PowerMac RoadMap Past and Future

[MacRumors]

The following information is from an unconfirmed source. As such, authenticity is always uncertain, but due to the content of the piece, was felt to be of sufficient interest for publishing. Take, as with all rumors, with an appropriate amount of skepticism.

What happened to Motorola's G5?

Apple had fully working prototype machines over a year ago, and Motorola was set to go into volume production early in 2002. On December 10, Chris Galvin phoned Steve Jobs announcing that the G5 will be delayed for at least 3 months due to glitches in its 0.13 micron process, which resulted in very low yields, and chips malfunctioning after a very short period of time. On December 17, Motorola announced to Apple that the G5 was delayed for at least 6 months, and then on February 25th Steve Jobs received a bombshell announcement that Motorola was ceasing development on the G5 indefinitely because it was making drastic cuts on R&D, and its main market is not desktop processors, but rather embedded processors. Days later, Apple reclaimed all its test boxes from key developers. Motorola instead has chosen to eke out as much performance as it can out of its G4 processors.

Where does this leave Apple?

During the G4 fiasco, Apple began looking to IBM for its next generation processor. In the fall of 2000, IBM assembled its 970 development team at the request of Apple. The objective was to have the performance of the Power 4, at a much lower cost. IBM also saw potential in this chip for its linux solutions. IBM began delivering Apple engineering samples of the 970 in May of this year, about the time the 970 was taped out. Apple has numerous working prototypes, and will begin to send them to key developers later this month.

How does this fit in to Apple's desktop and server roadmap?

Apple is in for another G4 drought in early 2003, whereby Motorola may not be able to push the G4 above 1.3 Ghz, which would be a paltry 50 Mhz speed bump with the upcoming 7457 G4. Right now, 7457 G4 yields above 1.3 Ghz are poor, as Motorola still has problems with their 0.13 Micron process IBM expects to be shipping the 970 in quantity early in Q3 of next year, in which time Apple will unveil the new pro desktops. The most likely introduction date is a Macworld NY keynote announcement, and if that does not materialize, Seybold will be the venture. Both the pro desktops and Xserve will not go much beyond 1.3 Ghz, though 1.5 Ghz may materialize should Motorola be able to come through, even though they might be a prototype version like the current 1.25Ghz version that is now shipping. The new Xserves will also have ATA 133, and will come with drive sizes up to 320GB (Maxtor), giving a total of 1.2 Terabytes.

How will these machines be branded?

Many people were expecting that Apple would be branding the 970 as the G5. This is quite a point of contention at Apple right now among the marketing people. The 970 is truly not a 5th generation processor, because the Power 4 is IBM's 4th generation processor, or if you would call it, a second generation 64-bit processor. No decision is expected until around WWDC.

What processors will Apple use in future generations of Macs?

Apple will stay with PowerPC for at least two more generations. Currently in development is the 980 processor, which is a single core variant of the upcoming power 5, which has VMX, which is due at the same time as the Power 5 in Q3 2004. It will feature fast path technology, which is similar to Intel's rapid execution unit to take over tasks that software currently handles more slowly. It will have simultaneous multi threading, which allows one chip to function as two. All future Power series processors beginning with the Power 5 will also have VMX. The 990 successor will appear in Q1 2006, and will be built on a 65nm process.

Consumer macs will remain with Motorola for 2003. In 2004, it is uncertain whether Motorola will produce the 7457RM G4, which will top 2Ghz, and feature new bus topology, and Rapid IO. It is essentially what the G5 was intended on being, except being scaled back in some respects.

What about rumors of OS X on Intel?

Marklar is even more of a going concern than ever. Contrary to circulating rumors, it is not meant to be a Power PC exit strategy. Rather, it is intended to be offered to X86 users when Apple sees market conditions being fit for it. What it means by this is regarding Intel's Lagrande technology, and Microsoft's Palladium technology. Apple intends on releasing OS X on Intel, when consumer dissatisfaction falls to an all time low for Microsoft when users become restricted to what they can do on their PC's due to Lagrande and Palladium. Likely it will be released in the event that Microsoft chooses to stop developing for the Mac platform altogether.

What new products can we expect?

An eight way 2U Xserve is currently in the works, and will be based on the 970, and will switch over to the Power 5. It will be Apple's high end server, and the name Xserve enterprise edition has been proposed. A high end multiprocessor workstation class pro model is also in the works. The name XStation has been proposed for it, and it could debut a year from now. It will feature Nvidia's highest end Quadro or equivalent graphics card, and it will feature the upcoming Power 5 chip from IBM.

[rice_web]

first post

Wow, I have to give credibility to this submission. I'd actually put some faith into this one.

I am terribly disappointed with the short-term outlook from this article, a paltry 1.3GHz? That's utterly pathetic.

[Mudbug]

okay, neato.
So now what? I wait a year to buy the workstation I need now?

[dongmin]

Nice read. But some major disputable points as with all rumors. The biggest for me is the statement "Motorola may not be able to push the G4 above 1.3 Ghz."

I highly doubt Apple would introduce the G4 at 1.25 in mid August only to wait 11 months for the next speed bump, as the article implies. Apple is going to do something--"overclocking", going to quad processors, asking another vendor to manufacture the chips--to bridge the gap between now and the next major processor.

[Choppaface]

the OSX on intel thing sounds a bit foggy

wouldnt it make sense that MS + hollywould would've passed a law through to require something like palladium required before consumers have the chance to go nuts?

[rice_web]

Mudbug, buy a PC! w00t.

In all seriousness, a PC won't do you any harm. If you need a new machine but the PowerMacs won't cut it, simply pick up one of Alienware's DV systems (they are NICE).

Overall, I'm quite upset with this news. However, what happens to the iMac?

[Durandal7]

The OS X x86 sounds somewhat realistic to me. I kind of figured that the only scenario of Marklar getting released would be to screw M$ big time.

[G4scott]

Holy sh|t, rally the troops, the tides are turning (or at least they might, in about 9 months...) Motorola gave Apple the shaft, but to hear that the PPC970 was created because of demand from Apple is quite astonishing (assuming that the article is creditable) What it looks like to me, is that Apple will introduce these machines, or at least a prototype, in January. If you think about it, it seems to be the smart thing. Apple can't hold pro customers with its desktop line. Sure, the new G4's are nice, but they won't be attracting people for long. They can either hold out until Q3 2003, and let many potential customers who are unsure about Apple's future switch to pee-cee's, or Apple could announce their plans for this computer ahead of time. Although it might kill PowerMac sales, I think it will keep more people sticking to the Mac platform, if not picking up more. Apple really needs something different for their desktops, soon. With the new PowerBooks with super-drives, I've seen more people actually getting them than before. The PowerBook (and some other 'breakthrough digital device' might pull Apple through the end of the year, and Q1, but the desktop market has already gone flat. Besides, If I can remember correctly, Apple has announced (or at least previewed) several products months ahead of time (can you say xServe RAID???)

The xServe upgrades are good too.

I like the way that they view project Marklar. They are right, when they talk about an all-time low for m$... With so much security problems, and the constant annoyance that only microsoft can provide, If Apple finds the right time, and hits just right, they might be able to turn the tides against m$, but they need to make sure that they have something really good to offer, because they'll need it to convince the masses to install the Mac OS on their pee-cee's...

[cspace]

...this sounds like it makes sense to me as well. i'd expect apple to go with quad machines in the mean time. let's hope they have some software goodies in the pipeline at least!

cspace

[ddtlm]

A very interesting story about the G5... I would love for Apple and/or Moto to tell their story about it some day. Needless to say, we don't know for sure if this was the real story.

In the fall of 2000, IBM assembled its 970 development team at the request of Apple. The objective was to have the performance of the Power 4, at a much lower cost. IBM also saw potential in this chip for its linux solutions. IBM began delivering Apple engineering samples of the 970 in May of this year, about the time the 970 was taped out. Apple has numerous working prototypes, and will begin to send them to key developers later this month.
I'd have to say this is believable, more-or-less. I forget when Linux was starting to catch on at IBM, but late 2000 doesn't sound too far off.

Using OSX on x86 as something of a weapon against MS is interesting. MS might just be perswaded to keep those OSX apps coming if Apple agrees to stay in its box. On the other hand, I'm not sure that Apple would survive such a showdown. How could they possibly sell OSX for PCs in general, with all the support costs for all the hardware, and how could they expect that to do anything other than undermine their hardware buisiness. Hmmm, that part does sound a bit fishy.

An eight way 2U Xserve is currently in the works, and will be based on the 970, and will switch over to the Power 5.
I take issue with this however. What a load a crap. 8 fast processors in 2U? Hahahaha! Do you want space for hard drives with that? Needless to say, "Power 5" must be a typo.

[bluecell]

Rubbish. If Apple stays with Moto all the way through 2003, it's all over. I'm not subscribing to this story.

[IJ Reilly]

"Likely it will be released in the event that Microsoft chooses to stop developing for the Mac platform altogether."

What is this, a doomsday scenario?

I fail to understand how releasing OSX for x86 makes any more sense after such an event then it made before the event. I think we're meant to understand this a representing some sort of implied threat from Microsoft and/or quid pro quo -- Apple gets application support from Redmond if Apple keeps OSX off the x86 platform.

For one, I seriously doubt that Microsoft cares enough about OSX to make a deal of this kind, and for another, they are perfectly capable of locking down the big PC OEMs and laughing off any OSX "threat." It's what they've been doing for years.

[G4scott]

Wow... I didn't read the bottom paragraph...

This article either makes sense completely, or is a load of crap (although I'm hoping it isn't)

Remember all of the G5 rumors? This article seems to give a reasonable explanation, especially since we all know that mot's processor division is cutting back so much, mainly on desktop chips. Maybe the G5 was about to happen, but Motorola gave it the shaft, and put it on the back-burner. If this is true, then we could've had G5's for quite some time already.

The 2U xServe and the xStation may seem like a pipe-dream right now, but that's mainly because of the letdown of the G5. Now, it appears that we might actually have a chip that will pull through, and some more powerful chips in the future. If we see PPC970 based Macs next year, I'd say expect to see a lot more from Apple after that. Apple's probably had awesome plans for the G5 for quite some time, but since it never materialized, I guess it just went to waste (I'm sure Jobs was pissed) If they have the same, if not better plans for the 970, and they actually put out, I'm going to be one happy mo-fo...

[fatalerror101]

well that sucks, this news just killed my weekend....,
maybe, IBM will.... ahh nevermind were in the hole.... hope, hope is what we need now. :(







PowerBook G4 1 GHZ

[joed]

This maybe partly the reason why the Xserve RAID has been delayed.

Also, with the amount of cooling the new towers are needing shows that the 1.25Ghz chip is maxing out. But 1.3Ghzt max, that's pretty pitiful. And Apple would never increase the speed by only 50Hzt.

Interesting to see what the Xserve update next year brings!


James.

[G4scott]

Originally posted by fatalerror101
well that sucks, this news just killed my weekend....,
maybe, IBM will.... ahh nevermind were in the hole.... hope, hope is what we need now. :(

How did it kill your weekend. This seems like good news to me. We all knew that the 970 wouldn't be out until Q3 2003, and then there was some skepticism about whether or not Apple would actually use it. Now, it appears they will (assuming the source is creditable), which seems like good news to me...

I do agree that we need hope, though. It takes a true Mac fan to be so dedicated to the Mac through such hard times ;)

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by rice_web
Mudbug, buy a PC! w00t.

Not until you pry my macs from my cold, dead hands.

No, as I agree with the post of this being a nice read, the validity seems pretty questionable.
For starters, there's the lack of responsibility for writing it. Now, maybe Arn decided to keep that from us, but I doubt the real author signed his work.
Second of all, if someone knew this much about what's going on and waited until now to expunge all their knowledge, why now? Why know this much about this many different things and stay a lurker in a rumors chatroom. If he worked for Apple, then filtering a little of this over time would possibly be a good way to judge reaction from the "zealots" (myself included) and find out whether the public is willing to shell out an extra $1000 for a speed bump that basically without benchtest equipment the average joe won't ever notice.

No offense to you guys toiling away on your iMacs, but the power users of the world are the ones that want and need faster system busses, more ram, faster processing, multiple processors, etc... You just want them to hold your own in these chatrooms. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

Now, about the G5 naming thing for the IBM 970. So what if it's second generation for IBM? It would be a "new generation" processor for Apple, so that would make it a new G number, right? I would be suprised if Apple came out with a new processor that's a lesser of this chip and gave it the name G5, just to make it sound better to Joe Q. Public. My father doesn't give a squat if it's a G4 or a G5 or a Q76 (or whatever). He just wants to know that his camera and printer work with it now.
I think Shakespeare already covered this with the "rose" part in Romeo & Juliet.

As for Marklar making it's way to the light of day, I say fat chance for at least a few years. Like it or not (and I can't believe I'm saying this) XP is at least a MUCH better operating system that the others M$ has put out in the past. It feels better. Let's just say it crashes like the old ones, but now it does it with style and grace. But as a previous post in another section pointed out, in order to make OSX run on any Wintel box with any external or internal added piece of crap that companies make, there's a lot of code left to write for OSX. It stings a tad to come home with your new scanner/copier/fax/buttwiper and find out there is no driver made to make that work with your computer, even though it says it will on the box. There'd have to be a revamp of so many things to make that a possibility, Apple would go down. Painfully.
Ask anyone who made the great upgrade in a prepress/ad agency type of job from a Beige box G3 or earlier to a new Sawtooth, Quicksilver, etc. How much fun was it to have to buy all of those adapters and support pieces just to make all the external gadgets you already spent your hard earned $$ on work with the new computer you just spent the rest of your hard earned $$ on. And those folks know how to make one piece talk to another.
To bring my dad back into this, if the printer, scanner, digital camera, and external CD burner he has on his computer now don't work with his new computer, the computer's going back to the store, not the other stuff. He already knows how to do that.
With all the switch campaign going on, the last thing that Apple would want to do would be to make the process of switching more confusing.

Just my 10¢. My 2¢ is free.

[fatalerror101]

It killed my weekend because i had hoped that thier would be a new line of somewhat faster G4's at MWSF. I was secretly hoping that perhaps Apple would suprise us or something....

I don't know, i am tired leave me alone
I just wanna faster Mac....
not that my powerbook isn't fast :)



PowerBook G4 1GHZ

[ddtlm]

fatalerror101:

You are aware of the meaning of "rumor", aren't you?

Mudbug:

Yeah, I think that the x86 OSX thing, along with the 8-way 2U PPC-970, are both outlandish and poke massive holes in this rumor. Overall I think this rumor deserves a failing grade.

[arn]

Originally posted by fatalerror101
It killed my weekend because i had hoped that thier would be a new line of somewhat faster G4's at MWSF. I was secretly hoping that perhaps Apple would suprise us or something....



Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF

arn

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by G4scott
I like the way that they view project Marklar. They are right, when they talk about an all-time low for m$... With so much security problems, and the constant annoyance that only microsoft can provide, If Apple finds the right time, and hits just right, they might be able to turn the tides against m$, but they need to make sure that they have something really good to offer, because they'll need it to convince the masses to install the Mac OS on their pee-cee's...

PC users have always had good reasons available to them to choose a Mac. Getting people to drop Windows (or any other platform, in fact) is mainly a matter of overcoming a huge amount of inertia -- investments in software, time and energy in learning the OS, etc.

Not otherwise being constrained by competition, Microsoft has become very adept at modulating the discomfort level of its customers. They turn the heat up gradually, and when enough people say "ouch," they lower the flame just a bit. It's only temporary of course -- they'll start raising the flame again later on. It's the classic frog in a pan of water trick.

No, Apple will not be given some "magic" moment when they can release OSX for x86 and have droves of disillusioned Windows users wiping their PC hard drives and installing OSX. Let's be realistic here -- mass migrations may happen with birds and antelope, not computer owners.

[chmorley]

Originally posted by G4scott
I do agree that we need hope, though. It takes a true Mac fan to be so dedicated to the Mac through such hard times ;) Not to sound like an old fart, but I don't think these times are tough at all compared to what it was. Apple actually was on the ropes shortly before Jobs' return, and even then they had some great strengths. Their biggest challenge were the harbingers of doom--those who were predicting the death of the company were helping make it come about. I knew people who were reluctant to by a Mac because they were sure they would have no support within a year. In response, I bought a 7500. Things are much better now than then.

