Dual 1.8 Ghz G5

[maradong]

macbidouille posts the following.
just give me some time, i ll give a gogle translation and translate it by hand.
Macbidouille posts in the title [Rumeur] = Rumor so take it with a bit of salt.

Nous avons reçu des informations supplémentaires sur l'un des casse tête de l'été pour Apple, la livraison des G5.

Nous vous avions déjà raconté que les commandes de G5 Bi 2Ghz avaient dépassé toutes les estimations. Or le nombre de processeur est trop limité pour fournir dans un délais raisonnable des machines.
Apple planche pour trouver une solution. Ils décideront d'ici une semaine de l'opportunité d'intercaler dans la gamme un G5 Bi 1,8 GHz pour soulager la pression sur le haut de gamme et écouler les stocks de processeurs à 1,8 GHz. Cette machine devrait coûter dans les 2549$.
Si Apple décide de la produire, les clients ayant passé des précommandes seront contactés pour éventuellement modifier leur commande.

Nous avons également eu quelques informations sur les livraisons de G5:
- Les premières machines devraient bientôt arriver, mais Apple ayant un système de priorité, les studios cinématographiques, de graphisme et les instituts scientifiques seront livrés en priorité.
Pour le public, les machines devraient arriver à partir du 14 août.
- Pour les G5 Dual 2GHz:
Les 20000 premiers sortiront aussi mi août, mais il faudra attendre début septembre pour en voir arriver 40000 de plus. Les suivants ne seront ensuite livrées que fin septembre !

[maradong]

So here it comes:
I hope you understand what i want to say.

We received additional information on one of break-head of the summer for APPLE, the delivery of G5.

We had already told you that the orders of G5 Bi 2Ghz had exceeded all the estimates. However the number of processors is limited too much to provide within of a reasonable time the machines.

APPLE board will decide within one week of the advisability of intercalating in the range G5, a Bi 1,8 GHz to take off the pressure on the top-of-the-range one and to lower the amount of cpu of G5 1.8 GHZ in stock.

This machine should cost in the 2549$.

If APPLE decides to produce the dual 1.8 Ghz machine, the customers having placed precommands will be contacted to ask wether they are interested in modifying their order.
We also had some information on the deliveries of G5: - the first machines should arrive soon, but APPLE having a system of priority, the cinematographic studios, of the scientific graphics and institutes will be delivered in priority.

For the public, the machines should arrive as from August 14. - For G5 Dual 2GHz: The 20000 first will leave also semi August, but it will be necessary to await at the beginning of September to see some 40000 of more arriving.
The following will be delivered only at the end of September!

[groovebuster]

If they really would offer a 2x1.8GHz besides the 2x2GHz that would be really great!!! :) I would consider one over the 2x2GHz machine...

groovebuster

[maradong]

well,
i think i d also take a dual 1.8 rather than the dual 2.0.
as the processor will probably be much more stable, even if the 2.0 will be stable as well.
perhaps they can even run on a lower voltage than the 2.0 ghz one, that will result in much less heat and therefore less noise, as the fans don t have to pump as much air through the case. and a silent pc is pretty important for me. I can t stand noisy ones anymore.
my 3gz p4 is producing sounds like a jet.

[arn]

Page 1'd for interest sake.

No idea of accuracy... beyond it coming from Macbidouille (which has been +/-)

arn

[maradong]

thx ;-)

perhaps i ll get famous now *g*


:D

[caveman_uk]

I don't understand why they weren't all dual anyway. Probably to reach a lower price point I guess. I've got a Dual G4 powermac and being able to do a really processor intensive task on one processor (like DVD ripping) whilst the machine remains responsive because of the second processor is cool.

I guess the reason the dual 2GHz is popular is because it's the only dualie machine. Releasing a lower spec / price dual makes sense.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by maradong
well,
i think i d also take a dual 1.8 rather than the dual 2.0.
as the processor will probably be much more stable, even if the 2.0 will be stable as well.

I never experienced any processor stability problems with any of my Macs I owned so far, so I don't expect that to be an issue for the G5 as well.

Originally posted by maradong
perhaps they can even run on a lower voltage than the 2.0 ghz one, that will result in much less heat and therefore less noise, as the fans don t have to pump as much air through the case. and a silent pc is pretty important for me.

That is the more interesting part... the noise level! :) And also it would save almost 500$! A dual 1.8GHz would be still fast enough for the projects coming next year, especially in comparison to the G4s...

Salut,

groovebuster

[cb911]

i guess it would be good to have a dual 1.8. more options for us! :D

[giffut]

The usage of 9 fans results in low noise levels in general, even when the machine is running fulls peed, lull load. That´s why they have controlled fans, and so much of them.

Stop calculating that nine fans means nine times the noise. That´s so much past.

The new machines are low noise machines, finito, get it!

[reflex]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
being able to do a really processor intensive task on one processor (like DVD ripping) whilst the machine remains responsive because of the second processor is cool.

If the applications you use are well-written, your machine should stay responsive even with one processor during DVD ripping.

[redAPPLE]

i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. :(

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by giffut
The usage of 9 fans results in low noise levels in general, even when the machine is running fulls peed, lull load. That´s why they have controlled fans, and so much of them.

:confused: What are you talking about? Nobody never questioned that the G5s are way less noisier than the G4s.

Originally posted by giffut
Stop calculating that nine fans means nine times the noise. That´s so much past.

Nobody did...

Originally posted by giffut
The new machines are low noise machines, finito, get it!

Less heat produced means less need to cool, means less fan action, means less noise... with or without 9 controlled fans. Get it! ;)

groovebuster

[maradong]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I never experienced any processor stability problems with any of my Macs I owned so far, so I don't expect that to be an issue for the G5 as well.

well neither do i, but, the amount of chips running at 2 ghz is not as high as the amount of chips able to run at 1.8 ghz. so the criteria is much more strict for the 2 ghz models.
i though they could break easilier than the slower chips.

[mac15]

wow very cool, If I had the money I might think about thinking getting one ;)

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. :(

What's the problem with that? Over all they can sell more computers, because the supply of 2GHz processors is limited...

