Apple just doesn't get it.

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.

The dual 2ghz is priced right. The 1.6ghz is way overpriced. Apple needs a Power Mac around $1100 or so.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.. :eek: 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.
 
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....
 
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.. :eek: for half the price!
...
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
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.. :eek: 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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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 :).
 
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.
...
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.
...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

...P4 procs came at >=1.3GHz and not at >=1.2GHz... Just a friendly reminder! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top