As in sports, people seem to get too high when things are only pretty good, and too low when things are just poor. There are very good things happening at Apple right now--they just aren't happening with the hardware. Because Apple makes such a great OS and great software, people still see clear reasons to switch to/stick with the Mac.

I know two people who have switched to Mac in the past 2 months, and a third who probably will. I don't know any Mac users who have switched to PC. Certainly they're out there, but let's can the drama. Things are not horrible. They could be better, but they're not horrible.

Chris

p.s., It would be a real drag if there are no significant speed bumps planned over the next 6-9 months, but I still wouldn't switch to a PC.

[Hawthorne]

I feels right, and fills in a lot of holes. As for the lack of speed boosts, I think that 1.5 ghz and a ramping up in bus speed in anticipation of the 970 will be enough to last the Mac community until the end of next year.

Remind me to throw angry glares at the next Motorola chip plant I drive by, though... :)

[ddtlm]

...and IJ Reilly throws another stone at the x86-OSX claims in this rumor.:)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by ddtlm
...and IJ Reilly throws another stone at the x86-OSX claims in this rumor.:)

He shoots, he scores?:D

[joed]

The main reason I use (and have been using) Apple computer is mainly for the software - ease of use and all that.

So if I had the option to get a PC with OSX, I would definately consider it.

Their hardware sales would definatley be affected!

[fatalerror101]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fatalerror101
It killed my weekend because i had hoped that thier would be a new line of somewhat faster G4's at MWSF. I was secretly hoping that perhaps Apple would suprise us or something....
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF

arn

Thanks arn, i kinda figured that. That's why i had said hoped...ok

[insidedanshead]

MWSF is going to be all about iApps..and maybe another iDevice... apple dug to the bottom of its barrel last month (er whenever it was - i have the worst sense of time) to meet a consumer demand I think and released the new machines and bumped the speeds.. they could have waited until Jan but that would have hurt them more.. I agree with arn.. apple has never made two updates to any line in that short period of time. But it never hurts to keep your fingers crossed.. the 970 is an amazing processor based on its specs.. the sooner the better, apple.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by Mudbug
It stings a tad to come home with your new scanner/copier/fax/buttwiper and find out there is no driver made to make that work with your computer, even though it says it will on the box.
Don't I know it! I can't wait to stop having to use wadded up sheets of paper on my filthy arse...

[jaredbbauer]

I switched to the Macintosh platform almost a year ago now and since that time many of my friends have switched to it, and to tell you the truth none of us cared about speed. I love that so many of you in this forum consider yourself experts on what the rest of the world wants. Lets face it, we are the nerds of the tech world, we are the ones who care about every little detail. To be right honest I highly doubt that more than just a few percent of us Mac people care about the speed bumps. Most people buy when they see a cool new announcment or because there old computer is almost dead. Don't get me wrong I would love to have faster Macs, I just think that a lot of us place way to much emphasis on it. PC sales are down not because of bad processors but because of recession. I think that we should be much more worried about that than what speed the new processors are going to be. Steve will come through for us, he always does.

Just my two cents.

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by jaredbbauer
I think that we should be much more worried about that than what speed the new processors are going to be. Steve will come through for us, he always does.


Sounds of choirs singing in the background...
Amen, brother. Amen.

[alex_ant]

Like others so far, I find the OS X x86 and Xserve portions of this rumor to be kind of wild... but I wonder how the Motorola/IBM saga mentioned in the first part correlate to those leaked pictures of prototype Apple machines we saw a few months ago - one from eBay and wasn't there another?

We were hearing rumors of G5 Mac test boxes, and even saw a photo or two of these boxes which may or may not have been fakes. Could one of these old photos have showed a 970 or a G5? I'm not sure that this is very important - just a curiosity.

Is Motorola still on track for the G6 and G7, starting in 2005, as rumored? The G5 was a failure, but one thing that's not vaporous is that Motorola are building a new state-of-the-art fab in Grenoble. Will IBM induce them into getting back into the PPC game?

[FattyMembrane]

this article said that when ibm does produce the 970 some time within the next year, it would run at 1.3 ghz. i thought that there was an official ibm doc a few weeks ago that said it would start out at 1.8 ghz. was i mistaken, or was that the power4+? i think that this is one of those deals that must be taken with a grain of salt until steve pulls back the curtain. after all, the man is always grinning like he knows something we don't.

[jaredbbauer]

iginally posted by FattyMembrane [/i]
after all, the man is always grinning like he knows something we don't. [/QUOTE]

Steve is a Genious

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
this article said that when ibm does produce the 970 some time within the next year, it would run at 1.3 ghz. i thought that there was an official ibm doc a few weeks ago that said it would start out at 1.8 ghz. was i mistaken, or was that the power4+?
You were mistaken... it's the G4 that is being rumored not to go beyond 1.3GHz by the next revision. The lowest GHz number I've seen for the 970 is 1.5, with 1.8 on the high end. Those sound low, but there is a lot of headroom there, since IBM will have the 970 on 0.09u (and thus be able to scale the chip very well) before Intel.

[chmorley]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
this article said that when ibm does produce the 970 some time within the next year, it would run at 1.3 ghz. i thought that there was an official ibm doc a few weeks ago that said it would start out at 1.8 ghz. was i mistaken, or was that the power4+?Nope. It said 1.4-1.8 Ghz. Check it here (http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A1387A29AC1C2AE087256C5200611780/$file/PPC970_MPF2002.pdf).

Chris

[ddtlm]

alex_ant:

Those sound low, but there is a lot of headroom there, since IBM will have the 970 on 0.09u (and thus be able to scale the chip very well) before Intel.

I swear I corrected you on this before... or was it someone else? Oh well, anyway IBM is not getting to 90nm any sooner than Intel (Moto says that they will... so perhaps all the rumors got smashed together into some fantasy... but I digress). Intel has pushed back their plans, but 3 months ago they were on track to have 90nm chips out before the PPC-970 was even available for sale. All the in-the-know people I have read still seem to think that 90nm in late 2003 is possible from Intel.

[alex_ant]

I stand corrected. Ass :)

[Arcady]

If i didn't know better, I'd swear this nonsense came from Ryan Meader. He's been pulling 4 and 8 processor Mac rumors out of his ass since the days of the 604e.

[ddtlm]

alex_ant:

And my reply was that after is passed through the de-asshole-ifier. :)

[ddtlm]

Arcady:

Yeah, a lot of people have been hyping 4 and 8 processor Macs for a long time... seems silly to me but for some reason it just never dies despite being wrong 100% of the time. A 4-way G4 would be such an aukward beast.

But apparently now 4-way isn't enough for the rumor-mongers. :rolleyes:

[dricci]

AMD recently announced they're no longer competing with Intel to put out faster chips, they're going to focus on other areas. So guess what this means? No competition to Intel, Intel processers get more expensive and stay at their current speed, giving us a chance to catch up! Intel is now at 3GHz, and with no competition, they probably have no need to go any faster.
(Note: This is not an AMD rumor. If you think it is, re-read this again).

If all of this is true, it just killed off about 2 years worth of upcoming rumors... It's like having the answer key to a big Apple test :D

It'll be interesting to see which ways Apple can keep the G4 fresh in the high end. In the lower end they just have to slowly raise it a few hundred MHz and change the graphics chip, but in the higher end, there'll be problems. AGP 8x, anyone? ;)

[ddtlm]

dricci:

AMD recently announced they're no longer competing with Intel to put out faster chips
You're apparently confused. I am aware of a recent article:

http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/11/19/rtr799607.html

Which you may be referring to. However you are saying things that were not said in the article. The closest the article came to agreeing with you was saying that AMD no longer sees having the fastest chip as being a big deal... this is not to say that they have stopped "competing with Intel to put out faster chips". They have simply said it hardly matters... and they are right.

[Timothy]

This is not looking too good. All we have is vapor ware. Rumors built upon rumors, and nothing concrete to hold onto. I'm very worried.

[quantum_flux]

You know, this makes the timing regarding the introduction of the G4 iMac make a lot more sense to me.

In late 2000, if Apple was anticipating going to the doomed G5 in early 2002, they probably planned to also move their entire consumer line to the G4 processor and started work on the G4 iMac (and possible, eMac) -- assuming that at MacWorld they'd release the G4 iMac and G5 PowerMac. When the G5's fizzled out they still had the new iMacs ready to go.

I remember people being upset at the time that the new iMacs rivaled the desktop line in speed and other specs, and this was probably never intended to be the case, since Apple likes to make their i-line seem a whole lot less capable than the Pro-line. If it weren't, we'd be seeing the currently available 1.5GHz G3's. Stupid Apple...

[retaks]

Well first we heard that apple may switch to IBM's new chip, which made me happy i think we're all tired of what motorola can do. Then we get another rumor short after that speculates apple using AMD's clawhammer/athalon 64 chip which made me even happier! but then we get this that says there will just be another G4? that just dropped the bomb there =[ . But IBM has a new chip, and aple people were seen at comcast or whatever hopefully one of these companies can surely replace moto! I just hope we're not stuck in the low 1ghz again while intel is at 3ghz unless apple gets a 64 bit chip then it will be all good. But im hoping for a new chip none the less. What will MWSF bring! pLease i want to know!!!!!!! Waiting sucks!

[altair]

Originally posted by alex_ant
Like others so far, I find the OS X x86 and Xserve portions of this rumor to be kind of wild...

[QUOTE] [B]Rather, it is intended to be offered to X86 users when Apple sees market conditions being fit for it. What it means by this is regarding Intel's Lagrande technology, and Microsoft's Palladium technology. Apple intends on releasing OS X on Intel, when consumer dissatisfaction falls to an all time low for Microsoft when users become restricted to what they can do on their PC's due to Lagrande and Palladium.[B]

I don't know if there has been a forum discussing Palladium in the past, however it seems that most people here are unaware of the details of it. To me, the release of Palladium is the greatest possible switch campaign for Apple. I won't try to tell you what Palladium does, you can read for yourself here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html) . I realize that this site looks kinda shady, but just look at all his resources at the bottom, of specific interest is the MS Palladium FAQ, which is linked at the bottom of the article. I hope you all enjoy and get a bit frightened as I have.

-altair

--------------------------------
beastly iMac rev B 333, w/40gig HD

[retaks]

Originally posted by joed
The main reason I use (and have been using) Apple computer is mainly for the software - ease of use and all that.

So if I had the option to get a PC with OSX, I would definately consider it.

Their hardware sales would definatley be affected!

I totally agree, Mac OS 10.2 conquers but apples speeds are killed by pc's also the hardware compatability, pc's get the new graphic cards and addons cheap. If os 10 was on a PC it would own, but i doubt apple will do that and if they did they would definatley do some things to the software to make sure everyone was paying for it.

[Clockwork]

What if Apple put OSX on x86 to be able to compare performance between x86 and powerpc architecture. Maybe performance differences between the two could provide valuable information, so that Apple could tweek OSX performance on powerpc. Is this a far off suggestion?

As for the news about the PPC 970. I think it is great to know that IBM probably will be taking over the production off Apple's Pro line cpu's. For the ones who can't wait a year for this. Buy a new Power Mac and then sell it on Ebay. You won't loose that much :rolleyes:

[foniks2020]

Let's see what is Apple still missing BESIDES faster processors? or put another way, what could Apple ADD to their current hardware offerings?

Faster Frontside Bus (The number one problem IMO)

Fully supported DDR RAM

Serial ATA -- (well to be fair PCs also don't really have this yet either)

More L2 and L3 cache (this is still one of the biggest speed boosters available)

Firewire 2

On board Bluetooth support

Faster hard drives, Superdrives (value adds)

What else?

[s10]

The author, Steve Jobs, wants a real suprize when he introducs the G5 next January.

[beatle888]

:eek:


" A high end multiprocessor workstation class pro model is also in the works. The name XStation has been proposed for it, and it could debut a year from now. It will feature Nvidia's highest end Quadro or equivalent graphics card, and it will feature the upcoming Power 5 chip from IBM. "


:D

[beatle888]

arn wrote:
Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated
guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at
MWSF

fatalerror101 wrote:
Thanks arn, i kinda figured that. That's why i had
said hoped...ok



looks like fatalerror might be living up to his
name, messing with arn.
:D

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by altair


[QUOTE] [B]Rather, it is intended to be offered to X86 users when Apple sees market conditions being fit for it. What it means by this is regarding Intel's Lagrande technology, and Microsoft's Palladium technology. Apple intends on releasing OS X on Intel, when consumer dissatisfaction falls to an all time low for Microsoft when users become restricted to what they can do on their PC's due to Lagrande and Palladium.[B]

I don't know if there has been a forum discussing Palladium in the past, however it seems that most people here are unaware of the details of it. To me, the release of Palladium is the greatest possible switch campaign for Apple. I won't try to tell you what Palladium does, you can read for yourself here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html) . I realize that this site looks kinda shady, but just look at all his resources at the bottom, of specific interest is the MS Palladium FAQ, which is linked at the bottom of the article. I hope you all enjoy and get a bit frightened as I have.

-altair

--------------------------------
beastly iMac rev B 333, w/40gig HD

With all this (and this guy doesn't even make Palladium out to be half as bad as it really is) all I have to say is: The future lies with the proles (http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984_c1.htm)... er... I mean... uh... Macs. Yeah, that's it, Macs.

[gotohamish]

Call me crazy, but if the Marklar project is simply a plan should M$ stop Mac development then wouldn't Apple be better suited using their developers to make a kick-ass, 100% compatible pro Office suite of their own? I'm guessing the Marklar project isn't a couple of fellas with PIII's sipping coffee and doing little updates!:cool:

[Bengt77]

:rolleyes:

If Apple would release OS X for x86, they could team up with Connectix to build something like Wine together (you know, that open source transparant Windows compatibility environment for Linux). They could even call it Classic! That way, x86 OS X users would have the same usability we have now with Classic. Could be great.

Furthermore, the G4 upgrade path seems soooo dull! The main reason I bought an iMac over a PowerMac is because the latter didn't offer that much more for such a higher price. Seems like they won't, either, for some time to come; damn!

:mad:

[Pale Fire]

I think the important clue here is "when did Apple announce that future macs would not boot OS 9?"

This is the point when Apple was sure they were going to be able to start shipping out 64 bit machines as the 64 bit machines wouldn't be able to run OS 9.

If you're really optimistic you could hope that this means that the machines relased after this date will partly be 64 bit (i.e. running IBM's new chip), but it's probably Apple easing the users into the fact that OS 9 won't be available before making the real 64 bit leap a little later.

[dekator]

Certainly made my day. We all knew about the processor problem Apple is currently in! Come on! Still, the outlook is nice. The best thing is the news about the strategy regarding M$/Palladium. That's what I always pondered. The moment Redmond has taken away the last bit of computerational freedom, people will finally be ready for regime change! Yes.

[Ifeelbloated]

I certainly believe that Steve Jobs went off on Motorola using every expletive in the book. I remember reading somewhere that he did that. I have total faith that Apple is looking elsewhere for processors for their machines. Steve, if you do peruse these boards, I gotta tell ya', the next machines better knock the ball out of the park. As far as the pro users are concerned. I want bragging rights against those PC weenies!!!

[engpjp]

As has happened several times before, the Winter update of *Macs will be minimal as regards clock frequency and bus transfer speeds. The white rabbit, meant to keep everyone's attention away from such matters until October/November, will be about new uses of connectivity. FW2, Bluetooth improvements, AirPort - even USB2 is being considered. The lifestyle gadget development will be less dramatic than often speculated, however: it will be an organic extension of the technology used hitherto.

Unfortunately, the development of OSX will continue as erratically as until now: brilliant new concepts introduced; gaping holes in the UI left untouched. And the parts relevant to enterprise connectivity constantly upgraded and improved. Sad stuff for the common man - although the new metadata capabilities will be exciting to play with.

engpjp

[j763]

Originally posted by Mudbug
XP is at least a MUCH better operating system that the others M$ has put out in the past.

XP has to be one of the biggest backwards steps in computer history. If Microsoft had kept doing what they started in 2000, there'd really be no reason for using Macs today. 2K had a lot of BSD stuff under-the-hood...

XP is designed for idiotic consumers.

2000 is faster and more stable. It's time to upgrade.

[j763]

Originally posted by arn



Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF

arn

Some educated guessing...