Originally posted by redAPPLE
iand losing 500 $ per computer

I don't think they would. The margin should be pretty much the same on both machines, around 25%... so they "lose" only 125$... which is more than compensated when they can sell 25% more duals to meet demand for dual machines. And I am pretty sure they would sell quite more than just 25% more...

Originally posted by redAPPLE
this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

Right... and pissing off all the other customers that still have to wait weeks for a new machine because they didn' pre-order?

groovebuster

[Puppies]

Makes sense to me, especially if the 2Ghz ones are in short supply. I know I'd probably go for a dual 1.8Ghz one if I was getting a desktop system. I mean it's still a fast, dual processor 970!

[maradong]

apparently the number of cpu s, per waffer ,ableto run at 2 ghz is getting bigger every day. so perhaps the 1.8 ghz will only be a temp offer. until the 2.0 ghz can be produced in a resonable amount.


don t forget that if the preorders are so high, the cost for the produciton / chip gets littler, perhaps we will se a price drop in the following weeks. ?

[scan300]

While it's all round good news, it seems that the price differential between the single 1.8, dual 1.8 and the dual 2 will be too cramped. There's only $600 dollars difference between the current 1.8 and the 2GHz machines.

As a consumer it would make sense to me that the whole G5 series prices are redistributed, but it's too late for that, the die's been cast.

With this sort of fiddling it may be better to go to Build to Order.

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by reflex
If the applications you use are well-written, your machine should stay responsive even with one processor during DVD ripping. Indeed it should but it'll be better with two. Something has to give otherwise. Either mencoder gets more cycles or the other stuff you're doing does. According to top, mencoder is using almost 100% processor usage during a rip but the second processor is still pretty free. I realise there's going to be contention on the buses and for IO but two's gotta be better than one in this situation;)

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by scan300
While it's all round good news, it seems that the price differential between the single 1.8, dual 1.8 and the dual 2 will be too cramped. There's only $600 dollars difference between the current 1.8 and the 2GHz machines.

You gotta be kidding me! ;) 600$ is a lot of cash for actually just having one more processor. Since the boards are designed to have one OR two processors anyway, the can just add the second processor without big trouble. As far as I understood they have a huge stockpile of 1.8GHz processors they can't get rid of as they planned to, but not enough 2GHz chips to meet demand. This would be a really smart move! At least they would people get interested in purchasing the "middle" G5 with 1.8GHz processors and therefore sell more computers overall, since the top of the line G5s will be sold out for a while anyway...

Who cares if the single 1.8GHz G5s will be sold still (if well at all anyway), if they can maybe double the sales of dual processor machines, probably outweighing the loss of single processor sales by far?

Grüße

groovebuster

[scan300]

Yup, I'm not complaining if this really happens— I may just be a customer. But all of a sudden the 1.6 doesn't look as good in value.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by scan300
Yup, I'm not complaining if this really happens— I may just be a customer. But all of a sudden the 1.6 doesn't look as good in value.

Actually I think it never was anyway... they should have gone dual all the way (also the 1.6GHz) at the same prices they are offering now. Then they would sell machines like crazy all over the line. And considering the relatively high margin they have on their hardware it should have been possible. The plus in sales would have made more than up for the money they would have needed to scrape off for the second processor. But now for a lot of people the "little G5" (already) is not good in value for what it offers and for some of them the other G5s are just too expensive. Market share? :rolleyes:

It's weird, but Apple still has this talent to always screw up a little bit at the same time when they have a new cool product. ;)

groovebuster

[Brother Mugga]

Originally posted by scan300
Yup, I'm not complaining if this really happens— I may just be a customer. But all of a sudden the 1.6 doesn't look as good in value.

The 1.6 NEVER looked good value - if only in comparison to the other models.

I'm not sure who would actually go for one, when they can get all that spanking new(er) tech for Just a Few Dollars More.


Oh, and I'd change my order for a dual 2.0 Gig to a dual 1.8 Gig no probs. (if there's anyone from Apple listening). As a previous poster said, it'll be more than quick enough for most people.

Cheers

Brother Mugga

[jamall]

Maybe from the outset they should have had single 1.6s and 1.8s, a dual 1.8 sitting at the current dual 2.0 price point, and a three or four processor 2.0 GHz workstation for about 5 grand. Last time i checked the G4s at the Apple store there was $300 difference between a single and a dual processor machine of the same specs. Would Apple really throw in an extra 1.8 GHz G5 processor for $150? Even if dual 1.8 machines are released, they will cost a bit more than MB is suggesting.

[cc bcc]

Man I so hope this is true, I just ordered a 1.8 and I would change it to dual.

[danielgrenell]

this seems really great, i wouldn't get one, because i don't have the cash, but i can see where someone would prefer a 2x1.8 to a 2x2.0

[scan300]

Originally posted by Brother Mugga
The 1.6 NEVER looked good value - if only in comparison to the other models.


The prices are amplified here in Australia, so the 1.6 is significantly cheaper than the 1.8 (AU$900). That's not just exchange rate, there are other costs added and Tax. While the 1.6 is not a cheap machine, for some it's the difference between having a G5 or not. The 1.6 is not entirely out of the picture.

I agree with everyone else that there is an opportunity to make the 1.6 a real seller if they could seriously drop the price on it.

[pellucidity]

I was holding back on an order for financial planning reasons, and I'd sure consider the dual 1.8 over the dual 2.0.

Also, I'd respond to those who suggest this may be temporary by arguing that it's anything but- the whold G5 range will be probably be dual by the first speed bump. Maybe an entry level single, but I think the balance will shift to duals.

[kansast]

In case Apple is listening.. I put my vote in for a Dual 1.8 as well.. would be easier for me to justify such a purchase at work just a little easier than the dual 2.0

and I wouldn't feel like I was missing out on too much between a dual 1.8 and a dual 2.0 here's hoping...

[AngryAngel]

I was planning on getting the 1.6, because I couldn't justify the price to go up 200MHz, and certainly couldn't afford the 2.0 for what I plan to do with it.

