New Power Mac G4 systems to be unveiled tomorrow with speeds up to 1.25GHz

I agree the low-end is the best value model by far (again assuming these specs are accurate).

But seriously....if I had a dual 500 MHz G4 tower and for $129, I can get a 30% speed increase across the board, more if I had a good graphics card, why would I want to spend $1700 getting a machine that probably won't be even twice as fast? Especially if I realize that in 6 more months, we may finally see G5 desktops or at least get mandatory things like USB 2.0, integrated Bluetooth, 800 Mbps FireWire and upgraded wireless by then (which I doubt this round of revisions have).

I think the soft sales for the last 2 quarters show that people are making do quite fine on existing machines, thank you. They're itching for a great excuse to upgrade, but these aren't it.

Jaguar provides so much more bang for the buck that it's going to seriously kill the sales of these half-hearted machines. In one of those unintended ironies, Jaguar looks to be so good that it will actually make holding out a viable strategy against weak efforts like these.

These revisions reek with the smell of compromise instead of the shine of innovation. Mac users will pay for innovation, but will chuck compromise out the door faster than a woodchuck can.
 
Well, of course Apple is taking too long. A dual 500 MHz G4 tower is still quite a viable machine, even more so with Jaguar, you're right here.

I don't think people who're running a Dual 1 GHz machine will upgrade straightly. But if you're a video or 3D pro and just _need_ every lil' bit of power you can have (and want to use a Macintosh), you will go from a Dual 500 MHz Mac to a Dual 1.2(5) Ghz, definitely.
 
I have to agree with all of the above sentiments.

These revsisions are some what underwhelming ("if that's a word").

But lets not forget that none of us have actually HEARD Apple talk about these new machines yet.

The FSB will definitely be up to 166Mhz at least on the top two models (166.67 x 6 = 1000, 166.67 x 7.5 = 1250). If that is using DDR, then we are looking at an effective 333MHz FSB.

These machines look to be a stop-gap measure until IBM can fill the void with a decent PPC chip. I wouldnt be surprsed if this is Motorola's last Mac.

Taken by themselves, the machines arent too bad. Running 10.2, with DDR and duals in all of them should make for some competitive machines. However, they will still come out behind AMDs offerings.

The real problem is that in order to SELL any of these, Apple has to distance them significantly from the older PowerMacs. And that just doesnt look to be the case.

C'mon Apple, get a good chip maker and innovate again. We know you can do it with the software.
 
Man, am I disappointed...

This is one upgrade I can not defend in any way shape or form. They have given Pro Mac users with 1 year old hardware no reason to want to upgrade.

If this is the best Moto can do, I really hope there is salvation in the new IBM Power4 inspired desktop chip they are set to unveil in Oct.

Apple has really got most of the other elements of it's strategy working right - Jaguar is the best OS available today on any platform, the iApps are a great incentive to jump to the Mac, the consumer machines are innovative and exciting, but the damn pro line is just stagnating...

If Apple wants to sell hardware to pros, it has to give them a reason to want to upgrade their machines every 12 months, as most pros will do. Unless these machines have 4MB L2 caches, I doubt the speed increases will be such that there will be significant incentive for someone with a dual 800 or dual 1ghz G4 to plunk down $3300 for a 1.25ghz G4 - just because it has cooling vents on the front...

Very, very, very disappointed...

Help us IBM, your our only hope....
 
Originally posted by vanguard


Here's a lesson, don't make stuff up because you'll end up looking silly. Your post was completely fact-free.

1. XP takes advatage of dual processors just as well as OSX.

2. XP/NT has been taking advantage of the graphics card for years.

3. Nobody I know would say that the OSX gui is faster than XP's.

Anyway, be careful when making technical statements. You're going to get busted.
Click to expand...

Yes, Windows XP DOES take advantage of dual processors. I kind of made that apparent in my original post. You should need to read some other sentences.

Windows XP does not give a dual processor user the benefit of faster processes when using Outlook or Word or the GUI interface--period. Mac OS X does.
 
Man!

So many misconceptions.

The P4 2.53 GHZ with a 533 system bus and 1066 Rambus is faster than the fastest available AMD processor. It's really that simple. It is faster in EVERY function and that is because it is clocked higher and has more memory throughput.

Take a look at hardware reviews at www.tomshardware.com, www.anandtech.com, www.hardocp.com, etc, etc, and you will see that ALL of them have benchmarked both processors and came to the same conclusion.

There is a time to defend AMD and say it is faster, but I suggest you wait until the Hammer series comes out.
 
Originally posted by Edge100


Oh how the world has changed!
Click to expand...

i hear you!! remember when you either bought an IBM (or IBM compatible) or a mac? once upon a time they were the only competition. kind of reminds you of international relations, doesn't it?
 
Let me just clarify my statement regarding XP versus OS X.

I am a Windows user and I am seriously considering purchasing a Mac rather than an extremely fast PC. One of the things that has me so interested in the Apple versus the PC is the operating system.

Apple DOES have the better operating system in OS X. It has many more features, I like the way it is setup more than with XP, and it takes much better advantage of dual processors. XP does take advantage of dual processors, but ONLY if the application is really designed to take advantage of dual processors itself. Sure there might be a SMALL different on programs that are not optimized for dual processors, but it really isn't going to be a very impressive difference.

I have seen the benchmarks for a dual processor running Mac OS 9 versus Mac OS X, and it is quite obvious that the dual processor Macs are faster in EVERYTHING in Mac OS X. In this particular review I read. a dual processor G4 running at 800 MHZ was smacked down by a single processor 867 MHZ G4 in OS 9. However, as soon as the benchmarks went over to OS X, the dual processor system was faster in every benchmark, by far. That is a very impressive operating system that Apple has developed. It is arguably the most advanced operating system every put into the hands of the general consumer.
 
First take: Underwhelmed. Not disgusted by any means, just not elated.

Second take: That dual 867 is a real bang for your buck winner. I mean, it's nearly as fast as my DP 1 Gig and at half the price I paid for mine. Not bad at all. That's the one the average semi-serious user will buy and be quite happy with.

Third take: As always, it's the high end pros that pick up the tab. The premium on the upper machines is a bit much, but pros that need that speed are usually willing to pay for it. I, however, will pass on this round and wait for the next. I'm hoping Jaguar will give me an artifical speed boost for a while.
 
Originally posted by pezagent
What good is iTunes, iDVD, iMovie, and the slew of other apps (a few things about Apple that I DO like, although they could use some improvement--we'll get to that later) if they don't have the processing speed they need?

Hey Apple, stop trying to wow me "WITH SPEEDS UP TO 1.25 GHZ"
BFD
Click to expand...


You're so completely way off. First of all iTunes and other iApps don't even need all that power to run so smoothly. The beauty of Apple, Mac OS X, adn the software will shine through anywhere from a 500 mhz G4 to the newest G4.

Refer to my post:
http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21205
(10th post down from the top)
 
I have a dual g4 500, 832ram, and for my uses right now, this mac screams. Other than some issues that are supposedly going away with 10.2, I feel like any extra speed will just be "bonus". My next mac purchase won't be bought based on the processor, it will only be based on its graphics card, and other internal crap (dvd burner, for instance).

I am basing this on my present situation, which is a total hobbyist and occasional gamer. Anyone out of these categories are sure to have their own opinions.

PS. I don't have the money for any new computer, period, so Apple's costing a little more doesn't bother me or affect whether or not I'm getting one.

On that note, however, I will head to ebay to see how much i might get for my present mac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top