AGP 8x
FireWire 2
...and some other stuff ;)
@MWT

[PretendPCuser]

I realize that Palladium is a Windows thing, but could Marklar be developed in the case that Apple was forced to comply with DRM and switching to x86 would make it easier for them to do so? Any thoughts? I've heard that incorporating DRM wouldn't be too difficult to do on Apple's part, but if somehow M$ had the influence (!) and set standards with Palladium that were tied to the x86 family of processors... i just woke up, i'm thinking different... please ignore me...:confused:

[Fitzcaraldo]

Originally posted by GeeYouEye


With all this (and this guy doesn't even make Palladium out to be half as bad as it really is) all I have to say is: The future lies with the proles (http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984_c1.htm)... er... I mean... uh... Macs. Yeah, that's it, Macs.

With the European Courts currently discussing the making of Cookies illegal, I foresee problems with Palladium in Europe (Thankfully there is some sanity left). Should it go ahead, might we not end up with a situation of switching to say "Seimans" OS or "Phillips".


Re: Faster Macs.

Part of the beauty of the Mac (and perhaps apples problem) is that I still happily use my PPC 7600 for both Graphic and ID professional work. I have faster Machines (Mac’s) as well but when buying I just want a system that does what I need it for.

Re High end work, I welcome the introduction of faster workstations, but would also love to see a cheaper version of X-Serve, aimed primarily at being a render engine/farm, and hope apple will encourage native clustering in high end applications. This way we might scale the power we need for our required productivity?

I don’t know why Apple continue to make such a large issue of MHz in their model No.s and perhaps Gflops would be a better labelling system. Who remembers the days that Non Mac users found it bewildering to understand which Mac did what? ;)

[wymer100]

I really hope that the 970 comes out before Q4 2003. I understand that IBM would like to have volume production in Q3 2003. Maybe AMD might provide some pressure to reach this goal. AMD is going to have their 64-bit chips up and running in Q2 2003 (probably June). It would be nice if Apple were right on their heels and introduced the 970 in July. The introduction of the 970 in January is a long shot (1 in a billion). Unless there are miracles with the fab processes, we won't see it until the middle of next year at the earliest.

As far as not booting into OS9 come January, I think people are reading *way* too much into it. This move is simply a way of cutting costs and giving an extra push to developers to start developing for OSX. It's the same reason why MS doesn't support Win95. The fewer OS's people have to support, the more resources they to divert into other areas.

[Icewolf08]

I sat here reading this article after a friend of mine said to check it out. I have a few things to say. First of all we have known about IBM's planned release of the PPC 970 processor for some time, in fact there is a PDF file available that give all of the product specs for it that was released a while back. Next, what is the the big deal if Apple moves to IBM for processors. The original Apple PPC computers were based on chips that were the joint creation of Apple, IBM, and Motorola. We have been working with IBM PPC chips since the 601. Granted when we got to the G3 it was Motorola's baby that does not mean that we should shun or fear our partner.

Apple has to progress, and we have to keep turning out new machines and new technology because we have one of the best, if not the best platform out there. We also have to remember that raw processor speed is not everything I am not going to describe it here, but go read the latest issue of MacAddict magazine, they do a very good job.

It isn't worth our time to worry that IBM is going to manufacture the next generation of Apple processors, we should be happy, happy that apple is still pushing forward!

[drastik]

As far as not booting into OS9 come January, I think people are reading *way* too much into it. This move is simply a way of cutting costs and giving an extra push to developers to start developing for OSX. It's the same reason why MS doesn't support Win95. The fewer OS's people have to support, the more resources they to divert into other areas.

I agree here, 9 is dead tech. I realize that upgrading software is expensive and a pain, its taken me the better part of two years, but one day I woke up and realized that I hadn't run classic in months. All major applications now have X versions, and most of the minor ones. Those that do not, probably wouldn't have mac updates ever again anyway.

Exceptions to this are Pro Tools and Quark, but they are slowly comming, have faith.

So we wait another year. Who cares, Apple will survive and then we will have great fast computers. Speed don't mean crap unless you are a render farm or some other high production business, and then you have racks to work with.

I use a Mac because I believe, because it I con avoid M$ with relative ease, and because I'd rather support the right system, and yes, WAIT for the right system, than use stopgap crap.

[grgu]

Originally posted by beatle888
:eek:


" A high end multiprocessor workstation class pro model is also in the works. The name XStation has been proposed for it, and it could debut a year from now. It will feature Nvidia's highest end Quadro or equivalent graphics card, and it will feature the upcoming Power 5 chip from IBM. "


:D

Will the Power 5 include a vector processing unit? I have seen this article and it speeks about VMX2 in conjunction with the Power5. Is it some evolution of the VMX for the 970 or is VMX2 just something completly different? (A bus ...)

http://www.nersc.gov/news/blueplanetmore.html

[reyesmac]

Unless Steves adds the Nvida Gforce Ti card, two hard drives in a raid configuration and half maxed out ram in EVERY Powermac at MWNY, he can keep his 50mhz speedbump. If he released a 50mhz speed bump, it would take winning the mhz race later in the year to end the ridicule we will end up getting.

[3777]

Damn..... remind me to stock up on PC hardware just before this palladium crap is released. I'll run Linux and buy new Macs after Palladium

[Cappy]

Originally posted by j763


XP has to be one of the biggest backwards steps in computer history. If Microsoft had kept doing what they started in 2000, there'd really be no reason for using Macs today. 2K had a lot of BSD stuff under-the-hood...

XP is designed for idiotic consumers.

2000 is faster and more stable. It's time to upgrade.

Please share with us what BSD stuff was under the hood of Win2k and what of that was removed in WinXP.

I'll give you that 2000 is more stable but faster? Not if you turn the eye candy off in XP to give it a similar 2000 interface. Sure, the average consumer may not realize to do this but the average support person should be intelligent enough to do this for those he supports.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by reyesmac
Unless Steves adds the Nvida Gforce Ti card, two hard drives in a raid configuration and half maxed out ram in a new model at MWNY, he can keep his 50mhz speedbump. If he released a 50mhz speed bump, it would take winning the mhz race later in the year to end the ridicule we will end up getting.

I agree. I think SJ realizes this, though, and will be forced to demo prototypes of PowerMacs and XServes running the 970, maybe even as early as MWSF. It will kill PowerMac sales, but they are dead in the water anyway in the high-end Pro market if they don't do someting soon. They just can't afford to have one of their few areas of strength start defecting in large numbers to the x86. With their $4 Billion cash reserves, they can afford to lower their profitability for 2 or 3 quarters, if that's the cost of keeping a one of their key markets on the Mac platform.

I think consumers sales will be fine, though, even with only minor speed bumps. The iBook, TiBook, iMac, and eMac are still great consumer computers, and will have to compete on features and design rather than raw power.

[lmalave]

And let's not forget the iPod and any other new consumer electronic devices. I think Apple will hold its own in 2003, and at this time next year will be poised to really start making some inroads in the desktop market.

[gotohamish]

Originally posted by reyesmac
Unless Steves adds the Nvida Gforce Ti card, two hard drives in a raid configuration and half maxed out ram in EVERY Powermac at MWNY, he can keep his 50mhz speedbump. If he released a 50mhz speed bump, it would take winning the mhz race later in the year to end the ridicule we will end up getting.
I agree
I don't want to start another Megahertz Myth war again BUT I will say this:

(1) We all know how fast these Macs are, and to be perfectly honest, they're fast by any standards. I'm sitting here on a G4/500 tower with a Radeon 8500, and it's GREAT. It's done me proud since the day it came out, and I love it.

(2) I looked at MacUser this month and it had real-world benchmarks for the entire current Apple desktop range, and there were only a handful of seconds in it in most cases. I know that a new dual would rock for my video editing, but for the financial outlay it's just not worth it for speed alone.

(3) It's almost better that the Mhtz gap is large! Why? Because if I was Joe Public walking into a store to get a new PC and I saw a 2.5GHtz P4 for $1000 and an eMac 700 for $1000 I'd like to think they wouldn't say "Hell, that's a lot for 700MHtz compared to that P4" - they'd think "why's that, what does it do that's different? It must be a different item."

I will not get a new Mac until it can actually DO something new, not just the same stuff, faster. Like Gigawire/FW2, new digital devices etc.

Roll on MWSF, just keep it all coming, I will not use a PC, so it just doesn't matter. To quote the famous Arn:

"If you need a new computer now, get one. If you don't, wait!"

Thanks for listening.:D

[jayscheuerle]

Seriously folks, what tasks do you do that the current offerings are not up to snuff? Is this just about swordfights with your Wintel friends? At some point, more horsepower is just more horsepower. It won't make your driving experience any better. My Acura might hit 120mph, but that does me little good for the way I drive. In fact, for day to day trolling around the city (the driving equivalent of how most users use their computers), a 5 yr. old Saturn probably gets the job done just as well (but with less style, eh?)...

I'm still plugging away at home on a BEIGE G3!! For email and iTunes and some light design, it's still a great machine. I even do some Electric Image renderings on it from time to time. Any of the current machines, or those in the past year or two, would blow me away (especially if they killed the bevy of OSX speed lags).

King of the hill is a lonely place to be and you're always watching your back. On top of that, it's a short lived euphoria. Perhaps it's the frustration that the finest looking machines DESERVE to be powered by the fastest processors. Perhaps it's the frustration of not living up to potential. At this point, I could care less about processor speed as long as Apple continues to refine OSX itself and doesn't continue to paint themselves as Microsoft wanna be's with their poorly thought hostile marketing strategies.

- j

[3-22]

This is truly disappointing news, and unfortunately looks pretty authentic. I think it's one of those things that the reality is a lot more disappointing then the wild rumors. I was planning on a 1+ GHz iMac in January, and was hoping to jump from an AMD 1.2GHz PC then. I don't play too many games, and really wanted it for DV editing (just home movies) and coding. Now I'm debating if I should just bite the bullet, and buy a Pentium 4 3.0GHz w/ Hyper-Threading and a copy of MainConcept's EVE movie editor. (iMovie knock-off) Jeez, 2004?! Maybe Apple will announce some deep price cuts soon! (maybe)

[GPTurismo]

Maybe they will go ahead and move the XServe to Power4 O:-)

And they should have dropped MOTO a long time ago. They have been screwing the pooch for quite some time, and it looks like the pooch is now dead and they're still at it.

[engpjp]

Originally posted by wymer100
As far as not booting into OS9 come January, I think people are reading *way* too much into it. This move is simply a way of cutting costs and giving an extra push to developers to start developing for OSX. It's the same reason why MS doesn't support Win95. The fewer OS's people have to support, the more resources they to divert into other areas.

It is evident by now that the disabling of OS9 booting *IS* a sales-tactical, rather than a development-strategic move to focus resources on OSX. In the foreseeable future, new Macs will still be able to boot up in OS9 from a CD (for purposes of being able to dig into, and correct, faults occurring in OSX' convoluted innards. There will therefore be almost the same number of programmers writing hardware drivers for future Macs as there is today.

However, the hastening of the release of i- and PowerBooks which we saw earlier this month, rather than January, shows that Apple has found it necessary to modify the plans for scrapping OS9 booting; it might indicate that Apple will leave some kind of door open for those groups that out of sheer necessity, rather than stubbornness, will be working in OS9 for some time to come: musicians, educators, small businesses with software developed especially for them...

Apple can ill afford to push through an exodus from OS9 at a time when the financial pressures make many non-fanatics look once again at a less expensive, apparently faster, PC if the situation arises where they have to pay for both new hardware AND new software anyway. They may desire to go for socalled "standards", in that case. Apple is a "good-weather" computer, best suitable for "climates" where the means are there for choosing the more inspiring, rather than the less expensive option. For that reason, Apple needs to enable hardware-upgrading WITHOUT a necessary software upgrade - at least until the times get better.

engpjp

[Frobozz]

When the Quicksilver was introduced in February of this year, I jumped at the opportunity and bought one. The prices were dropped, the features were upgraded, and the Mac had finally hit 2 GHz. I bit. I bet the farm that my $2700 purchase was going to last me for 2 years without being left in the dust. It was the sweet spot in the Pro line for the past year. I think I feel a lot better about my purchase with this news. Oh, and let's not forget: it's not ugly like the new enclosures. HOWEVER, I would love to see a demo of the 970, and be proven wrong. Really.

I will upgrade to a new machine in a while, but it won't be for at least another year-- I'd need dual 2 GHz 970's, FW 2, faster motherboard, hypertransport, DDR memory, and a Radeon 9700 Pro All In Wonder.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Frobozz
I'd need dual 2 GHz 970's, FW 2, faster motherboard, hypertransport, DDR memory, and a Radeon 9700 Pro All In Wonder.

For?.....

[ddtlm]

Frobozz:

Radeon 9700 Pro All In Wonder
Eh? Since when is this coming to a Mac?

[Bradcoe]

Who said any of those things are officially coming to the mac?

[alex_ant]

He didn't say any of those were definitively coming to the Mac - he said he would need those if he were to upgrade.

[cubist]

Originally posted by jaredbbauer
...PC sales are down not because of bad processors but because of recession...

Good point. If speed is so important, how come PCs aren't selling like hotcakes?

[rmac]

I think the strategy makes sense. I have a Thinkpad for work that has Windows XP and Linux on it. After work I've spent some time trying to get DVDs to play in Linux but with no luck. So I boot into Windows when I need to do that.

For my real work I use Linux (correction, I ssh into my TCPA Linux box now from an eMac with OS X, but I digress....).

Microsoft is already tightening the reigns on copy protection. Just the other day I had to restart my computer 2 times to get through "Unbreakable" because Windows Media player kept thinking there was a copy right problem or something...not sure why it would have a problem an hour into the film, but it's Windows. Anyway, Palladium will give Microsoft even more power over what you can and can't do with your computer.

With Marklar, just like I boot into Windows to have more media options, maybe people will boot into OS X on a PC to be able to do the things we are free to do today, but which Palladium will prevent. I know I'd rather use iTunes than Media Player even now.

One of the early posts mentioned that the government may make palladium required by law. Marklar may be a backup in case that happens. Palladium involves hardware changes. Intel is adding instructions to their chips that are necessary for Palladium to work, and there is also a smart card on the motherboard for storing secrets. Doesn't sound like it would be that hard to make a PPC chip and motherboard with the same hardware....but I have no idea how long even something as simple as that could take.

Anyone know what "Lagrande" is? Could the writer have meant "Longhorn" (next generation Windows OS), or is "Lagrande" another name for Palladium?

[vniow]

Originally posted by rmac


Anyone know what "Lagrande" is? Could the writer have meant "Longhorn" (next generation Windows OS), or is "Lagrande" another name for Palladium?


Lagrange is Intel's hardware counterpart to Pallidium. (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-957194.html)

[szark]

Here's another article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,524889,00.asp) on LaGrande.

[dongmin]

Stalling is never good but if any computer manufacturer can weather such a lull, it's Apple. They've done it before, with the G4 glitch a few years ago. I'm not sure how much of the pie pro desktops account for but it's probably not that huge, especially if they can keep the ipod, iBook, and TiBook sales going. And they'll probably be able to sell a bunch of the desktops with price cuts and non-CPU upgrades.

The biggest damage will be done in terms of perception. I'm sure the media will jump on it as being the final nail in the coffin. "Gasp, only a 50 mhz increase in six months. How will Apple survive???"

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by dekator
Certainly made my day. We all knew about the processor problem Apple is currently in! Come on! Still, the outlook is nice. The best thing is the news about the strategy regarding M$/Palladium. That's what I always pondered. The moment Redmond has taken away the last bit of computerational freedom, people will finally be ready for regime change! Yes.
You have to understand, Palladium will almost certainly be tied to DRM -- no Palladium, no digital media. So cheer for Palladium at your peril -- it won't be good for Microsoft customers, it won't be good for Apple customers, and it won't be good for humans as a species. OTOH, it will be wonderful for Microsoft and the entertainment industry. Yes, it truly is "us against them."

[sfoalex]

For most users I would agree. It seams to me a lot of people do a lot of web related things that do not require all this horse power. I think a lot of this speed has to do more with the pro market then the consumer market however.

I have two Macs. One for business only, which runs OS 9 and Office 2001, which is my iBook 500 MHz G3. It runs perfectly, no reason to change it. I have had it over a year and plan to keep using it till I kill it.