If there was a 1.8 dual near the est. price point, I'd pull out all the stops to get one, just because I think duals will be much more future-proof.

[MattG]

I think I'd call and have my order changed to a dual 1.8ghz if this is the case. It does seem like there's too much a speed gap...1.6ghz, 1.8ghz, and then dual 2.0 ghz?

I don't think the difference between dual 1.8 and dual 2.0 would be that great, and I'd honestly rather save some money.

[tazznb]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. :(

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

I still only want a dual 2Ghz G5 (if I'm contacted I'll stand by my previous choice). I should get it early since I'm getting it at my school.

When I get MY home model I may be able to be persuaded... maybe they'll invite me over to Cupertino for lunch, and dinner....;)

[oingoboingo]

Originally posted by Brother Mugga
The 1.6 NEVER looked good value - if only in comparison to the other models.

I'm not sure who would actually go for one, when they can get all that spanking new(er) tech for Just a Few Dollars More.


The gap between the 1.6 and the 1.8 models isn't as insubstantial as everyone keeps saying. In Australia, a standard config 1.6 system costs AUD$3599. The standard config 1.8 system is AUD$4499. A difference of AUD$900 is fairly large difference for some, especially when you've had to scrape together a base of $3500. To put it into perspective, that AUD$900 difference could buy you a 19" CRT monitor and another 1GB of DDR333 RAM.

Obviously the 1.8 model has 256MB more RAM as standard and a larger hard drive, and once this is taken into account, the 'bang per buck' of the 1.6GHz system certainly doesn't stack up to the 1.8. But the fact remains that the absolute price point of the 1.8 model is (and was) simply too expensive for some, myself included. With a student discount (I'm studying for a PhD), I was able to configure and pre-order a 1.6GHz system with a Combo drive, no modem and a Radeon 9600Pro card for just under AUD$3000.

There was no way I was going to be able to afford the 1.8GHz model, even with a student discount, and even though when everything is averaged out the 1.8 is better value for money. It's the difference between getting your hands on the latest Apple platform with years of useful life ahead of it, and continuing to hack away on G3-upgraded FrankenMac 7600.

[Brother Mugga]

Originally posted by oingoboingo
With a student discount (I'm studying for a PhD), I was able to configure and pre-order a 1.6GHz system with a Combo drive, no modem and a Radeon 9600Pro card for just under AUD$3000.

Hey! I'm also a student (supposedly also studying for a Ph.D (or 'D.Phil' in poncy-speak) but in fact trawling through Mac-related news sites continually...some might say obsessively...) and I thought I was getting a bargain...but AUD$3000 is an absolute steal. Isn't that only about 1000 quid?

Hmmmmmm.

Maybe I'll cancel my order and 'acquire' a dual 2.0 Gig when I come down to Manly in October to visit my brother....

(Better still, just give me your address, mate...er, and the times when you'll be out, of course ;) .)

Cheers

Brother Mugga

PS: Goodnight, by the way...

[crenz]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
According to top, mencoder is using almost 100% processor usage during a rip but the second processor is still pretty free.

Well, it would be much nicer if mencoder were multithreaded and would use almost 100% on both processors. Doesn't make sense to not use the power available, does it.

[Mr. Anderson]

It makes sense to offer another dual machine. After seeing that they have 65,000 orders for the 2.0 and only 26,000 for the 1.8. That's about 5 times as many processors for the 2.0. Some of those preorders are going to be shipping later than expected. I'm sure several individuals will take advantage of the refund and get an almost as fast machine.

I haven't ordered mine yet and it looks tempting. But I not even sure I'll get the first revision anyway. I'm waiting to see how people like them first. Plus it gives me more time to get the money together ;)

D

[DGFan]

Originally posted by groovebuster
And also it would save almost 500$!

Actually it would only save $400 once you throw in the video card upgrade necessary to bring the 1.8 and 2.0 systems even.

I would have liked to have seen 1.6/dual1.8/dual2.0 right off the bat (with no single 1.8 model). With 4 machines priced within $1000 of each other the lineup just seems cramped.

[DGFan]

Originally posted by Brother Mugga
The 1.6 NEVER looked good value - if only in comparison to the other models.

I'm not sure who would actually go for one, when they can get all that spanking new(er) tech for Just a Few Dollars More.


Oh, and I'd change my order for a dual 2.0 Gig to a dual 1.8 Gig no probs. (if there's anyone from Apple listening). As a previous poster said, it'll be more than quick enough for most people.

Cheers

Brother Mugga

Here's my take:

The 1.6 looked like a good deal compared to the 1.8
The 1.8 looked like a TERRIBLE deal compared to the dual 2.0

I mean, for $550 more you got a faster processer (and two of them to boot!).

What I would like to see is have them email the people who ordered single 1.8's and offer to bump up their order to dual 1.8s for an extra $150. That would be nice. That would be a system worth buying. Right now the 1.6 & 1.8 aren't good values and the 2.0 is just out of my price range a little bit.

[oingoboingo]

Originally posted by Brother Mugga
[B]Hey! I'm also a student (supposedly also studying for a Ph.D (or 'D.Phil' in poncy-speak) but in fact trawling through Mac-related news sites continually...some might say obsessively...) and I thought I was getting a bargain...but AUD$3000 is an absolute steal. Isn't that only about 1000 quid?[B]

That's AUD$2942 for the 1.6GHz system. The dual 2.0GHz system with educational discount is (goes to Apple Australia Store to check....) AUD$5039 as a stock config, or AUD$4635 with the SuperDrive changed to a Combo, the modem deleted, and a Radeon 9600 video card (that's the way I configured my 1.6 system).

Still pretty pricey, but maybe that's still good pricing versus the English prices.

BTW, it's only 10pm here...not bedtime yet.

[jtrascap]

Checking the specs again, I see that the 1.8Ghz is also running 10% slower on the system bus (900Mhz vs 1GHz), so this may factor in also in the speed race. Keep it in mind...

