMac. I tried to talk my sister into buying an iMac. After using my moms iMac for about 3 weeks, she told me she didn't want one. It was too slow. This is from a girl who had a K6-400 PC up until recently.

Low end is where the market share is. Steve Jobs told Apple investors he wants to increase market share. Apple needs something on the low end to compete. If I bring an average user into CompUSA to compare an iMac with a PC thats even half the price, the PC is faster.  (Yes, I know that Apple has added value. But first impressions go a long way). They'll see windows come up faster. It makes it hard to convince someone to go with the iMac.

I just became a Mac user 1 year ago. I'm just looking at reality and that Apple needs to increase its market share. No it won't ever catch Microsoft. But 5% or less is not healthy. And poor performing low end machines don't help to change things. Apple needs the G5 in the iMac soon. Or at least a low end Power Mac. After all, the iMac has a 1ghz processor and the Power Mac G4 went up to only 1.42ghz. So their wasn't much difference before.

I really think all Power Macs should be dual G5's and put single G5's in the iMacs and PowerBooks. A dual 1.6ghz G5 Power Mac for $1999 sounds good to me.

Hey, I'm on your side. I'm just trying to get more people to use Apple.


----------



## RC23 (Jun 26, 2003)

Macs are moving at a slow pace. Soon Grantsdale wintel boards with Itanium2 and PCI Express will be released. Blowing the socks off a G5. Dual 3ghz Itanium 2's..  for half the price!

I love the look of all Macs... but I find myself talking myself into one, rather then knowing its the best performer. 

And for that comment "My 233mhz power mac runs Ps7"

So does my 400Mhz Celeron with 128ram... 5 years old.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 26, 2003)

For those expecting the G5 to be the same prices as the last iteration of the G4, take this in to consideration.

The G4 line was introduced in 1999. Apple has been utilizing the general design of the G4 for 4 years. They probably recouped their investment in the R&D sometime after the first run ended and the  speed bumps came out.

Now the G5 isn't just the G4 with a new chip. The entire motherboard has been redesigned. The technology on the mobo is completely new and completely different than the G4 mobo.

The G5 required a complete redesign in all aspects of it's hardware. Apple needs to recoup that R&D, so the first run of machines are going to be higher priced. Not to mention that they feel the demand will accomodate the higher prices.

If you aren't happy about the price, don't buy them. If enough people don't buy them, they will be forced to lower prices. Or wait until the first speed bump comes out in 6 months, at which time the first gen will be heavily discounted.

That's just how dem Apples falll....


----------



## binaryDigit (Jun 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RC23 _
> *Macs are moving at a slow pace. Soon Grantsdale wintel boards with Itanium2 and PCI Express will be released. Blowing the socks off a G5. Dual 3ghz Itanium 2's..  for half the price!
> ...*



Say what?  The fastest Itanium2's will only be *1.5ghz* by the end of the year!  I haven't seen the prices for the Dell, but if you look at their higher end Xeon workstation, it's $4k, and that's for a single processor system, so you can probably safely assume the I2 will be at LEAST that expensive.  Grantsdale isn't expected until the second half of NEXT YEAR.  What is your definition of "soon"?  Itanic2 will be lucky to be up to 2Ghz by then.


----------



## RC23 (Jun 26, 2003)

huh. Dual 3ghz Xeon Alienware system, 3k.

And maybe thats what needs to be done. Dont buy the G5's until they drop.


----------



## Anim8r (Jun 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by jocknerd _
> *I think you guys are missing the point. You are power users. My sister is not. I talked my mom into getting an iMac. My sister was living with her up until a couple of weeks ago. So she was using my moms iMac. I tried to talk my sister into buying an iMac. After using my moms iMac for about 3 weeks, she told me she didn't want one. It was too slow. This is from a girl who had a K6-400 PC up until recently.*



Let me ask you this. Was your sister surfing the web on IE?

If so I think we know where her perceptions come from. I have removed IE and only use the other browsers.


----------



## Anim8r (Jun 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RC23 _
> *Macs are moving at a slow pace. Soon Grantsdale wintel boards with Itanium2 and PCI Express will be released. Blowing the socks off a G5. Dual 3ghz Itanium 2's..  for half the price!
> 
> I love the look of all Macs... but I find myself talking myself into one, rather then knowing its the best performer.
> ...



Got news for you. The news inside Intel (which you won't hear outside) is that the new processors are not making the higher ups happy. Yields are regularly showing minimal increases in speeds at lower clock rates. Looks like Intel will have to start debunking the Mhz Myth themselves.

And no, I can't tell you my source because he would get the boot faster than you can shake a memory stick at. Let's just say level 10, ok?


----------



## jocknerd (Jun 26, 2003)

Anim8r: No my sister wasn't using IE. I don't know whats up with that iMac. I've messed with it. It seems slow to me. And I use an iBook 700mhz, so I was expecting the iMac to run circles around it, but it doesn't. I installed Jaguar from scratch on my iBook, but Jaguar came preinstalled on the iMac, so I don't know if that makes a difference or not.

I need to get over there and install Jaguar from scratch and see if that makes a difference.


----------



## AlanBDahl (Jun 27, 2003)

I think part of the problem is the users perception of what makes a computer "slow" or "fast" coupled with the way the computer is used.

For example PC's are "fast" at scrolling and app launches but slow at app switching and once you get more than 3-4 apps running at the same time performance drops off greatly.

To me even a 2ghz PC running XP feels like a dog since performance drops off to a crawl once I get IE, Word and X-windows running at the same time. Open up more than one document in Word and it gets even worse. By comparison with the Mac I can have 10 apps open at the same time. each with multiple documents open and the machine seems just as speedy as if it had one app running.

But if one only runs Word and no other apps with only one moderate-sized document open and starts/stops it each time then the PC is going to seem faster since Word will launch and scroll faster. I suspect that is what your sister was referring to.

Either that or you really did mess up your mac .


----------



## binaryDigit (Jun 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by AlanBDahl _
> *...
> For example PC's are "fast" at scrolling and app launches but slow at app switching and once you get more than 3-4 apps running at the same time performance drops off greatly.
> ...
> ...



Are you comparing a dual processor Mac with a single processor PC and how much RAM do they each have.  My Win2k box (256MB 1.4Ghz Athlon) does great with lots of windows open, but it also has fast drives, that coupled with reasonable memory means very little swapping and good performance even when swapping.  The XP box I'm forced to use at work (128MB 1.7Ghz Celeron) has a horrible time because 128MB just isn't enough to cause mightyful amounts of swapping to occur.  Just as with OSX, there is a magic amount of memory that you hit that keeps the swapping to a minimum (life was good when I went from 256MB to 768MB on my Pismo, OSX is a bit porky).  Of course having that second processor really shines when it comes to the user experience.  I used to use a dual 600Mhz PIII system at work, and it felt "faster" than other peoples 1.2ghz P4 simply because the second processor allowed for much better switching between tasks, etc.


----------



## hulkaros (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by binaryDigit _
> *...
> ...I used to use a dual 600Mhz PIII system at work, and it felt "faster" than other peoples 1.2ghz P4 simply because the second processor allowed for much better switching between tasks, etc. *



...P4 procs came at >=1.3GHz and not at >=1.2GHz... Just a friendly reminder!


----------