I also have an 867 PowerMac G4 that runs Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, After Effects, Cleaner 6, Boris FX and Boris Graffiti as well as some other specialized filters. On this machine, speed is everything. Recently a benchmark was started between the dual 1.25 GHz PowerMac and the new Dell 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 running After Effects 5.5. The Dell was twice as fast as the Mac. This is a common issue with special pro applications. In Photoshop for example, only a certain few filters are much faster on the Mac and a good number of them are not. For rendering with After Effects, or LightWave and Maya, you really let the computer work for weeks at a time and twice the speed for about the same money really makes a difference. For guys like me, the application and my time are what I am concerned with more so then the general use of the OS, so I would buy the Dell to run After Effects and render 3D. I still would continue to use the Mac and Final Cut Pro to put these elements together because Final Cut Pro has a great work flow that saves me time.

I can tell you first hand, in the pro market, speed matters. In the pro market where we make our living on our craft, the application and speed are king. If you have a dedicated machine for After Effects for example and you basically only run After Effects for weeks at a time, you really do not care about anything other then After Effects and how long it takes to get the data back. Now I would prefer the Mac because of applications like Automatic Duck that feed sequences with meta data back and forth between After Effects and Final Cut Pro. For this to work, you really want the same platform and this plug-in saves a ton of time. You now have to face this issue of, do I do smaller work between After Effects quickly and easily, and do I go with raw power for longer renders and a PC that do not require Automatic Duck. This really clouds the issues in the pro market. We want everything and we are willing to pay for it. Apple will get our money, we just need the speed.

[rmac]

Originally posted by foniks2020
Let's see what is Apple still missing BESIDES faster processors? or put another way, what could Apple ADD to their current hardware offerings?

Faster Frontside Bus (The number one problem IMO)

Fully supported DDR RAM

Serial ATA -- (well to be fair PCs also don't really have this yet either)

More L2 and L3 cache (this is still one of the biggest speed boosters available)

Firewire 2

On board Bluetooth support

Faster hard drives, Superdrives (value adds)

What else?

So Apple's making all there computers after this year boot only into OS X? Many people seem to not like this.

Apple may be trying to make the distinction between these new Macs as great as possible. Having Firewire 2, on-board bluetooth, USB 2, and faster hard drives (and interfaces), and son on... only on these OS X machines would make OS X seem all the more desirable.

The distinction would be like how you know a Mac is old and has outdated interfaces if it's beige....so it could be with machines that can boot OS 9.

[Cappy]

Originally posted by dongmin
Stalling is never good but if any computer manufacturer can weather such a lull, it's Apple. They've done it before, with the G4 glitch a few years ago. I'm not sure how much of the pie pro desktops account for but it's probably not that huge, especially if they can keep the ipod, iBook, and TiBook sales going. And they'll probably be able to sell a bunch of the desktops with price cuts and non-CPU upgrades.

The biggest damage will be done in terms of perception. I'm sure the media will jump on it as being the final nail in the coffin. "Gasp, only a 50 mhz increase in six months. How will Apple survive???"

The media won't have to play a role even though it will. The public isn't that stupid to be blind to Macs costing more than PC's and yet the PC will be even that much faster than Macs now come this spring and summer. Sure Apple can survive but at what cost? Most Mac people who keep up on this type of news and info tend to underestimate how much Dell is growing month by month. Once HP/Compaq get things a little more organized they too will be a greater force.

Frankly I think Apple is screwing up on the ipod. They should be signing up as many as possible to sell it yet it is really only in a slim number of stores. The market isn't the same as with Macs sitting in a PC environment trying to be sold. It's a hot item but much of it is from people seeing it rather than advertising or word of mouth. Get it out where people can see it. I'm merely touching on this fact that as well as it will sell, it needs more exposure to help Apple like it should and I haven't even mentioned that in it's current form and cost, the competition will have zeroed in on them by late spring with great success(hope for a nice rev at mwsf).

Basically Apple is going to need some new devices and products to help keep them going. If Apple stays "afloat", the Mac will stay afloat in some form. If the Mac stays "afloat", there is no guarantee that Apple can stay afloat. I'm hoping to see something new come early 2k3.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by fatalerror101
[BI was secretly hoping that perhaps Apple would suprise us or something....[/B] Ha! It's not longer a secret.
I was hoping for the same and will be disappointed if nothing comes out for the pro line. Not as concerned for the processor speed as I am for DDR implementation - faster bus, ATA 133, USB 2, Radeon 9700 Pro, etc.

[Cappy]

On the Palladium subject you will often hear of people saying what they will do like switch to mac/linux or turn it off. Yes, you will be able to turn it off. The thing is that for any uses web related those not using it, will be out in the cold. This really isn't any big secret. The thing that people are not realizing is that MS can use this against Apple since they will likely want to tie this in to Office and their media player but Apple won't have any solution with the current strategy. Also let us not forget that Quicktime is struggling and this will likely shrink that market even more.

Palladium is a huge issue and the way to fight it isn't by technical means. People need to be talking to their reps in the government. This isn't a single company trying to ram this down everyone's throat but a consortium making it tougher to fight because there is no competition to utilize. AMD, Intel, and MS are involved in this so get with it people. And no, email or instant messaging is not the typical way to do this. :)

[altair]

Originally posted by 3-22
This is truly disappointing news, and unfortunately looks pretty authentic. I think it's one of those things that the reality is a lot more disappointing then the wild rumors. I was planning on a 1+ GHz iMac in January, and was hoping to jump from an AMD 1.2GHz PC then. I don't play too many games, and really wanted it for DV editing (just home movies) and coding. Now I'm debating if I should just bite the bullet, and buy a Pentium 4 3.0GHz w/ Hyper-Threading and a copy of MainConcept's EVE movie editor. (iMovie knock-off) Jeez, 2004?! Maybe Apple will announce some deep price cuts soon! (maybe)

Yeah, you really should, go buy your D*amn PC and leave us alone. If you want a Mac you want it BECAUSE its a MAC, not based on speed alone, so if you are this obsorbed into the speed issue than a peecee is just what you need, let us know when you get your computer and the motherboard starts smoking. Enjoy

[Chomolungma]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Seriously folks, what tasks do you do that the current offerings are not up to snuff? Is this just about swordfights with your Wintel friends? At some point, more horsepower is just more horsepower. It won't make your driving experience any better. My Acura might hit 120mph, but that does me little good for the way I drive. In fact, for day to day trolling around the city (the driving equivalent of how most users use their computers), a 5 yr. old Saturn probably gets the job done just as well (but with less style, eh?)...

I'm still plugging away at home on a BEIGE G3!! For email and iTunes and some light design, it's still a great machine. I even do some Electric Image renderings on it from time to time. Any of the current machines, or those in the past year or two, would blow me away (especially if they killed the bevy of OSX speed lags).

King of the hill is a lonely place to be and you're always watching your back. On top of that, it's a short lived euphoria. Perhaps it's the frustration that the finest looking machines DESERVE to be powered by the fastest processors. Perhaps it's the frustration of not living up to potential. At this point, I could care less about processor speed as long as Apple continues to refine OSX itself and doesn't continue to paint themselves as Microsoft wanna be's with their poorly thought hostile marketing strategies.

- j

I'm not a power user, but want these things.

I want to be able to shoot high quality home video of my brother's wedding (<2 MegaPixel camcorder, not available at the moment, but soon). I want to edit these large video clips (GBs in size), without seeing the rainbow CD icon in OSX.

I want to buy a 8 to 15 MegaPixel digital camera in the near future and take really high quality pics of places and people I love, and view hundreds of them seemlessly using iPhoto.

I want iPhoto to search in my very large photo library and pull out all pics of my grandparents and arrange them chronologically.

I want to launge IE faster than the current Pentium 4 PC. I don't want to see jumpin E icon in the Dock!

(Work) I want to be able to analyze large gel images seemlessly.

I want it to work with all versions of microsoft Word and other word processors seemlessly. I want it to handle complex word documents (fonts, pics and macros).

I want it to intelligently search for information and have it organize to educate me on subject matters I know little about. I guess this requires AI computing?

I want to run a dataset of SETI in minutes not hours!

I want it to manage my digital home (music, video, security, lighting, climate etc.) intelligently.

A powerful home computer, who needs it? Am I asking too much from Apple?:D

[timbloom]

I dont know if I waited too long to have a good audience for this reply but:

Suprisingly, many of you have actually discussed this article at length, whereas an educated guess by somebody who knows how apple handles problems and products. Which most of you should by now. By watching what kind of rumors eventually present themselves as fact, and what never gets beond the rumorer's mouth. This article matches what I have been telling friends for a while, matching my own theories. Yet I dare not make rumors out of my own theories, like many people do to get some 1.34 seconds of fame.

The thing about the "g5" being dead is true, to jump over to another section of the article. Apple brands lines of their machines as G-x series. Not moto or ibm, these companies have kinda picked up on the term in ways, but that is not their official names. I believe that Apple, if the 970 shows it's might to us mac users, iit will most likely be called a g5, with a lesser chance of having a whole new naming scheme. ( Just a side note, what would people think of getting rid of the "PowerMac" naming thing? I am just curious as to see people's thoughts oon the subject)

Apple's roadmap is fuzzier now than it has been since Jobs took the helm. The major changes have been done, and there are more ideas on the horizon, but not a lot of new ideas. Lately apple has been focusing on taking speedbumps out of the user's experience with their own computers, and not really out of the machine. Apple's software today is now unmatched in the mac or pc industry. I have never found myself having so few problems with my computer. Any mac user has to absolutely say that there has never been such a good time to be a mac user, RIGHT? Just look at the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines on apple's site. Those are really the key thing that Apple has had going for them. It is really a list of things that we as mac users take for granted, that bug the living crap out of me that they dont have on windows.

As with marklar, only a few people know the answer to that, I would personally assume that it would only be a shift in processors, yet still a proprietary platform. There is no reason apple should support crappy noname motherboards and such. I feel as if it an escape pod from the ppc processor in the event of another fallout. Dont think you will ever install a supported version of os x on your current pc though.

2U Xserve, well price it the same apple and make it not so deep and it will sell.


My opinion of MacWorld SF: Speedbumped iMacs, more models with 17", price drop for the 15". Display line revamped (they have to get rid of the graphite apple on them, it just doesnt match! The HD has a chrome one) I don't see an iDevice debuting there. Don't ask why, I just don't. I would think the current ipods could be changed a bit, size wise, i think they are fine, but a color screen would be the way to go, seeing the price of small color lcd's drop drastically over the past 6-9 months. Why do you think they are all over cellphones now? Now wether color adds any functionality to it, is up to apple to decide. But support for aac audio is a pretty sure thing, apple passed their own announced deadline for that.

Dont take anything I say as fact. The names and faces have been changed to protect the innocent. This message will self destruct in 5. 4. 3. 2. 1...

[lmalave]

Originally posted by Cappy

Basically Apple is going to need some new devices and products to help keep them going. If Apple stays "afloat", the Mac will stay afloat in some form. If the Mac stays "afloat", there is no guarantee that Apple can stay afloat. I'm hoping to see something new come early 2k3.

Apple has $4 Billion in cash and is generally profitable. They are definitely going to stay afloat, no matter what happens with the G5 or the 970.

Basically, here's the way I see it: yes, pro users are going to get shafted for at least one more year as the PowerMac falls farther and farther behind the x86 in performance for the graphics workstation market.

On the other hand, the average consumer is caring less and less about performance. Here's an article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29501-2002Nov23.html

Basically says how PC users don't have to upgrade every 2 years anymore - the performance of old computers is just fine. It's diminishing marginal utility, folks - Economics 101. CPU makers have inundated the market with so much power that the average consumer just doesn't care anymore - they assume any CPU out there is more than up to the task for their own needs.

In this market, Apple can compete very well, because consumers will look at features and design more than CPU, and Apple's strength has always been product design (both hardware and software). Since people aren't upgrading because they think they "need" one to "keep up", they're either going to go either for computers with a gee-whiz factor (which the iMac, TiBook, and even the iBook and eMac have), or they may buy a Mac because now they have a Digital Camera, Digital Video Camera, large MP3 collection, etc., and the iApps will help them get more value and enjoyment from those devices.

Also as David Coursey pointed out in his column today:

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2898453,00.html

a lot of Mac users are "adders" rather than "switchers". And this is just fine. In an environment where not only does a household typically already own a PC, but Jack and Jane each have their own PC in their bedrooms or dorm rooms, then a new PC will fulfill a "want", not a "need". People will be snapping up iBooks, iMacs, TiBooks, etc. because they're cool and fun to use, not because they "need" one, the same way they might buy a new stereo or new TV. And they may still keep around their old PC (this is especially true of customers that already have a PC desktop and are buying iBooks and TiBooks).

[engpjp]

Originally posted by cubist


Good point. If speed is so important, how come PCs aren't selling like hotcakes?

But the sale of Macs are down *RELATIVE TO* PC sales in general. While it may be argued that the Mac slice of the total number of PCs in existence is only diminishing slowly, the latest SALES figures of Macs are beginning to dip very rapidly. Apple's strategy of downscaling to retain profitability, as already pointed out, is reaching a point where further downscaling might hit something more vital than the cashpile: market relevancy as a computer platform. My estimate is that that point is annual Apple unit sales of 2% of the total market.

engpjp

[AmigaMac]

Originally posted by engpjp


But the sale of Macs are down *RELATIVE TO* PC sales in general. While it may be argued that the Mac slice of the total number of PCs in existence is only diminishing slowly, the latest SALES figures of Macs are beginning to dip very rapidly. Apple's strategy of downscaling to retain profitability, as already pointed out, is reaching a point where further downscaling might hit something more vital than the cashpile: market relevancy as a computer platform. My estimate is that that point is annual Apple unit sales of 2% of the total market.

engpjp

Well not really... Apple's marketshare increased in both the US and Europe earlier this year, so their sales figures are not dipping rapidly as expected! The Asia market has been a hard catch for both Apple and even Dell where Legend has a huge marketshare percentage in that region (namely China)! With Apple focusing efforts in Asia now should help their cause there... Dell won't have an easy of time since Linux is becoming more popular on the desktop these days in various parts of Asia (China, Korea and etc...)! It will be interesting how things will be a year from now?!

[retaks]

i really hope that apple just tosses motorola at MWSF and gets with the program. moto isnt cutting it. plain and simple. and as for everyone that buys mac's for software well yes, and its good enough for video editing and artwork and all. But i cant afford having a apple for doing all that suff and being on most of the time and then a pc just for gaming. If apple were to adopt AMD or IBM's new chip macintosh gaming may be more competitive then there would be no need for me to want a pc. Pretty much i can live with apples speed in internet browsing, photoshop, and generaly launching applications ect but when it comes to gaming apple isnt good, and it may be a little software on the part but mostly i think its the processor speed and the bus speed. I love OS X and hate windows but i do want the speed and it may not be essential for everyone. I have 896 ram and a GF4TI added onto my G4 533mhz DP. The gaming still isnt very good. I guess im just praying for the AMD chip and if that fails im hoping for the IBM chip. If apple has the speed advantage there should be more people switching to mac's and then that would lead to more hardware for macs, more software, and apple would then profit and the prices would drop. Apple and os x could beat pc's and windows by using a 64bit chip and taking the lead.

[mmoore00]

Originally posted by timbloom

The thing about the "g5" being dead is true, to jump over to another section of the article. Apple brands lines of their machines as G-x series. Not moto or ibm, these companies have kinda picked up on the term in ways, but that is not their official names. I believe that Apple, if the 970 shows it's might to us mac users, iit will most likely be called a g5, with a lesser chance of having a whole new naming scheme. ( Just a side note, what would people think of getting rid of the "PowerMac" naming thing? I am just curious as to see people's thoughts oon the subject)


Actually, I believe you're wrong. The chart from moto detailing the "Generations" of their processors has been shown on various mac sites over the last two years. G1-G2 were the 601-604 series processors shown in the original "Power Macintosh" beige boxes. G3s - as defined by moto - were the PPC 750, PPC 740, PPC 745, and PPC 755 processors in PowerMac G3s, iMacs, etc (although IBM also makes G3s for these machines. I am unsure of which manufacturer's G3s were in which machines). G4s are the 7xxx series of processors by Moto, and G5s are the 8xxx processors. I often talk to people using Moto PowerPC chips in their embedded markets - for instance, engine controllers - who refer to specific processors as G3 series chips.