[DGFan]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
It makes sense to offer another dual machine. After seeing that they have 65,000 orders for the 2.0 and only 26,000 for the 1.8.

Those are good numbers. They only sold 133,000 PowerMacs last quarter. Assuming that they can double the above preorders this quarter (we're only 1 month into it) that would put them at 182,000 not even counting 1.6Ghz sales. It would be nice if they could reach 200,000 PowerMac sales especially in the back-to-school time of year.

[caveman_uk]

Originally posted by Brother Mugga
Hey! I'm also a student (supposedly also studying for a Ph.D (or 'D.Phil' in poncy-speak) but in fact trawling through Mac-related news sites continually...some might say obsessively...) and I thought I was getting a bargain...but AUD$3000 is an absolute steal. Isn't that only about 1000 quid?
The Aussie Apple store has the 1.6GHz down as 3599 AUD including GST (3239 without tax). There's currently 2.4 Aussie dollars to the pound so that works out to £1349. Add to that that it will cost a fortune to bring it back as excess luggage (unless you post it) and it's liable for sales tax at 17.5% and duty (2%) when you get back to the UK which makes it nearer £1600 - more than the UK retail price.

It all depends if you can sneak a 50lb computer past customs and not pay taxes on it. I guess not :rolleyes: They're pretty hot on stuff sent by post too - I know from experience :(

[jocknerd]

The problem I see is that Apple set the base price too high. The 1.6ghz should be selling for $1499 while the 1.8ghz should be going for $1999. Then there would be room for the dual 1.8ghz for around $2499 and the dual 2.0ghz for $2999.

[DGFan]

Originally posted by jocknerd
The problem I see is that Apple set the base price too high. The 1.6ghz should be selling for $1499 while the 1.8ghz should be going for $1999. Then there would be room for the dual 1.8ghz for around $2499 and the dual 2.0ghz for $2999.

I disagree a little. First, the 1.6 really starts at 1799 if you want to get a stripped model (no DVD burner).

That's a decent price. But, as you suggest, it should be a little lower. I think $1599 or $1699 would be a good price. $1499 would kill sales of the G4s left in the channel.

Plus, if G4s are any indication, the price jump for adding the second processor should be $200-300.

So maybe:
1.6 : $1799 (with DVD burner)
1.8 : $2249
dual 1.8: $2499
dual 2.0: $2999

I am sure they'll get it figured out before too long. They're in it for the long haul.

[10 Goto 10]

Seems Apple learned that downgrading a product for the same price (i.e. First g4 Tower Top of the Line Fiasco) is not something to pull on your customers. Still keeping my g5s for home and work at 2 ghz.

[pdickins]

Originally posted by Brother Mugga
Hey! I'm also a student (supposedly also studying for a Ph.D (or 'D.Phil' in poncy-speak) but in fact trawling through Mac-related news sites continually...some might say obsessively...) and I thought I was getting a bargain...but AUD$3000 is an absolute steal. Isn't that only about 1000 quid?

Hmmmmmm.

Maybe I'll cancel my order and 'acquire' a dual 2.0 Gig when I come down to Manly in October to visit my brother....


BrotherMugga, have you checked the Apple UK Higher Education Store site. A 1.6 G5 with DVD/CD-RW, no modem and Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 comes in at £1,007.42 + VAT. If you can get your department to buy it for you and give them the cash you could get a G5 for ~£1000, without having to lug it all the way back from Oz.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by jocknerd
The problem I see is that Apple set the base price too high. The 1.6ghz should be selling for $1499 while the 1.8ghz should be going for $1999. Then there would be room for the dual 1.8ghz for around $2499 and the dual 2.0ghz for $2999. Obviously not, considering the BASE price of a PowerMac starts at $1299

You have to consider there are both G4s and G5s in the PowerMac Matrix, and right now the PowerMac G5s are the premium machine and thus are extracting the higher prices.

Depending on Apple OS 9 strategy and when they kill of the PowerMac G4s, there should probably be a price drop.

Until then, don't expect the G5s to eat into the G4 territory.

:rolleyes:

[scem0]

I hope so! The fact that I was gunna get a single processor machine had been bothering me for a while now. So I would get this one instead of the single 1.8.

PLEAAAAAAAAAASE let this be true.

I don't see a reason for apple not to do this.

scem0

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Puppies
Makes sense to me, especially if the 2Ghz ones are in short supply. I know I'd probably go for a dual 1.8Ghz one if I was getting a desktop system. I mean it's still a fast, dual processor 970!

If this turns into official Apple policy it is the first hard evidence of a production bottleneck BY IBM similar to what Apple has been experiencing with Motorola, at least in the short term. It will be interesting to see if the G5/970 chips become absolutely abundant by December or January or if this method of carefully doling out chips continues through 2004.

It also is an indication that any G5 Powerbook would be considerably lower than 1.8 Ghz initially to get access to chips and temperatures suitable for those large sales.

Speculate on THAT!

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar.jpg

[ryan]

Originally posted by reflex
If the applications you use are well-written, your machine should stay responsive even with one processor during DVD ripping. It's not the applications that have to well written it's the OS.

[ryan]

Originally posted by jocknerd
The problem I see is that Apple set the base price too high. The 1.6ghz should be selling for $1499 while the 1.8ghz should be going for $1999. Then there would be room for the dual 1.8ghz for around $2499 and the dual 2.0ghz for $2999. That is what I was saying from the beginning. Or, that there should be single processor 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0GHz machines with the option of upgrading to dual processors, at any speed, for couple/few hundred dollars more, like what Dell does.

[ryan]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Obviously not, considering the BASE price of a PowerMac starts at $1299

You have to consider there are both G4s and G5s in the PowerMac Matrix, and right now the PowerMac G5s are the premium machine and thus are extracting the higher prices.

Depending on Apple OS 9 strategy and when they kill of the PowerMac G4s, there should probably be a price drop.

Until then, don't expect the G5s to eat into the G4 territory.