"G-X" is not an apple classificiation, it is a classification for PPC processor families. Look at the chart here (http://e-www.motorola.com/collateral/PPCRMAP.pdf). It is dated Nov 11, 2002 and is therefore a bit dated, but it does plainly display Motorola's naming structure.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by engpjp


But the sale of Macs are down *RELATIVE TO* PC sales in general. While it may be argued that the Mac slice of the total number of PCs in existence is only diminishing slowly, the latest SALES figures of Macs are beginning to dip very rapidly. Apple's strategy of downscaling to retain profitability, as already pointed out, is reaching a point where further downscaling might hit something more vital than the cashpile: market relevancy as a computer platform. My estimate is that that point is annual Apple unit sales of 2% of the total market.

engpjp

Umm...do you have any data to back up your figures at all? Any at all? From the Yahoo! Finance page for Apple:

"For the fiscal year ended 09/28/02, revenues rose 7% to $5.74 billion. Net income before acct. change totaled $65 million vs. a loss of $37 million. Revenues reflect an increase in shipments of Macintosh units. Net income also reflects higher gross margins."

Those are the fiscal year totals, and here's the breakdown by quarter:

Jun 29, 2002: $1,429,000,000
Mar 30, 2002: $1,495,000,000
Dec 29, 2001: $1,375,000,000
Sep 29, 2001: $1,450,000,000


Lets see, Mac sales are flat or slightly up for the past year...PC sales are flat or slightly down...therefore the Mac's overall share of computers sold should be flat or slightly up! These are HARD numbers. In the current post-Worldcom, post-Enron environment, I would say Apple wouldn't be messing around with revenue numbers, so it's pretty reliable data. So don't go throwing around your ridiculous 2% number with absolutely no basis for backing it up. Apple is doing just fine considering the global PC sales slowdown, thank you.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by arn



Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF

arn

No, but they will in late Jan early Feb which is close enough to the MWSF show.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by retaks
i really hope that apple just tosses motorola at MWSF and gets with the program. moto isnt cutting it. plain and simple. and as for everyone that buys mac's for software well yes, and its good enough for video editing and artwork and all. But i cant afford having a apple for doing all that suff and being on most of the time and then a pc just for gaming. If apple were to adopt AMD or IBM's new chip macintosh gaming may be more competitive then there would be no need for me to want a pc. Pretty much i can live with apples speed in internet browsing, photoshop, and generaly launching applications ect but when it comes to gaming apple isnt good, and it may be a little software on the part but mostly i think its the processor speed and the bus speed. I love OS X and hate windows but i do want the speed and it may not be essential for everyone. I have 896 ram and a GF4TI added onto my G4 533mhz DP. The gaming still isnt very good. I guess im just praying for the AMD chip and if that fails im hoping for the IBM chip. If apple has the speed advantage there should be more people switching to mac's and then that would lead to more hardware for macs, more software, and apple would then profit and the prices would drop. Apple and os x could beat pc's and windows by using a 64bit chip and taking the lead.

Keep in mind that iMacs, PBs and eMacs still use G4s and soon the iBook should. So while moto won't be top dog they still have product for Apple unless IBM can give the G3 altivec or scale down the 970.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by j763
XP has to be one of the biggest backwards steps in computer history. If Microsoft had kept doing what they started in 2000, there'd really be no reason for using Macs today. 2K had a lot of BSD stuff under-the-hood...

XP is designed for idiotic consumers.

2000 is faster and more stable. It's time to upgrade.

"A lot" of BSD stuff under-the-hood? Not that much as some people make it out to be.

Why is XP designed for idiotic consumers? Explain. Could one say the same for Mac OS X? Well geee, the aqua is cool, and uh... it's "pretty," and so "easy to use." Isn't ease of use designed to accomodate the "idiots" you mention who can't get his way around in MOTIF on a Linux box?

XP has been much more stable than 2000 for me and way faster, even with the Luna theme.
Originally posted by Cappy
Please share with us what BSD stuff was under the hood of Win2k and what of that was removed in WinXP.
Microsoft uses the BSD networking stack (which any true network hardware/OS should have). Yep, they did this legally, just like Mac OS X "stole" the BSD subsystem.

That's the only thing I know that they use from BSD. It remains in Windows XP and Longhorn. It's a part of the NT kernel series (since NT first came on the market).

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by engpjp


But the sale of Macs are down *RELATIVE TO* PC sales in general.

engpjp

There is also much more of a compelling speed gap for PC users to upgrade their 2-3 year old boxes. Their processors Mhz leap in the past year is bigger than the G4's actual speed.

I'm not buying a new mac until my beige G3 dies. There are no compelling reasons for me to. Certainly I'd like a new machine, but mine's tricked out enough (and hidden from view), so much that I never notice how "slow" it is. Shame on me. Attitudes like mine will be the downfall of Apple.... - j

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle


For?.....

Three dimensional modeling, real time media serving, and advanced partical physics. Oh, and a good game of Doom 3.

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Frobozz


Three dimensional modeling, real time media serving, and advanced partical physics. Oh, and a good game of Doom 3.

... and dual 1.25 gHz g4's don't handle this stuff well enough?

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
... and dual 1.25 gHz g4's don't handle this stuff well enough?
Not as well as many Pentium 4s and Athlons. In fact, in some cases, twice as slow (Mac Slaughtered Again... (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm)).

Edit: notice, that's a dual 1.25 GHz against a single Pentium 4 3.06 GHz.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Not as well as many Pentium 4s and Athlons. In fact, in some cases, twice as slow (Mac Slaughtered Again... (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm)).

Edit: notice, that's a dual 1.25 GHz against a single Pentium 4 3.06 GHz. That article has ouch written all over it.

[Frobozz]

I think one poster made a lot of sense when he quoted an article explaining the market dynamics in place now. Let's face it: _most_ of the stuff a person does on their computer is easily handled by 75% or more computers out there-- Apple included. In fact, it's never been better to own a Mac than right now.

The personal computer needs to evolve, and it will. The things people are going to use their computers for in the near future is dynamic data manipulation and display. In other words, we will be streaming music, video, and other data all over the world. We'll need pipelines for that to happen, but we'll also need computers to keep up with that. In the mean time, the average computer's computational speed will increase to a point where they can crunch the data being dynamically streamed and do things with it. Think of this like the days of "Doom", the game. No hardware accelerated graphics. New uses for computers will drive sales, as 3D did for graphics boards and faster CPU's.

Pretty soon, our computers will probably be composed of a combination of advanced parallel RISC processors and a Quantum/organic CPU. Both will handle what they are each good at, with the use of a good traffic cop chip.

I don't mean to get too philosophical, but Apple is not hurting. They need to speed up the GUI, for sure, but it isn't that bad. They will sell more computers by enabling new types of uses and practices on their computers. In the mean time, Microsoft will be elmintaing them. It's a good time to learn some new skills, cause in 10 years the computing landscape is really going to change.

Let's face it. I spend more time waiting for my Hard Drives or myself than I do on my CPU's.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle


... and dual 1.25 gHz g4's don't handle this stuff well enough?

LOL. No way. Try quadrupeling the current speeds, and we'll be in the right ball park.

[timbloom]

In this market, Apple can compete very well, because consumers will look at features and design more than CPU, and Apple's strength has always been product design (both hardware and software). Since people aren't upgrading because they think they "need" one to "keep up", they're either going to go either for computers with a gee-whiz factor (which the iMac, TiBook, and even the iBook and eMac have), or they may buy a Mac because now they have a Digital Camera, Digital Video Camera, large MP3 collection, etc., and the iApps will help them get more value and enjoyment from those devices.

That is the best anyone has stated it! AMEN

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Frobozz


LOL. No way. Try quadrupeling the current speeds, and we'll be in the right ball park.

To be more specific on that: It's a combination of several computer components that adds up to the speed. I need to be able to manipulate high density NURB or 100K+ Polygon based models in real time with 32 bit textures, composited. Now, a high end work station will do this with the use of a graphics card, but I'm asking for everything on my mac, selfishly.

I have a Quicksilver DP 1 Ghz, and not many complaints. My whole thread on the subject was to point out that it would take a lot of extra horsepower to get me to upgrade (and that it won't be here for a LONG time.)

[alex_ant]

Everyone who wants to buy a Mac keeps saying, "I need more speed!" And all the Mac loyalists reply, "You don't really need more speed, do you?"

I have to say, both sides have a point. So I have a compromise: Until Apple has a respectable CPU inside its Power Macs, it should cut the prices of the Power Macs in half. $1699 for an entry-level dual-867MHz machine is just crrrrazy.

[retaks]

damnit that 3 ghz machine's buss speed and memory speed is 533mhz, my processor is 533mhz, ouch! =[

[jrayfigs]

Originally posted by lmalave



Lets see, Mac sales are flat or slightly up for the past year...PC sales are flat or slightly down...therefore the Mac's overall share of computers sold should be flat or slightly up! These are HARD numbers. In the current post-Worldcom, post-Enron environment, I would say Apple wouldn't be messing around with revenue numbers, so it's pretty reliable data. So don't go throwing around your ridiculous 2% number with absolutely no basis for backing it up. Apple is doing just fine considering the global PC sales slowdown, thank you.

Actually, the 2% number is not that ridiculous. According the Apple's fourth quarter results, Apple shipped 734,000 macs worldwide, down 14% from the year ago quarter.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021016/sfw121_1.html

For the same quarter, about 30 million PC's were shipped worldwide, according to Gartner Dataquest's.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-962423.html

That makes Apples worldwide marketshare 2.44%, in the last quarter. The CNET article later mentions that Apple's US marketshare dropped from 4.3% to 3.8%.

But amazingly the company makes money.

[fatalerror101]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by arn



Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF

arn
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some educated guessing...

AGP 8x
FireWire 2
...and some other stuff
@MWT
-J763
_________________________________________________________
well what i think arn meant here was that thier would be little or no CPU updates, but a few major iapp updates in place of them.

I could be wrong though :)

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by rice_web

I am terribly disappointed with the short-term outlook from this article, a paltry 1.3GHz? That's utterly pathetic.

Don't be disappointed, 1.3 ghz is not a likely outcome since the current 1.25 ghz Macs clock very successfully right now to a stable 1.33 ghz and will run (with very limited stability) at 1.5ghz.

I own a DP 1.25 ghz @ DP 1.33ghz and have been using it for many weeks now. A very nice Mac indeed.

My prediction/expectation is for Apple to release a DP 1.5ghz by end of Feb 2003.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by jrayfigs

That makes Apples worldwide marketshare 2.44%, in the last quarter. The CNET article later mentions that Apple's US marketshare dropped from 4.3% to 3.8%.



Well, units shipped and units in use is a different story. If you count units in use, the Macintosh accounts for closer to 10% of world-wide systems in use. I've seen this figure posted on various sites with data to back it up. While they only shipped 2.x% in a given quarter, people keep macs over twice as long as they keep a PC. This is mostly because PC's are made of cheap commodity hardware and not very upgradable.

[fatalerror101]

I personallty think PC's are quite upgradeable, but who cares if it's not a mac :)







PowerBook G4 1 GHZ

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Frobozz
This is mostly because PC's are made of cheap commodity hardware and not very upgradable.
WTF. Not very upgradeable?

eMac, iMac, Cube = very un-upgradeable.

Besides, I just ordered a 1.73 GHz AMD Athlon XP to upgrade my aging 1.4 GHz Tbird--that's a 25% clock increase--for $79! All I have to do is pop it in and reboot. The G4? $699! Jesus. I could replace my graphics card to put in a GF4 Ti4600. I could replace every damn thing in my PC. And oh, my hardware ain't cheap. 1 GB worth of the best DDR RAM from Corsair, a nice processor, one of the best 3COM ethernet cards, one of the best ASUS motherboards ever, super-reliable and quiet Seagate harddrives, and so on.

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

WTF. Not very upgradeable?

eMac, iMac, Cube = very un-upgradeable.



Don't put the Cube in there with "un-upgradable".

My Cube is a DP 500mhz, 8MB cache HD, G Force 3 graphics with 1.5 GB RAM.

Eventually I'll go DP 1ghz when the CPU prices come down.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by tobyglyn
Don't put the Cube in there with "un-upgradable".

My Cube is a DP 500mhz, 8MB cache HD, G Force 3 graphics with 1.5 GB RAM.

Eventually I'll go DP 1ghz when the CPU prices come down.
And you have allllll those PCI slots to play around with in your Cube. :rolleyes:

[Marianco]

I have both a Dual G4 1 GHz PowerMac Quicksilver, customized to the gills in a dual monitor setup; and a handbuilt Athlon XP 2700 Computer running Windows XP. Yes, the Athlon is faster and cheaper in some ways. (I also have simultaneously running a Powerbook G3 2000, and a Powerbook G4 Titanium, and an HP Athlon-based PC).

I, however, prefer using the PowerMac over the PC.

Compared to Windows XP, Mac OS X is so much more elegant, useful, cleaner, extensible, intuitive, smarker and faster to use than Windows XP. I can accomplish more things simultaneously on the Mac than in Windows XP.

For example, Microsoft Explorer on OS X is SO much better than in Windows XP. When I go online, I open up 20 windows each to a website I am interested in. This allows me to be very efficient in reading online. Try this in Windows XP - its very clunky and inefficient when doing this. Windows XP is made for people who single-task, using one window at a time; compared to multi-tasking as on the Mac.

Upgrading the hardware on the PowerMac is much easier compared to upgrading the PC. I don't have to register with Microsoft when I want to do it either.

The PowerMac is useful for almost everything I use it for, including video work. I use the Athlon PC for mainly grunt work - such as digitizing audio, downloading software, scanning files; and for programs that don't have a Mac counterpart. But almost all the time I spend with the computer is on the PowerMac. With Audiocorder X on my Powerbook 2000, I don't even have to use the Athlon for digitizing audio.

For those that complain about speed: go ahead. Buy a PC. Enjoy it.

If you appreciate the Mac for what it is, if you truly understand what the Mac is about, what the ZEN of Mac is about, you will soon realize how clunky and underproductive the Windows XP PC is compared to the Mac, no matter how fast the PC may be. You will soon realize how much faster you can get things done on the Mac - you aren't fighting with your Mac as you do with the PC.

For those that complain about price: get over it. Get a better job.

The Mac has always been more expensive when compared to a PC. It is made for people who are brighter and wealthier on average than the average PC user. When using the analogy of automobiles, the Mac is a Lexus, the PC a Chevy. Most people can't buy the Lexus. Those that want to need to get a higher paying job.

It is unfortunate that Apple had to compete on price with low end models. That brought in cheapskate dregs who don't appreciate the elegance that the Mac offers, for whom Windows is just good enough, for whom the saying "The relentless pursuit of perfection" flows through one ear out the other.

I define the next generation computer, be it a Mac or a PC, as the model that is 4 times faster than the previous generation. I usually purchase new computers based on this because any smaller jump in speed is not perceptibly much faster. I don't get a high from smaller jumps. Since the 3 GHz Pentium 4 is NOT four times faster than my Athlon XP 2700, I'm not going to upgrade, similarly for the Mac 1.25 GHz Dual G4s. I am amused by PC sites who slobber over 20% gains in speed. That is such a small jump. Sure - if you have to do something data intensive repetitively such as in video production, you may gain time. But in day-to-day use with less data intensive work, such as word processing, games, database use, Photoshop work, music, this small gain is not that much. It certainly doesn't justify for most people having to purchase a whole new computer - or even motherboard - since you may have to purchase new memory or even a new graphics card.

I can wait for the PowerPC 970 PowerMacs, particularly if they are dual processor. At the 1.8 GHz anticipated top end, given a dual processor model will be about four times faster than my Dual 1 GHz G4, if not more given the huge jump in speed of the databus. I'll buy that when it comes out.

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by arn



Well, I can tell you now - just based on educated guessing... PowerMacs will NOT be updated at MWSF

arn I'd bet you're wrong. I bet the PowerMacs will be updated as well as the laptops. Both had marginal upgrades in the past few months and I think we'll see some enhancements as well as possible new designs. The time has come. MYSF will be big.


Peter:D

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

And you have allllll those PCI slots to play around with in your Cube. :rolleyes:

And what do I need PCI slots for?