:rolleyes:
You can't be serious!? The G4 in PowerMacs is dead, just like OS 9. If you paid attention to Apple's earnings reports you would know that G4 PM's were dead even before the G5 was announced. Sales weren't stagnant, but going down, way down. There is not “PowerMac Matrix” insofar as different processors are concerned, there is the G5 and nothing else.

[Tim Flynn]

Originally posted by maradong
well,
that will result in much less heat and therefore less noise, as the fans don t have to pump as much air through the case. and a silent pc is pretty important for me. I can t stand noisy ones anymore.
my 3gz p4 is producing sounds like a jet.

I've used a G5.
They are very quiet.:) VERY quiet !
The G5 doesn't seem to pump out much heat. My dual 867 MDD seems to put out more.
As for the Heat output and heatsinks, fans etc, in my opinion ... the present G5 case can probably handle dual 3 Ghz processors (or more) :)
(Didn't Steve say ... we should see 3GHz within a year :) )

Simply put, the G5 seems very well engineered.

[DrGonzo]

Originally posted by maradong
my 3gz p4 is producing sounds like a jet.

My p4 is deadly silent. granted it's a p4 1.8@2.4ghz AND it's overclocked on stock HSF. The p4 heatsinks (even their newer) ones are some of the quietest out there. My pc is very quiet and only has a few fans in it. I've found that PSU and hard drive noise (unless you have some screaming fan on your heatsink) are the two loudest factors of a pc, but they're easy to quiet.

[idea_hamster]

Originally posted by ryan
The G4 in PowerMacs is dead, just like OS 9.
I think I have to agree, ever since I noticed that catalogue Mac resellers (e.g., ClubMac) have cut G4 P'Mac prices while the Apple on-line store hasn't.

This suggests to me that Apple has decided to carry the burden of the OS 9 hangers-on -- let the resellers clear out their G4 inventory and if people really want a new machine that boots OS 9, let them come to Apple (with more warehousing/shipping flexibility than resellers).

Eventually, I would expect the G5 and G4 prices to be basically the same. I.e., you want the best PowerMac, it's $2500-$3000 -- whether you want to run OS 9 (with a 2x1.25 G4) or OS X (with a 2x2.0 G5). New buyers will naturally gravitate to the (clearly) better deal, and replacers will get the message that Apple thinks they're using antique equipment.

Besides, didn't we hear that the G5 chip actually cost Apple less than the G4?

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by maradong
well,
i think i d also take a dual 1.8 rather than the dual 2.0.
as the processor will probably be much more stable, even if the 2.0 will be stable as well.
perhaps they can even run on a lower voltage than the 2.0 ghz one, that will result in much less heat and therefore less noise, as the fans don t have to pump as much air through the case. and a silent pc is pretty important for me. I can t stand noisy ones anymore.
my 3gz p4 is producing sounds like a jet.

Have you even heard the 2GHz? Comparing it to the P4 is ridiculous. Intel and AMD got into a speed war and as MHz climbs, as well as power usage and heat generated. Intel makes the most inefficient chips; even the successor to the P4 coming out his fall takes over 100watts. Takes two 2GHz 970 processors built on the .13 micron process and they will consume less power and generate less heat then a single P4 successor built on the .09 micron process. The P4 at 3.06GHz draws ~45 amps and ~69 watts and power dissipation of 85 watts. The system and case design are also not very well thought out in regards to noise.

Using the proper fans and case the noise can be cut down considerably. Having the RAM facing the right direction, the cooling fins on the processors, removing unneeded cables, etc. all play a part. Look inside you peecee and see how much thought went into its design. Does it have variably speed fans, or just low, medium and high?

[MacRETARD]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. :(

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

This really annoys me about some mac people. You are the consumer right? You should want choice and a good deal. If you really want to piss away money just to help apples stock send them cash or buy software since software is basically all profit after the initial r&d.

Apple has a history of not offering options that I think they should. I think the G5 lineup should be all have an option of dual or single cpu. In the past when I have considered buying a g4 tower they always do something to discourage me like only offering the top end as dual. Now I dont want to pay a premium for the latest, faster cpu. If they sold a dual 1.6 I would buy it, but to have to pay 3000 for a dual machine is too much for me so thats a lost sale.

BTW, dell is not having a problem with sales and with the dual machines they sell you can get single or dual on any cpu speed.

[Foxer]

I'd switch my order, assuming the remaining specs conform to the the dual 2.

[reflex]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
Indeed it should but it'll be better with two. Something has to give otherwise. Either mencoder gets more cycles or the other stuff you're doing does. According to top, mencoder is using almost 100% processor usage during a rip but the second processor is still pretty free. I realise there's going to be contention on the buses and for IO but two's gotta be better than one in this situation;)

It will indeed probably be better with two cpus, but as I said, it should stay responsive even with only one.

[Sun Baked]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
Intel makes the most inefficient chips; even the successor to the P4 coming out his fall takes over 100watts. Takes two 2GHz 970 processors built on the .13 micron process and they will consume less power and generate less heat then a single P4 successor built on the .09 micron process. The P4 at 3.06GHz draws ~45 amps and ~69 watts and power dissipation of 85 watts. The system and case design are also not very well thought out in regards to noise. :eek:

:confused:

"The P4 at 3.06GHz draws ~45 amps"

Wouldn't that require a custom enclosure, and force you to plug it into the clothes dryer outlet.

I though the common service in houses was something like a 15 amp circuit, with the clothes dryer and oven running something a little bit higher.

Plugging a 45 amp processor into the wall would create some problems, and a dual machine would cause blackouts. ;)

And that electricians bill every time you move the machine from room to room. :eek:

[reflex]

Originally posted by ryan
It's not the applications that have to well written it's the OS.

I'm assuming the OS is well written in this case (could be wrong of course). But in most current mainstream operating systems, an application can hog a cpu if it wants to (a simple loop should do the trick). It doesn't mean that nothing else will work, but the system becomes quite slow.

[reflex]

Originally posted by idea_hamster
I think I have to agree, ever since I noticed that catalogue Mac resellers (e.g., ClubMac) have cut G4 P'Mac prices while the Apple on-line store hasn't.