I already have have 10/100 ethernet, Airport wireless networking, built in CDRW, USB for the slow stuff and Firewire for higher speed needs like external HDs, DV and pro audio hardware.

I also have a DP 1.25 ghz @ DP 1.33ghz if I needed PCI slots - which I don't.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I'd bet you're wrong. I bet the PowerMacs will be updated as well as the laptops. Both had marginal upgrades in the past few months and I think we'll see some enhancements as well as possible new designs. The time has come. MYSF will be big.


Peter:D
The last Power Mac upgrade was a major mobo change - it was not just a normal feature add and/or speed bump.

So expect speed bumps only until the next major mobo change - which should also be with the next processor family and the Hypertransport or RIO system bus.

Which should also be about the time Firewire 2 and USB 2.x show up.

If the next big change is within a year don't really expect much on the feature front either if it'll require a change in Key Largo or the UniNorth chips.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by tobyglyn


And what do I need PCI slots for?

I already have have 10/100 ethernet, Airport wireless networking, built in CDRW, USB for the slow stuff and Firewire for higher speed needs like external HDs, DV and pro audio hardware.

I also have a DP 1.25 ghz @ DP 1.33ghz if I needed PCI slots - which I don't.
Power Mac is targeted to prosumers, which in turn have millions of PCI devices they need that aren't even considered "standard." I.E. high end audio mixing card,

Are you able to upgrade your Cube to gigabit ethernet? To 10 Gig E? Are you able to upgrade to Firewire 2 in your Cube.

That stuff prolongs the life of PCs. I'd never have gotten three and one half years out of my Pentium II 233 MHz if it weren't for that kind of upgradability power.

Hell, in Shuttle's "cube," you CAN.

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Power Mac is targeted to prosumers, which in turn have millions of PCI devices they need that aren't even considered "standard." I.E. high end audio mixing card,

Are you able to upgrade your Cube to gigabit ethernet? To 10 Gig E? Are you able to upgrade to Firewire 2 in your Cube.

That stuff prolongs the life of PCs. I'd never have gotten three and one half years out of my Pentium II 233 MHz if it weren't for that kind of upgradability power.

Hell, in Shuttle's "cube," you CAN.

I sell high end audio gear for a living and am happy with the choices the Digidesign 002, Metric Halo Mobile I/O and Mark of the Unicorn Firewire audio I/Os give me. The new MOTU is even 24/192khz (not that 192k makes much sense at present).

I don't need faster than 100 base ethernet and in fact I never use ethernet at all.

"10 gig ethernet" ? Most people haven't even caught up with 100 base let alone gigabit ethernet, sorry, I don't know "10 gig ethernet".

My Cube is already over 2 years old and I certainly expect to get well over another two years of useful and enjoyable life out of it.

It also looks gorgeous, takes up much less space and is way quieter than most PCs.

[RogueLdr]

Originally posted by Macrumors
Both the pro desktops and Xserve will not go much beyond 1.3 Ghz, though 1.5 Ghz may materialize should Motorola be able to come through, even though they might be a prototype version like the current 1.25Ghz version that is now shipping.

So we are supposed to believe that Apple is shipping a "prototype version" of the G4 for its flagship PowerMac? Why on earth would any company warranty a product based upon "prototype" technology?

And yes, I've seen the PDFs stating the top speed of the G4 as 1Ghz, but I firmly believe that they are outdated and not to be taken as a reflection of current technology.

[cipher]

Hi all,

I'm a Macuser since Lisa. Since Apple is not capable anymore to beat every other OS in most aspects I started using Wintel. Now there is an i-Book and a PC populating my desk. I'll volunteer if there would be a Switch add from Mac ot PC. Except that I would call it something like Bi-Switch (= using both).
Standing on both feet (PC and Mac) I do not fear any processor change concerning apple.

Cheers

Cipher :D

[_aa_]

hello,

just wanted to comment the osX on x86 rumors.
this would be bad news for apple hardware, and who would think apple with 50+ stores allready would do such thing?

i do not think apple will ever allow for those grey boxes to become mac's and their retail strategy backs this up 100%.

apple are ambitious, they really think they can have it all, soft&hard. and how big a share of the market do they really want(consumers) ?

as for the business market; hey, their on the right platform: unix

[tobyglyn]

Originally posted by tobyglyn


The new MOTU is even 24/192khz (not that 192k makes much sense at present).



Correction, that sample rate is only available via Audiowire (PCI card) at present.

The Firewire I/Os are limited to just 96k. My dog will be very unhappy.

[cipher]

Apple should build in some Intel or AMD processors in their macs if Motorola, IBM (and... Apple) are not capable of producing a Intel competitive processor. Apple is in the hard and soft :D IT market and I hope they dont give the hard part away to some clone producers.

About unix

Next year (2003) macs wont be able to start up (boot) with os 9.x anymore. The reason for this is hardware related. Apple want to make OS X less hardware-platform (processor) dependent. It is not an unrealistic big step to compile OS X for Intel or AMD processors...

Apple needs to speed up its processors and Apple needs to offer OS X to other platforms in order to gain more market share. Apple offers already XServe. Soon there will be a XServe with more power (more processors, very fast SCSI, etc). Some rumors even say that there will be workstations (really powerful workstations) on the basis of XServe. That looks to me that Apple wants to change its course a bit.
What happens if Apple compiles its OS X for x86 platform? Suddendly there will be very cheap OS X macs on the market.

So?

Cheers Heikki

[JtheLemur]

Some rumors even say that there will be workstations (really powerful workstations) on the basis of XServe.

Oh really? *gasp* There ARE?

Like the one you're commenting on? Hahahaha =D

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by Sun Baked

The last Power Mac upgrade was a major mobo change - it was not just a normal feature add and/or speed bump.

So expect speed bumps only until the next major mobo change - which should also be with the next processor family and the Hypertransport or RIO system bus.

Which should also be about the time Firewire 2 and USB 2.x show up.

If the next big change is within a year don't really expect much on the feature front either if it'll require a change in Key Largo or the UniNorth chips. I agree there was a major mobo change, but that was over from the xserve. In addition they don't have full implementation of DDR and they left out some other new technologies which you mentioned. I think we'll see some of this at MWSF.

They didn't need to make those changes if they planned on staying with the same old G4. Plus they didn't make a big deal introducing the latest PowerMac. Something new, something bigger, better, and more powerful is around the corner.

I'm willing to bet on it.

[Cappy]

Originally posted by Marianco
Compared to Windows XP, Mac OS X is so much more elegant, useful, cleaner, extensible, intuitive, smarker and faster to use than Windows XP.

Smarker? I can't say I've ever heard Mac OS X described like that when compared to any version of Windows. ;)

[yzedf]

I find it very amusing that interest in buying a new computer right now is at a 5 year low, mainly due to the fact that the computer of today is more than fast enough to do what most need. Mainly; email, internet, document creating/editing, and as a digital hub (iPod, dig camera, scanner etc).

'Power users' could use the bump in I/O bandwidth, faster CPU/memory etc. But at most that is for gamers. Hardcore servers are NOT Mac based at all.

This is why Apple sells the iPod, Dell the new pda's, Gateway the plasma screen tv's. That is where the money is.

Any version of the G4 or P4 is usually overkill. Memory and graphics chips make up for most of the 'lacking' hardware.

We are coming to a period in time where MHz and GHz will not be an effecttive tool for selling computers. Think about any of our favorite Sci-Fi series (tv or movie) for a minute. I don't remember any mention on Star Trek about the 'newest fastest' computer upgrade or whatnot.

The personal computer is just a tool. Eventually, that tool is going to become as focused as a hammer. No need for upgrades, no need to buy this years model. They will do what we ask, no more, no less.

I hope. Soon.

[tychay]

To the person, mentioning that the fact that users are not buying PCs in the number they used to because the CPUs are overpowered as being "Economics 101":

I never remember this being taught in my microeconomics course. Mostly I learned stuff like supply and demand, utility functions, marginal cost and the like. The actual concept you mention is a business one called the "Innovator's Dilemma" According to this argument, a company (we'll call them Intel), makes faster and faster processors at a cheaper and cheaper price because that is what their customers are "demanding." They continue to do this really well right until the time that a "disruptive technology" comes and wipes them out.

This argument has been used to explain the overturn in the hard drive market, the demolition of Sears by Walmart, the eating up of the mainframes by the minis, the minis by the workstations, the workstations by the pc desktop, and (to some extent we are now seeing) desktop by the laptop.

This argument was also used by a bunch of dotComs to get VC and public money--they all claimed to be disruptive technologies. Such fear also probably explains why Microsoft siphons revenue from Office and Windows to support such perrenial losers as PocketPC/Windows CE, XBox, their enterprise stuff (SQL server, Advanced/Site Server, etc.), internet initiatives (MSN, HotMail, Expedia, etc.), dotNET (Windows DNA or whatever you decide calling it this month), and now the Tablet PC (their belief in this last one as being so disruptive against laptops, that they've gone out and said they will be outselling them as soon as next year). You see a similar thing at Intel ("Only the paranoid survive.").

[OBSwitcherAdReference: Whoever said that Apple has more software products than Microsoft. What are you on? Benedryl?]

As for whether or not these concepts should be taught in "Economics 101", you are free to judge by reading the books with the titles mentioned above. My views on this are fairly obvious from my portrayal.

My datapoint: Like O'Reilly, I found that a macintosh (a powerbook) has replaced four computers: (Linux, Windows, and Mac desktops, and Mac notebook). It hasn't however replaced my servers.

To the argument that Macs are more/less upgradeable than PCs: I haven't found Macintoshes (since 1986) significantly upgradeable relative to PCs (since 1983). It's not the expandability... if anything, the apples are a slight bit more of a headache in that regard. However, macs seem to have a longer lifespan, either the hardware lasts longer or I found I can live with outdated software longer. All Macintoshs I've owned are used in some capacity by a friend or relative (the exceptions being one computer dropped accidentally by a family friend, and one having been stolen). All my PCs still in use are running Linux (even the ones given to friends I see gather dust :( ).

OBTW, I happen to own a Shuttle XPC. They are anything but "cubes" and a far cry from "the cube"-- since one of the PCI slots is used by the USB 2.0 card that comes with it, and the other is used by a second ethernet card (it's a server, but if it were a LAN game system, we'd be using the model which would replace the PCI slot with AGP), it's anything but expandable. Its cabling system may be "smart" in the PC world, but it reminds me of taking apart a old PowerMac to install RAM. Oh yeah, I'm sure not having gigabit on the cube really made that owner feel bad: how many of us with 10/100/1000 Macs/PCs are too cheap to spend $600 on the switch (*me raises hand*)? And since the shuttle (and nearly every PC) has "only" integrated 10/100, I guess I need to be ripping out a PCI card for that. (Having spend some time bagging the Shuttle, I should stop a moment and say that these are excellent little machines... I'd recommend them highly to some people.)

Re: the outdated term "PowerMac", I believe Apple still uses the "Power" prefix to distinguish between their pro and consumer line which uses an "i" prefix and their server line which uses the "x" prefix. These things happen when you spend too much effort branding, and not just to Apple. Look at the "Pentium" and the "Athlon".

Re: Windows compatibility in Marklar. Actually that's not far-fetched and you wouldn't need Connectix. I think the "Yellow Box" incarnation of Rhapsody (pre Mac OS X) which ran on x86 had a Windows 95 compatibility layer. I'm not too sure why Windows compatibility is so important, but whatever floats the rumor mongers boat...

Re: Apple should drop Motorola. Umm, for whom? According to IBM, the PPC970 won't be available in quantity until Q3 2003, nobody is going to "downgrade" to an G3 because we've all been brainwashed by Apple marketting, and you can't pry Mac OS 9 from the cold dead fingers of most mac addicts, let alone get them to use MacOS x86. If you need more power now maybe you should network a bunch of Linux boxes... Pixar seems to have no compuctions about using a PC in this way.

Re: Who cares about the pro line anyway? I don't know about right now, but the pro line accounted for most of Apple's profits because the margins on the pro machines are much larger than those on the consumer machines. So, I'm going out on a limb here and say "Apple does even if you (and I) don't"

We talk about the price of a PC hardware, but forget two points:

When the iMac came out, analysts were talking about how the "sub $1000 PC" would be the next big thing. Now you we have a sub $1000 mac and we're talking about sub $500 PCs. The only thing that hasn't changed is how we're all saying how Apple needs to add this feature or charge less or face insert doom related to some marketshare argument here. Uh huh, and slavery would have ended without the American Civil War because the market price of slaves was getting too high. Methinks, some people were asleep during their "Economics 101" class.

The second point is, with the the price of the latter so low (and probably only going lower), then the natural consequences proposed in "The Mythical Man Month" rear their ugly head: the price (and quality) of associated software is now the determining factor in a computer purchase. Who cares if the price of the iBook is a thousand dollars when the price of Office (or whatever else I need in my "switch") is three times that total? Who cares about the latest benchmark on your Athlon/P4 when you waste four of your weekends getting it to "work" (whatever that means)?

Yep, it's never been a better time to be a Mac user. It's never been a better time to be a Windows or Linux user either.

-terry

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by tychay

-terry You don't get extra credit for really long posts. :P

Just Kidding

Peter

[BYTEBuG]

It's obvious to all but the Mac rabid that Apple's woes are due to the fact that they have a ball and chain around both legs labelled "hardware".

Face it: Hardware is a commodity. Every company relying on its own line of computer hardware is getting wiped out of existence: SGI, SUN, Apple. (Hey - it's a DARWINian thing!)

Until they transition to being a software comapny, like their nemesis M$, they will never control more than a niche market, and will forever be on the verge of going under. M$ may make ghastly software, but they know better than to manufacture hardware!

It's an ego thing with Jobs. Grow up already, Steve! :eek:

-- BYTEBuG

[Yoshi]

We're all hoping the MWSF would bring us new powerful computers, but the chances are low. They' ll upgrade the iApps, they may upgrade the eMac (since it' s not moved since a big time now) and add the xServe structure on this one like in the last PowerMac G4, but I don't think it' ll be more to come...
But maybe so, Steve likes to hide infos.

Concerning the MacOS on the x86 platform, it' s now purely a dream... if they' ve stopped the clones from 'stealing' their sales, they won't permit the PC to do the same thing... And the hardware integration of the 'Trustworthy computing' is supervised by M$, they can just hardcode your PC to not boot something else than the palladium ****... and they surely want to.

Now concerning the lack of power of the Mac, yeah, it' s true, my old B&W G3 begins to be slow when launching the lastest apps like PhotoShop 7 and Macromedia MX things in the same time... but hey, it' s more than 3 years old.

[Yoshi]

Damn... why those **** ? Yeah, Palladium is ***** and it' s difficult to speak about it without being rude!

[arn]

Originally posted by BYTEBuG

Until they transition to being a software comapny, like their nemesis M$, they will never control more than a niche market, and will forever be on the verge of going under. M$ may make ghastly software, but they know better than to manufacture hardware!


People keep saying this... but it's obviously not as easy as it sounds...

IBM tried it (OS/2)... failed
BeOS tried it... failed
NeXTStep tried it... failed

So... did they just not try hard enough?

arn

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by BYTEBuG

Until they transition to being a software comapny, like their nemesis M$, they will never control more than a niche market, and will forever be on the verge of going under. M$ may make ghastly software, but they know better than to manufacture hardware!
-- BYTEBuG

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't M$ going to be selling Tablet PCs? ;)

[vniow]

Originally posted by bobindashadows


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't M$ going to be selling Tablet PCs? ;)


Correction:

They make the software that goes on the tablet PCs, which are made by Compaq, Viewsonic, Acer, etc, etc......

[ibookin']

Originally posted by Ifeelbloated
I want bragging rights against those PC weenies!!!

I want my Mac to have bragging rights against the PC across my desk! :(

[dekator]

Originally posted by Marianco

For those that complain about price: get over it. Get a better job.

The Mac has always been more expensive when compared to a PC. It is made for people who are brighter and wealthier on average than the average PC user.

Marianco, you make me sick. What about people who aren't as fortunate as you and have to do with a less paying job or, indeed, are students etc. ? Why is the Mac more expensive ? Does it offer that much more that really costs more money ? I don't mind paying slightly more for a Mac but the extra must still be reasonable. Prices in the US are still pretty much okay but look elsewhere.
Really, what ? You can't afford a meal, go get a better job! Disgusting indeed.