The G4 Powermac prices *have* been cut on the online Apple store (compared to the price before the G5 was announced).

[Brother Mugga]

Originally posted by pdickins
BrotherMugga, have you checked the Apple UK Higher Education Store site. A 1.6 G5 with DVD/CD-RW, no modem and Nvidia GeForce FX 5200 comes in at £1,007.42 + VAT. If you can get your department to buy it for you and give them the cash you could get a G5 for ~£1000, without having to lug it all the way back from Oz.

Cheers; I'm all over that one (Dave Renton - very helpful bloke). That's why I can stretch to a dual 2.0 GIg...you know, that and selling my soul to the Prince of Darkness.

Brother Mugga

PS r.e. caveman's post:
It all depends if you can sneak a 50lb computer past customs and not pay taxes on it.

No probs. I'm going on holiday with my ex. I'll just get her to swallow it...


PPS: r.e. oingoboing's post:
BTW, it's only 10pm here...not bedtime yet.

Bugger. I forgot about BST. That almost screwed me on watching the WWDC too. Mind you, I'm always always tucked up with a Horlicks by 10.00. Your mummy must be very lenient...

Just been watching England get spanked by the South Africans, by the way. Brave New World my arse...

[daveg5]

they should have all been dual from the start with an october release date and all the same motherboard.
2x1.6+2x1.8x2x2.0 at the same prices.
big mistake on apple's partas the duals barely beat the single g4, i suspect the singles to get clobbered esp in fps games which or not optimized for altivec and duals except quake 3
oh well

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
"The P4 at 3.06GHz draws ~45 amps"

Wouldn't that require a custom enclosure, and force you to plug it into the clothes dryer outlet.

No, you are wrong... simple physics. Watt = Volt * Ampère. The lower the Voltage goes, the more electricity has to flow through a cable to get the same Watts. Since the modern processors are all on diet regarding voltage, 45A sounds pretty likely.

Originally posted by Sun Baked
I though the common service in houses was something like a 15 amp circuit, with the clothes dryer and oven running something a little bit higher.

Again, it depends on the voltage... Here in Germany we have only 6A circuits. Since we have 230V and not 110V, it is the same regarding used power.

Originally posted by Sun Baked
Plugging a 45 amp processor into the wall would create some problems, and a dual machine would cause blackouts. ;)

The only reason why a processor would cause a black out would be that you get a short circuit immediately if there is no transformer involved! ;)

Originally posted by Sun Baked
And that electricians bill every time you move the machine from room to room. :eek:

:confused:

Oh well...

groovebuster

[Abstract]

This is great news, but this is the way it should have been all along. They shouldn't even have a single proc 1.8GHz machine at the price they're fixing the dual machine at. Who wouldn't pay the extra $150 to get the dual?

The should have started with a $1800 1.6GHz machine, $2300 dual 1.6GHz machine, dual 1.8GHz machine for $2600, and a dual 2.0GHz machine for $3000. I think the prices are fine, but the selection Apple gave us was iffy.

[vrapan]

I think the line up is cramped with a dual 1.8GHz and this is why.....

If you configure the 1.6GHz to match the 1.8.GHz (extra 256MB and 160GB HD) you have a machine costing 2249. FRom the 2399 of the 1.8GHz is 150$ difference. This sounds reasonable given you have a 10% faster bus and a 10% faster CPU. However adding an extra 1.8GHz chip - with a conservative extra 60% performance 1.6GHz has no reason to exist unless it drops an extra couple hundrend dollars. In my opinion 1999 is too high for the 1.6GHz and does not leave much room for other configurations like a double 1.8GHz.

I think Apple should decrease the price point of 1.6 quite a bit. An entry level 1.6GHz G5 is something they need to lure customers but if you think about it they are still way behind. Even if we consider that G5 processor is 1.5 times faster than an Intel P4 at the same clock speed the 1.6GHz looks too expensive. I saw recently an ad of a Sony machine with a 2.4GHz processor 15" LCD DVDR 60GB HD and yes a crappy graphics card but it costed only 899$. Even if you put a better graphics card on the sony and change the HD you still pay double for the Mac. Financially makes sense to very very few people.

I believe that they should advertise their 1.6GHz as a competitor to Wintel machines. At the end the HDs are the same Graphics cards can be the same memory can be the same sound cards also. So a PC user that cares about configurability and upgradability can see a 1.6GHz as the test bed to try Macs but not at 1999$. Someone said for a starting price of 1500$ I agree. Still much more expensive than a Wintel but not double. I think the 1999$ is targeted to cash strapped Mac fans and it is not going to generate "Switchers" although it has the potential....

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
:eek:

:confused:

"The P4 at 3.06GHz draws ~45 amps"

Wouldn't that require a custom enclosure, and force you to plug it into the clothes dryer outlet.

I though the common service in houses was something like a 15 amp circuit, with the clothes dryer and oven running something a little bit higher.

Plugging a 45 amp processor into the wall would create some problems, and a dual machine would cause blackouts. ;)

And that electricians bill every time you move the machine from room to room. :eek:

It takes 45 amps but the voltage is 1.5 to 1.525. Your typical out has 110 volts at 15 amps, which equates to 1650 watts. The CPU equates to ~69 watts. One P4 is 15 watts away from a dual 2GHz.

Just wait for Prescott. You can have dual 2GHz G5's and still use less power; 21% less. Intel should get into the hair dryer business; the king is still the Itanic at 160 watts. Rumors say Prescott is ~106 watts; which is higher then Intel had hoped for.

A clothes dryer is 220 volts at 20 to 30 amps. They can be 110 volts if its gas.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by Abstract
I think the prices are fine, but the selection Apple gave us was iffy.

Exactly. Not having the midrange model be a dual causes problems. I would have made the 1.6 start at $1700 with a combo drive (really only $100 less since the Superdrive is $200, but it looks better). Then have a dual 1.8 for $2500 and the dual 2.0 for $3000. That gives a nice spread of price points and I could see strong demand for all three. With Apple's current setup, neither the 1.6 nor the 1.8 are very appealing. The 1.6 is too crippled (no PCI-X, 4GB limit, slower RAM) for the price, and most people who can afford the 1.8 for $2400 are going to be able to pay $600 extra to more than double the performance. This is why the dual 2.0 is selling far more than the others, which is very likely to result in IBM having too many 1.6 and 1.8 chips and not enough 2.0s.

[wondermite]

Excuse me, but as an eighteen-year Mac user, I'm fed up with Apple pricing. I can buy a PC with a THREE YEAR WARRANTY, DUAL 2.2-GHz, LOADED, for LESS THAN $1500. Including the OS.

I think it's time to switch. It's fu*&%$ing RIDICULOUS to pay OVER THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a modest-speed Macintosh. And don't give me the "The G5 is the fastest PC" crap--everybody knows it's not true.

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by groovebuster
But now for a lot of people the "little G5" (already) is not good in value for what it offers and for some of them the other G5s are just too expensive.


I agree. Maybe the 1.6 will be for schools who want to upgrade media labs, not nessasarily art department systems, but dorm labs or high school media centers. If i had a 1.6 in my high school back in the day,i would have gotten a lot more done than on 8500 or whatever it was. I know at uconn ( i just graduated) I would have killed for a 1.6 instead of the dell's we had in the geography lab. For those who have used arcview and other gis programs, you know what im talking about. i see the 1.6 as the high speed relatively low cost let get things down fast machine.

[edenwaith]

If this is true, I'd be very happy for it. I'm looking into getting a new Mac, but if I could save myself some money and still get a sweet system (albeit a tad slower), I'd definitely go for that.

[Dahl]

First getting Final Cut Express for "free" ( trading in my old Premiere disc ) and now rumors of a dual 1.8.
I think I found my new Mac. :)

[jaedreth]

They didn't want to do Duals all across the line because they weren't sure which ones would sell the best. They didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot in reguards to not having enough processors.

However, they now know what sells best, and are adjusting their gameplan.

Jaedreth

[prewwii]

And that electricians bill every time you move the machine from room to room. :eek: [/B][/QUOTE]

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. :(

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

I'd still get the 2x2.0 (although I'm not a preorder ... still waiting on the funds to buy my G5, and it prob won't be until at least December ... :( ... or :) depending on how you look at it :) )

10% less processing power (and 10% less FSB) is not worth the $500 to me.

I don't think Apple would lose all their 2.0 customers. Should help "thin the demand" a little and at the very least make customers a little more happy, though.

[wizard]

Temporary or not it is foolish on Apples part to have only one machine with SMP in their pro line. This should be taken as further evidence that Apple simply doesn't understand their customers needs.

The high sales numbers of the G5 probally have more to do with its SMP capabilities than its extra 200 MHz of speed. Customer inteligent enough to make use of OS/X and understand its capabilities, would not be likely to settle for anything less (SMP that is). Apple has a whole differrent line of PC's for those that do not demonstrate a need for the advance features of OS/X.

A price drop would be fantastic. On the other hand I would really like to see a couple of more drive bays in the machine.

If the presale numbers are accurate it will be very interesting to see how Apple and IBM respond to the demand. If they perform poorly there will be alot of angery customers out there. On the other hand if they get through this period of time without to many scares, it may be a sign of a bigger turn around than people may have imagined. One thing Apple shouldn't do though is to go around asking customers, that have already purchased a 2GHz G5, if they would like to change their order to a lesser machine. This recalls to many images from the Motorola days.

Thanks
Dave


Originally posted by maradong
apparently the number of cpu s, per waffer ,ableto run at 2 ghz is getting bigger every day. so perhaps the 1.8 ghz will only be a temp offer. until the 2.0 ghz can be produced in a resonable amount.


don t forget that if the preorders are so high, the cost for the produciton / chip gets littler, perhaps we will se a price drop in the following weeks. ?

[prewwii]

Originally posted by Sun Baked
:eek:

:confused:
...snip...
I though the common service in houses was something like a 15 amp circuit, with the clothes dryer and oven running something a little bit higher.

Plugging a 45 amp processor into the wall would create some problems, and a dual machine would cause blackouts. ;)

------ snip ....... :eek:

45 amps at 2 vdc is way different than 45 amps of 120vac. Do the math.

I have not idea if a P4 draws 45amps or not. If it did so at 2vdc that is about 90watts. Lot different than drawing 45amps at 120vac which would be about 5,400watts.

That's my story and I am sticking to it....

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by wondermite
Excuse me, but as an eighteen-year Mac user, I'm fed up with Apple pricing. I can buy a PC with a THREE YEAR WARRANTY, DUAL 2.2-GHz, LOADED, for LESS THAN $1500. Including the OS.

I think it's time to switch. It's fu*&%$ing RIDICULOUS to pay OVER THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a modest-speed Macintosh. And don't give me the "The G5 is the fastest PC" crap--everybody knows it's not true.

Hey Wondermite, I also love macs but think they should checkity-check their pricing:D
As many have already stated, the low end machine should be lower priced. That said I think that Mac towers are Pro all the way!
Remember a quality Pc like a sony or alien can cost as much or more than a mac, and they don't come with the Mac OS, Mac included software or Mac styling. These are items that are a part of why I am willing to pay more for a Mac.
I'd like to see Apple start the 1.8's with a gig of ram, to soften the blow though:cool:
daniel

[shr]

I am planning on getting a new Power Mac. I definitely want PCI-X, so the single 1.6 GHz machine is out. Given the quality of the dual-processor support in Mac OS X I would prefer a dual processor machine, but $2,999 is more than I am willing to pay.

My current plan is to purchase a single 1.8 GHz machine, but if I could instead choose a dual 1.6 GHz or dual 1.8 GHz machine with PCI-X support then I would switch to that.

I think it would even make sense to replace the single 1.8 GHz machine with a dual 1.6 GHz (with PCI-X) in the product line.

[Sublime]

Louie dog gives the dual Paws up.

This rumor must become reality... :D

[Sublime]

what would the education price be?