What I mean is, even if I had a far worse job (my job's primary objective is the pursuit of knowledge and insight rather than money. Not very bright, ey, marianco?) and would be making more money I still say prices are too high. I don't think Apple just wants to sell to the extra-wealthy who derive their only pleasure in their miserable lifes from bosting in forums but rather to the bright citizen howevermuch he/she earns. Yeah, I admit, I have to do bad(ly paid) jobs at the moment 'cause my studies don't allow for a full-time job and I have to pay for everything myself. How ********** stupid am I ? And even with the best job (for me) I can think of, I'll never earn that much money to say, hey, Macs are cheap.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by edvniow



Correction:

They make the software that goes on the tablet PCs, which are made by Compaq, Viewsonic, Acer, etc, etc......

Whoa, I didn't know that. So are there gonna be a bunch of different brands of tablet PCs, like there are desktops and laptops? As in, you can either buy a (for example) Dell tablet or a compaq tablet? I always thought that microsoft was selling these things, my bad.

[tychay]

The confusion here may be that Microsoft made the first TabletPC which is a reference platform designed to show manufacturers how it can be done, and to provide a baseline requirement that needs to go into a TabletPC. And no, you cannot buy a TabletPC from Dell. Dell feels that this is a niche market so isn't going into TabletPCs. However, that would change if the TabletPC takes off.

This approach is similar to the multimedia PCs pushed by HP and Microsoft. Those are the computers at Best Buy that burn DVDs that can only be played back on that machine.

However, Microsoft makes hardware and has for years. The CP/M card in my Apple ][+ is made by them. And people are well familiar with their keyboards and mice, the latter being based on HP design and technology. They also make the XBox which is, in effect, a PC though the manufacturing is done elsewhere. However Dell doesn't do their own manufacturing either, so it is not much different. They recently introduced an Airport base station knock off (surprisingly for a price that puts it much higher than a competitor such as Linksys).

Why would Microsoft introduce a wireless gateway that is significantly overpriced? Obviously they feel that the Microsoft brand name and the associated software will ensure a quality, compatibility, and ease-of-use that more than justifies the $50 premium on a $100 product. Sound like anyone you know?

This leads me back to the other recent post about Apple's cost. Indeed the attitude that "Macs should be only for the wealthy" is wrong but consider that you can get a new Mac desktop <$800 or notebook for <$1000. That's a price that was "bargain basement" for a PC three years ago and uncommon even today for a notebook.

Unless you a pirating software, if a computer is <$1000 you can easily expect to pay twice as much during the lifetime of the computer for software. By this measure, Macs are not overpriced. The only difference I see is that Apple doesn't have the luxury of an "Office" tax and a "OS" tax. The closest comparisons I've seen on the press compare the single computer copy of Jaguar to the yearly fee of the home edition of Microsoft Windows XP. Let's ignore that 4-copy price of Jaguar being 1/3, that developers get it for free, that it is bundled with all new computers, that it delivers features that can only be found in Windows XP Advanced server, that I can recompile the kernel and install hundreds of free packages at the click of a button, etc.

No we'll ignore all that and focus on the extra $15 I have to spend once ever three years on a three button mouse.

People who say Macs are expensive are repeating a mantra that was true in the early 90s. Look at how much you spend on computer and computer related hardware such as cables, printer, modem, switches, peripherals, computers, monitors, etc. Just like a couple of years ago when people were clamoring for a Mac below $1000 and now there are three, they are now clamoring for a Mac below $600, and all they need to do is wait a couple years.

Of course, by then those same people will be demanding for a computer below $300. And comparing it to a barebones PC that they put together (ignoring the fact that they had to return their memory 3 times because it was defective and the week they were down because of a virus). The only thing that's the same is they'll still be paying five hundred dollars or more a year on the latest Windows, Office, and "essential" utilities like disk utilities, anti-virus, uninstallers, etc.

Not to mention the same $500 on games (statistically the average PC user spends as much on entertainment as the rest of software combined) and $400 on the latest graphics card to play that game.

Oh yeah, and the $300 on the latest XBox and the cost of the "must have" game that goes along with it.

Not to mention the yearly developer tax for Visual Studio.NET and MSDN which runs you about $1000/year.

Hmm, who's the frugal one? My computer isn't a game machine, most of my software is open-sourced or free, I get OS updates for free (as a developer), and don't use Microsoft Office, and all my Macs are still in use.

Consider the Total Cost of Ownership, the Return on Investment, and the length the computer will be deployed. A macintosh compares very favorably to a PC.

I forgot that some may consider dotMac a "tax". I don't know about others, but since the switch from iTools to dotMac, I've simply stopped mentioning it to new users as its not longer a selling point. (Sure I get Virex and some games and prints with my dotMac, but it always smacked of rationalization.)

Take care,

terry

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by tychay
They recently introduced an Airport base station knock off (surprisingly for a price that puts it much higher than a competitor such as Linksys).

Why would Microsoft introduce a wireless gateway that is significantly overpriced? Obviously they feel that the Microsoft brand name and the associated software will ensure a quality, compatibility, and ease-of-use that more than justifies the $50 premium on a $100 product. Sound like anyone you know?
Uh, Microsoft's base station is $160 and Apple's Airport base is $300?!
Unless you a pirating software, if a computer is <$1000 you can easily expect to pay twice as much during the lifetime of the computer for software. By this measure, Macs are not overpriced. The only difference I see is that Apple doesn't have the luxury of an "Office" tax and a "OS" tax. The closest comparisons I've seen on the press compare the single computer copy of Jaguar to the yearly fee of the home edition of Microsoft Windows XP. Let's ignore that 4-copy price of Jaguar being 1/3, that developers get it for free, that it is bundled with all new computers, that it delivers features that can only be found in Windows XP Advanced server, that I can recompile the kernel and install hundreds of free packages at the click of a button, etc.

No we'll ignore all that and focus on the extra $15 I have to spend once ever three years on a three button mouse.
You are making absolutely no sense here. There is no such thing as Windows XP Advanced Server. And what "yearly" fee of the Home Edition? I simply paid once for my copy of Windows XP Professional and never had to pay again.
People who say Macs are expensive are repeating a mantra that was true in the early 90s. Look at how much you spend on computer and computer related hardware such as cables, printer, modem, switches, peripherals, computers, monitors, etc. Just like a couple of years ago when people were clamoring for a Mac below $1000 and now there are three, they are now clamoring for a Mac below $600, and all they need to do is wait a couple years.
But back then, my family felt that the Macintosh was a better buy. Today, the Mac is seriously overpriced and we aren't going to justify purchasing a Power Mac G4 because it doesn't have the power we need.
Of course, by then those same people will be demanding for a computer below $300. And comparing it to a barebones PC that they put together (ignoring the fact that they had to return their memory 3 times because it was defective and the week they were down because of a virus). The only thing that's the same is they'll still be paying five hundred dollars or more a year on the latest Windows, Office, and "essential" utilities like disk utilities, anti-virus, uninstallers, etc.
WTF. $500 a year? I purchased a copy of them all and never had to pay again. In fact, the total cost was still lower than a high end Power Mac.
Not to mention the same $500 on games (statistically the average PC user spends as much on entertainment as the rest of software combined) and $400 on the latest graphics card to play that game.
My home-brewed Athlon was $1,100 including latest graphics card at that time (GeForce 3) and it is more than enough to play the current games. Unreal Tournament 2003 runs just dandy fine. Let's see, for that price, the iMac has a GeForce 2 MX.
Oh yeah, and the $300 on the latest XBox and the cost of the "must have" game that goes along with it.
I saw it for $199 including some games as a bonus. Sounds like a good deal, except my mom would never get game consoles so I'm stuck with my Athlon. No biggie.
Not to mention the yearly developer tax for Visual Studio.NET and MSDN which runs you about $1000/year.
And for many people, including me, it is very well worth it. One would get paid back many times more. Remember, MSDN also distributes latest apps, latest OSes, etc. so one can make sure their applications are compatible, etc. [not just the OS, but many, many more like: SQL Server, Windows 2000 Servers, Windows .NET Servers, and much more useful stuff] And since you are making sure, you have a larger customer base. Can't argue with 95% of potential users.
Hmm, who's the frugal one? My computer isn't a game machine, most of my software is open-sourced or free, I get OS updates for free (as a developer), and don't use Microsoft Office, and all my Macs are still in use.
Most of my computer is open-source and I've been producing free software, even for Windows. I use Microsoft Office, just because it is the defacto standard. Can't argue with that. I refuse to run StarOffice or others, they all suck compared to Microsoft Office. MS Office is well worth the $400.
Consider the Total Cost of Ownership, the Return on Investment, and the length the computer will be deployed. A macintosh compares very favorably to a PC.
Really? I consider upgradeability a part of the TCO. I recently upgraded my Athlon to Athlon XP 2100+ for a measly $89. For a 1 GHz G4 upgrade card, you'd need to pay a whopping $699. To me, for now, the Macintosh is not worth it. I've been waiting around for Mac that is worth it. Until then, I'll use my Athlon and the-oh-still-running Macintosh IIsi.

[sweedledee]

There is one thing I don't get:
Didn't M$ buy 30% of apple stocks some years ago?
Did they sell them or are they still holders of those 30%.

Another thing: If M$ would stop word for the MacOS then what is stopping
apple from using M$ old tactic of reverse engineering? Take the latest verson of the Office suite and rewrite your own code for all the functions and call it iWord or whatever.

[sfoalex]

This word of mouth that goes on around the web gets very much out of hand. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple as the iCEO and announced the Microsoft commitment to Apple to continue to produce Office for the Mac for the next 5 years, Microsoft invested $150 million, at that time that was a 5% stake in Apple. The stock was non-voting shares. In other words, they gained nothing but stock and no ability to do anything that would shift Apple's focus at all. That 5% stake in Apple was sold long ago and Microsoft holds next to nothing in Apple at this time.

Facts:

Microsoft NEVER bailed out Apple.
Microsoft NEVER bought a 30% stake in Apple
Microsoft doesn't own Apple stock.
Microsoft's 5 year commitment has ended

Follow this link to see teh top stock holders in Apple
http://biz.yahoo.com/hd/a/aapl.html

None of which are Microsoft...

[ddtlm]

tychay:

You are apparently from a parallel universe where the sky is blue, the grass in green, and the very birds sing the praises of Apple. Meanwhile, in this universe, you will be misunderstood and made fun of. So sad, if only everyone else could see the beauty of the universe where you come from, then we would understand!

[scem0]

Yeah Tychay, your views are way off. Here are the stats on the
comp I bought off eBay 2 and a half months ago (something like
that):

p4 2.4 GHz
533 MHz system bus
CD-RW (40x-10x-40x - fast as hell, i love it)
CD-ROM (no clue on the specs here, it works quickly though)
40 Gig (not sure of the RPMs here, I think 5,200 or 5,400)
512 Megs of 333 MHz DDR RAM
Windows XP Home (It really ain't that bad, people underrate it on MR)
6 USB 2.0 ports (2 front of case, 4 back)
Dell Quietkey keyboard
Dell mouse
Dell case (Which I like a lot)
GeForce 4 MX (OMG WC3 plays sooooom much better then on my
400 MHz g4 which I bought about 4 months before the PC for more
money)

all for $700. Was around $750 after shipping and everything else.
It has been well worth the money. So don't even say that
Macs aren't overpriced. If I had gotten a mac, I would have been
stuck with obsolete technology, for a measly $700.

I haven't had to spend a penny past the $750 I spent on my
computer, and it works great, except for some flaws in the OS
(stupid M$ :rolleyes: ).

My computer proves your theories on macs not being over-priced
wrong.

[DakotaGuy]

Originally posted by scem0
Yeah Tychay, your views are way off. Here are the stats on the
comp I bought off eBay 2 and a half months ago (something like
that):

p4 2.4 GHz
533 MHz system bus
CD-RW (40x-10x-40x - fast as hell, i love it)
CD-ROM (no clue on the specs here, it works quickly though)
40 Gig (not sure of the RPMs here, I think 5,200 or 5,400)
512 Megs of 333 MHz DDR RAM
Windows XP Home (It really ain't that bad, people underrate it on MR)
6 USB 2.0 ports (2 front of case, 4 back)
Dell Quietkey keyboard
Dell mouse
Dell case (Which I like a lot)
GeForce 4 MX (OMG WC3 plays sooooom much better then on my
400 MHz g4 which I bought about 4 months before the PC for more
money)

all for $700. Was around $750 after shipping and everything else.
It has been well worth the money. So don't even say that
Macs aren't overpriced. If I had gotten a mac, I would have been
stuck with obsolete technology, for a measly $700.

I haven't had to spend a penny past the $750 I spent on my
computer, and it works great, except for some flaws in the OS
(stupid M$ :rolleyes: ).

My computer proves your theories on macs not being over-priced
wrong.

Why don't you brag about your PC on a Windows PC message board. You are a lot more likely to get a pat on the back on their boards then you are here. Looks like we lost you to the PC world, oh well... Sounds like you like XP better then OSX, why and how is it better? How is the case better then the new PowerMacs, are you saying the machine looks better then the Macs? Or it is more accessible? Just trying to figure out why you think your PC is better then a Mac other then it has a million GHz.

[tychay]

I post on a Mac board that I think Macs are not overpriced, that Apple hardware has always had a premium vs. PCs and people complained then just like they are complaining today. And then give examples where the total cost of ownership is comparible or better than a PC. Then get bashed by three PC users.

I'm a PC user too (Windows 2000/XP, Linux, FreeBSD on x86), but the difference is that there is no way I could be paid for posting this because Apple doesn't have anything comparible to MVP (http://mvp.support.microsoft.com).

Uh, Microsoft's base station is $160 and Apple's Airport base is $300

So? When did I compare Microsoft's base station to Apple's? I was comparing the base station to the Linksys I own which I paid less for, purchased a year ago, and includes a 10/100 switch.

My only sin here is not putting "overpriced" in quotes. I was trying to show that even Microsoft charges a premium because they feel that "the Microsoft brand name and associated software will ensure quality, compatibility, and ease-of-use that more than justified the $50 premium" and as an example of Microsoft branded hardware (go reread the above).

Apple feels that the Apple brand name and associated base station software ensure a quality, compatibility, and ease-of-use that more than justifies a $200 premium on a $100 product. Perhaps some people like the way it looks. Perhaps some people like the reliability/warrantee (after all they've been around much longer than their competitors and people buy Cisco routers for similar reasons). I think their base station is overpriced, but obviously others don't because they're still selling it at that price and used ones seem to be holding their value after three years on the market.

The difference is that 6 years ago, I'd have no choice but to buy from Apple or a similarly priced "Made for Mac" product. Now I can buy a Linksys and make the decision for myself.

Most of you don't remember the days of proprietary or non-standard Mac connectors (monitor, serial, ADB, NuBus, SCSI, and yes, even ethernet), when Apple had a 60% markup on their hardware (compare their educational prices now to then), when you had to search to find an Authorized Apple Reseller and you couldn't even mail order parts from Apple, let alone build to order computers.

reference to Windows XP advanced server deleted

Yeah sorry, XP Advanced Server was delayed, I was referrring to 2000 Advanced Server. As for yearly fee, they delayed that too. Both were planned. As for "simply paid once" we'll see in a year and a half about that. Right now, your statement is like me saying I "simply paid once" for Jaguar... we'll see when 10.3 comes out. The rest of the world (the business world) already is paying a hefty sum for their up-to-date program.

But back then, my family felt that the Macintosh was a better buy. Today, the Mac is seriously overpriced and we aren't going to justify purchasing a Power Mac G4 because it doesn't have the power we need.

Good for you. And if more people are like you then Apple is in trouble. The numbers say such people are outnumbered by the PC users who are adding a Mac.

As for purchasing a copy of Windows, Office, Norton Utilities, Norton AntiVirus, and some uninstalling and "never having to pay again." Over what time period? All have had upgrades within the last year that necessitated at least an upgrade purchase (though you could probably throw the uninstaller out now).

My home-brewed Athlon was $1,100 including latest graphics card at that time (GeForce 3) and it is more than enough to play the current games. Unreal Tournament 2003 runs just dandy fine. Let's see, for that price, the iMac has a GeForce 2 MX.

My home brew Athlon was $800 of which ($300 was spent on RAM). So what? We both ran the risk of the the RAM, HD, Motherboard, or chip being defective (sometimes in a way that costs hundreds in diagnostic headache or lost productivity). We both had to purchase the OS (for me it was the time/cost of burning Linux ISOs vs $300 for XP Pro) and associated software (most people need Office, you probably need AntiVirus, etc.). This is why OEMs are so popular because they get Windows for $50/machine and similar discounts on associated software they bundle. That $1400 purchase not including the disk utilities, anti virus (don't need it for the Mac), iMovie knock off, MP3 encoder for Media Player starts too look pretty bad next to this $1100 iMac.

If you pirated your copy of Windows/Office (or purchased an "OEM copy" on eBay which may or may not be pirating depend on how the courts rule) then you are exempt from this analysis. Or perhaps you belong to a university that enterred into a site license with Microsoft and got your copy for the price of the media. The price for Windows/Office (and sometimes Visual Studio) just got embedded in your tuition price and "student fees".

I've never said that Windows PCs are overpriced. I just said that when you take into account the price of software (over the lifespan of the computer), it makes the difference in price for hardware (Mac vs. PC) appear small and often (not always) justified. This only gets better as hardware gets cheaper as Apple hardware has gotten cheaper too (though with a premium over the base price). Your Mac II si (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_ii/stats/mac_iisi.html) needing to be replaced after being on the market for over 12 years just shows that the lifespan of a Mac is sometimes outrageously long, thus lowering the TCO and putting a higher resale price on used Macs.

The software price is the same thing that makes it very hard for PC users to "switch" to Mac. It also explained the dissappointing sales of Office X for Mac.

As a game system though, your system still looks good (though the XBox may look better, it has the same graphics chip you mention for a fraction of the price). When someone is interested in the Mac, I tell them that you either have to give up games, or get a second computer (PC), or buy a console such as an XBox or a Playstation. You can use a Mac for them but it's not the best. Just like using a PC is not the best as a non-networked game machine. Video games are serious business--they occupy 50% of people's computer software budget. Unfortunately, it is very hard to get new computer purchasers to understand that which is why many still go with a Mac.

I made the statement that since video games do not occupy any place in my computer software budget, purchasing a Mac makes me look frugal (TCO-wise).

BTW, You do not necessarily get SQL Server, or 2000 Server/Advanced server with MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/prodinfo/pricing.asp). You need a copy of MSDN to install Visual Studio, or you can just shell out $1200+$900/year (compared to free for Developer Tools and a free registration to keep up-to-date, $200/year to have it delivered to you (with the latest OS)).

If you are running Windows, most of your computer is not open-source as you say because most of your computer is the OS. The fact that you use Microsoft Office implies another 20 million lines of code in addition to the OS is also not open-sourced. Under a very restrictive shared source license, you can get access to a small snippet of this source code which may not even compile under their expensive Visual Studio platform. This is not open source (http://www.opensource.org/). Unless you are dual booting into an installation that includes the "Everything" installation of SUSE, it is very hard to make a claim that "most of your computer is open-source". Most of my Mac isn't either, nor did I claim such. The kernel is (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/), so is the web server (http://www.apache.org/) bundled with it and some of the software I use here (http://www.opendarwin.org/) and here (http://sourceforge.net/pom_1102.php) some of which can be installed with the click of a button (http://finkcommander.sourceforge.net/). All this can be compiled from source with the Developer Tools which came free with Mac OS X (either as a separate CD or as a disk image in the Applications folder) uses a open-source compiler (http://gcc.gnu.org/).

Really? I consider upgradeability a part of the TCO. I recently upgraded my Athlon to Athlon XP 2100+ for a measly $89.

From what? Another Athlon? More often Mac owners are upgrading their Macs--that's the advantage of using PC standard parts. They also trickle down their Macs from desktops to servers/children/parents or resell it for a very good price. Very few mac owners buy the $699 upgrade card you mention. Those that do have a specific need that somehow allows for a 3rd party to make a business out of a limited run of $699 priced upgrade cards (Apple was long sinced sued out of the upgrade market).

As for scem0 comparing an eBay priced computer to a new Macintosh, that's an argument for Macs not being overpriced. If Macs didn't hold their value so well, then you would see more PowerMac G4 1GHz DP for the $750 scem0 mentions. Doesn't happen why? Because people value even my three year old PowerMac G4/400 Yikes higher than that. That'd be really nice for me, but unfortunately I really need it as a server. And if I didn't my father wouldn't mind a replacement for his 8 year old macintosh (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/stats/powermac_6100_60av.html).

terry
P.S. You are mostly right, in my universe the sky is blue and the grass is green. The birds, however, don't sing praises about Apple--neither do the people for that matter (http://screen.yahoo.com/d?vw=0&db=reports&z=dat&tk=AAPL).

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by tychay
So? When did I compare Microsoft's base station to Apple's? I was comparing the base station to the Linksys I own which I paid less for, purchased a year ago, and includes a 10/100 switch.

My only sin here is not putting "overpriced" in quotes. I was trying to show that even Microsoft charges a premium because they feel that "the Microsoft brand name and associated software will ensure quality, compatibility, and ease-of-use that more than justified the $50 premium" and as an example of Microsoft branded hardware (go reread the above).
My point was to show two similar hardware and the absymal difference in price... neither is really "better" than each other. So the best deal to the people who research, like me, would be a cheaper alternative to Apple's over-priced hardware. True, not all PC guys "research," but neither do all Mac guys. I don't care if people are willing to pay $299 for Apple's base station, it's their problem. I'm not willing to. I don't know how many people are willing, but I bet if they knew the competitors' quality and price were better than Apple's, they'd not purchase Apple's base station.
Apple feels that the Apple brand name and associated base station software ensure a quality, compatibility, and ease-of-use that more than justifies a $200 premium on a $100 product. Perhaps some people like the way it looks. Perhaps some people like the reliability/warrantee (after all they've been around much longer than their competitors and people buy Cisco routers for similar reasons). I think their base station is overpriced, but obviously others don't because they're still selling it at that price and used ones seem to be holding their value after three years on the market.
Customers dictate the price. If people don't buy, Apple will lower the price. You see, we begged/stopped buying for the most part the laptops and we got the price drop and better hardware. If people were constantly buying them and there were enough supplies, there'd be no reason to update the laptop line.

Resale value is mostly because Apple isn't updating their hardware often enough like the PC counterpart.
The difference is that 6 years ago, I'd have no choice but to buy from Apple or a similarly priced "Made for Mac" product. Now I can buy a Linksys and make the decision for myself.
Good point. That has certainly improved nowadays. There are, however, still some problems acheiving hardware compatibility. Some graphics card have to be flashed to work on Mac, some PCI cards simply won't work, etc.
Most of you don't remember the days of proprietary or non-standard Mac connectors (monitor, serial, ADB, NuBus, SCSI, and yes, even ethernet), when Apple had a 60% markup on their hardware (compare their educational prices now to then), when you had to search to find an Authorized Apple Reseller and you couldn't even mail order parts from Apple, let alone build to order computers.
:eek: My god, these days. I had no problems with that back then because most of the stuff weren't as modular and standard. I knew Macs were better that time, but now, it isn't.
Yeah sorry, XP Advanced Server was delayed, I was referrring to 2000 Advanced Server. As for yearly fee, they delayed that too. Both were planned. As for "simply paid once" we'll see in a year and a half about that. Right now, your statement is like me saying I "simply paid once" for Jaguar... we'll see when 10.3 comes out. The rest of the world (the business world) already is paying a hefty sum for their up-to-date program.
Still no such Windows XP Advanced Server. I think you were thinking of Windows.NET Server family.

Yes, my brother simply paid once for Jaguar. Once 10.3 comes out, he'll pay again for a copy? So? That's not paying a yearly fee for Jaguar.
Good for you. And if more people are like you then Apple is in trouble. The numbers say such people are outnumbered by the PC users who are adding a Mac. Yep. They'll be in trouble.
As for purchasing a copy of Windows, Office, Norton Utilities, Norton AntiVirus, and some uninstalling and "never having to pay again." Over what time period? All have had upgrades within the last year that necessitated at least an upgrade purchase (though you could probably throw the uninstaller out now).
The copy of Windows XP on my computer has been installed for over a year and will be for another year or so. Paid once for it. Had Office XP for over 1 1/2 years, still using it with original price paid once. NAV 2002 works great as they have virus definition updates all the time. Still paid once.
My home brew Athlon was $800 of which ($300 was spent on RAM). So what? ... That $1400 purchase not including the disk utilities, anti virus (don't need it for the Mac), iMovie knock off, MP3 encoder for Media Player starts too look pretty bad next to this $1100 iMac.
You wouldn't run in the risk if you purchased from a knowledgable brands known for best quality components. My PC is built from best possible quality for PC and it was still cheaper than a frickin' low end iMac, and don't get me started with those Power Macs.

Apple hardware defective rate are just as high. You just hear more from PC land because there are *gasp* more PCs. *cough* The horrible quality of the TiBook. *cough*

Viruses are more widespread on Windows than on Mac OS because *gasp* there are more Windows users than Mac OS users. In fact, before I bought NAV, I never had an AV and had gigabytes of stuff installed, hundreds of emails. Yet I don't get infected. Common sense plays a huge role.
If you pirated your copy of Windows/Office ...
Nope, all copies are good. I just know where to buy software from for good prices. One can get VS.NET Academic for $99, but I opted to get the Professional.
I've never said that Windows PCs are overpriced. I just said that when you take into account the price of software (over the lifespan of the computer), it makes the difference in price for hardware (Mac vs. PC) appear small and often (not always) justified. This only gets better as hardware gets cheaper as Apple hardware has gotten cheaper too (though with a premium over the base price). Your Mac II si (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_ii/stats/mac_iisi.html) needing to be replaced after being on the market for over 12 years just shows that the lifespan of a Mac is sometimes outrageously long, thus lowering the TCO and putting a higher resale price on used Macs.
And the IIsi is useful how? I only use it to play some old 68k games for the sake of memories. In fact, I've had two IIsis die a couple of years ago, this is the only one I have that is surviving. I use my Athlon for real work.
BTW, You do not necessarily get SQL Server, or 2000 Server/Advanced server with MSDN (http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/prodinfo/pricing.asp). You need a copy of MSDN to install Visual Studio, or you can just shell out $1200+$900/year (compared to free for Developer Tools and a free registration to keep up-to-date, $200/year to have it delivered to you (with the latest OS)).
I apologize for not specifying which MSDN, but you get my point. That is still a LOT cheaper than purchasing them individually.
If you are running Windows, most of your computer is not open-source as you say because most of your computer is the OS. The fact that you use Microsoft Office implies another 20 million lines of code in addition to the OS is also not open-sourced. Under a very restrictive shared source license, you can get access to a small snippet of this source code which may not even compile under their expensive Visual Studio platform. This is not open source (http://www.opensource.org/). ... with the click of a button[/url]. All this can be compiled from source with the Developer Tools which came free with Mac OS X (either as a separate CD or as a disk image in the Applications folder) uses a open-source compiler (http://gcc.gnu.org/).
Man, assumptions. I run Windows XP, Gentoo Linux 1.4, and FreeBSD with a good variety of free software, thank you. My claim is valid.
From what? Another Athlon? More often Mac owners are upgrading their Macs--that's the advantage of using PC standard parts...
You can't really use PC hardware in Macs without the drivers for them, or especially if the cards themselves are designed for PC hardware specifically. So that rules out a lot of cards/peripherals.

No, not exactly Athlon to Athlon. Athlon T-bird to Athlon XP 2100+. Okay, that's like 800 MHz to 1 GHz jump. To make this even better, if my system was a Duron system running at 650 MHz, that'd be more than 1 GHz upgrade and many, many times faster rate of upgrade than the Mac, even from the G2s and G3s.
As for scem0 comparing an eBay priced computer to a new Macintosh, that's an argument for Macs not being overpriced. ... That'd be really nice for me, but unfortunately I really need it as a server. And if I didn't my father wouldn't mind a replacement for his 8 year old macintosh (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac/stats/powermac_6100_60av.html).
That's mostly thanks to Apple not updating the hardware fast enough. If Apple released new hardware round the clock like the PCs, the devaluation would be the same. Just the fact that you can get an Athlon system that is MANY times faster than the Power Macs for a lot cheaper is sad, sad.

[Mudbug]

It must be nice to have so much time on your hands that you can write a 20 minute response to an idiotic post, then read the 20 minute reply, then write another 20 minute response to that.

Get in, get out, get on with your life.
And get onto another topic, since you can't stay on this one.

[ddtlm]

Mudbug:

Get in, get out, get on with your life.
My favorite are the people that show up just long enough to be seen hoisting their noses into the air before leaving.

[Mudbug]

You've missed the point (not suprisingly).

The last few posts in this talk have been so far off topic that they should be in a completely different website, let alone messageboard. I come here when there's information about Macs, other Apple products and wishes of people much like myself. NOT to hear about what a great deal someone got on their used POS Dell they bought on ebay. I don't care. And I'm pretty sure not a whole lot of other regulars around here do.

As for the sticking around long enough to make a point and leave, I use the internet for all sorts of things, not just trolling around this site. I let my email tell me when there might be pertinent information on topics I'm interested in (see previous paragraph) so I'm free to go and do other things, like cook dinner, wash clothes, put the kids to bed, "visit" with my wife, etc. My schedule of real life is a little busier than those in the college world.

But thanks for playing anyway. I'm sure the people who wanted to read this forum to see the arguments flare have had a good time. As to the others (those who give a d***), my apologies for straying from the topic.

[ddtlm]

Mudbug:

You've missed the point (not suprisingly).
Not surprising at all, in light of your rather pointless post I referred to. You went ahead and made fun of them for spending X amount of time, yet didn't say anything about them being off topic.... oh wait yes you did, as a parting shot! Way to drive the point home.

I let my email tell me when there might be pertinent information on topics I'm interested in
Don't we all?

[pgwalsh]

This thread appears officially dead.

However, there was a little article on Architosh (http://www.architosh.com/news/2002-10/2002c-1023-mcp7457-rm1.phtml) which brings back the rumor of the G5. Maybe we will see something special at MacWorld San Francisco. The timing's right. :cool:

[Siemova]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
I'd never have gotten three and one half years out of my Pentium II 233 MHz if it weren't for that kind of upgradability power.

Funny - I've gotten 3-1/2 years out of my iMac 333, and the only thing I've upgraded is the RAM. :D

But yes, upgradability is certainly a nice thing, which is why my next computer purchase will almost certainly be a tower.

[ddtlm]

Siemova:

I sure hope whatever processor comes after the G4 is upgradable...

[benixau]

Originally posted by ddtlm
Siemova:

I sure hope whatever processor comes after the G4 is upgradable...

i own a tower and the only thing that isnt upgradeable is the um...... yeah

if i wanted i could put in a pc mobo and it would fit. BUT to stay apple, i can upgrade everything but that, and the PSU which is an apple wierdo one.

thats life. towers are always upgradeable. every other mac isnt offically.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Siemova
Funny - I've gotten 3-1/2 years out of my iMac 333, and the only thing I've upgraded is the RAM. :D

But yes, upgradability is certainly a nice thing, which is why my next computer purchase will almost certainly be a tower.
It all depends on what the people do. iMac 333 MHz is certainly fine for many people, but for me, it would have lasted two months before I go crazy because of the un-upgradeability. :p

[ddtlm]

benixau:

i own a tower and the only thing that isnt upgradeable is the um...... yeah
Power supply is not easily upgradable, nor is the motherboard (and hence RAM type). None of that was the point though; I specifically referred to the processor.

towers are always upgradeable
To date they have been, but there is no reason to believe that this will continue. In particular, we have no way to know of the PPC-970 will be upgradable. A FSB that scales with core clock speed could be very tricky for upgraders.

[Les Kern]

I heard that Apple will introduce a G4 with 24 processors. Even though the downside is the dozen 60-watt ducted fans to keep it cool and therefore the necessity of wearing OSHA-approved hearing protection, early benchmarks show that the prototype can do a 100MB Gaussian blur in Photoshop 7 in -2.6 seconds. I figure that every day I work in PS, I'll actually GAIN several hours a week to use as comp-time. Thanks Steve!
My 867 is fine, I work fast enough, Apple will have an answer for all you speed-demons pretty soon I'm sure. Just be patient.