[wizard]

I couldn't agree more. Apple is learning the hard way just who there pro customers are. considering OS/X and the applications many pros use on these machines SMP should be standard on almost all of the pro machines.

The IMac can remain a single processor machine for awhile.

It is rahter sad to see Apple mis the obat on this one. Maybe if they weren't so secretive and interfaced more with customers they would not blow things so badly.

Dave


Originally posted by pellucidity
I was holding back on an order for financial planning reasons, and I'd sure consider the dual 1.8 over the dual 2.0.

Also, I'd respond to those who suggest this may be temporary by arguing that it's anything but- the whold G5 range will be probably be dual by the first speed bump. Maybe an entry level single, but I think the balance will shift to duals.

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by prewwii
45 amps at 2 vdc is way different than 45 amps of 120vac. Do the math.

I have not idea if a P4 draws 45amps or not. If it did so at 2vdc that is about 90watts. Lot different than drawing 45amps at 120vac which would be about 5,400watts.

That's my story and I am sticking to it....

1.5 to 1.525 VDC.

[Dahl]

Originally posted by wizard
It is rahter sad to see Apple mis the obat on this one. Maybe if they weren't so secretive and interfaced more with customers they would not blow things so badly.

Dave
Agree
The Apple market is frail, they need to understand their market very well.

But things are heading in the right direction, I think most Mac users are very happy about their platform these days. :)

[vniow]

Originally posted by idea_hamster
Besides, didn't we hear that the G5 chip actually cost Apple less than the G4?

Yeah...from MacWhispers..http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=251202

[MattG]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0.

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.
I think it'd be a little crazy on Apple's part to call everyone who has already ordered the DP 2.0ghz and say, "Hey, would you like to buy this computer for less money?" I think if anything, they should just announce it's availability and leave it at that. Let people decide for themselves. The G5's aren't going to be shipping for at least another month. No matter whether they ordered it from Apple or from another dealer, they can always cancel it and order the DP 1.8ghz if they feel so inclined.

I ordered mine through the ADC program, so I already received a pretty nice discount. I don't know what kind of price a DP 1.8ghz would sell for through this program, but if it were, say, $300 less, I might jump on it. Even after the discount, I'm still having trouble justifying spending this much money on the DP 2ghz. However, like other people have mentioned, it feels silly to buy a 1.6 or 1.8. The 1.6 doesn't have several of the features that the other two models have, so that one's out completely. Then you compare the 1.8 to the DP 2.0, and it seems silly NOT to spend the extra money. By spending a few more bucks, you're getting a LOT more machine.

They need an "in-between" model with DP.

[wizard]

Yes I hope peole are not mis understanding me the pro line is finally moving in the right dirrection.

But considering all of that the G5 still are not, in my opinion built well for the customers they are targeting. These customers love SMP and OS/X and perofromance. They would also love a machine that had a little expansion potential.

It appears that the 2GHz G5 is selling so well due to its SMP capability and maybe the extra 200MHz. Maybe even Intel and ADM will wake up to the reality of SMP in desktop (non server applicaitons) systems. The issue is, form my perspective, how well will these machines sell in a few months time when the power user lemming demand has worn off and people with clearer minds enter the market. It is at this point when the customer that truely evaluates his purchases comes into the market that the G5's configuration should be judged.

Frankly I find it hard to even understand to whom the 1.6 GHz machine is being marketed to. So expect to see that disappearing soon. The 1.8 GHz machine should have the entry level spot single processor at around $1500 and a dually for arround $2000 with extra memory.

Thanks
dave



Originally posted by Dahl
Agree
The Apple market is frail, they need to understand their market very well.

But things are heading in the right direction, I think most Mac users are very happy about their platform these days. :)

[jaedreth]

Yeah, I think they should ditch the 1.6GHz tower, make 1.8 single, 1.8 dual, and 2.0 dual, keep the current prices.

Then make the PowerBooks on their G5 rev as 1, 1.3, and 1.6 GHz.

Jaedreth

[MattG]

Does anyone know if there are specs I can download comparing the 3 models of G5's to each other? Like I want to know how, for example, a single 1.8ghz G5 runs Photoshop in comparison to a dual 2.0ghz G5, or how well each runs VPC...It's hard to judge. I realize that 2x the processors doesn't necessarily mean 2x the throughput. Ok, so then how much more throughput then?

[jaedreth]

These type of questions really can't be answered until we get our hands on them.

However, Panther should make far more effective use of a dual G5's capabilities, so I would buy a dual too, if I could.

Jaedreth

[TMay]

I'm having difficulty with most of the comments regarding the product mix from Apple. For years, all I heard was complaints that Apple wasn't keeping up. Now, there is no question that Apple is at parity with wintel, and some OSX applications are demonstrating clear performance superiority.

Don't like the configurations? Don't like the mix? Don't like the pricing? Then wait. This is a new product that hasn't even been delivered yet, and there is obviously plenty of demand for the 2.0 dual. If there isn't demand for a 1.6 or 1.8 single, then Apple will find that out real quick, and create a lower speed dual, as per the rumor.

Myself, I'm waiting for the big guns to deliver some engineering software before I buy, and I can wait until the 980 shows up if need be. Still, nobody has a gun to my head to buy one.

[mkaake]

Originally posted by wondermite
Excuse me, but as an eighteen-year Mac user, I'm fed up with Apple pricing. I can buy a PC with a THREE YEAR WARRANTY, DUAL 2.2-GHz, LOADED, for LESS THAN $1500. Including the OS.

I think it's time to switch. It's fu*&%$ing RIDICULOUS to pay OVER THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a modest-speed Macintosh. And don't give me the "The G5 is the fastest PC" crap--everybody knows it's not true.

http://www.applelust.com/oped/amc/archives/amc030718.shtml


read.

once you've read, and not before, go ahead and write back.

as to everything, yeah, it can be pricey. which is why i'm using a mac that's 5 years old and os9. unless i sudenly find someone who feels like giving me a newer mac (you can guess how often that's happened), the price is a killer.

but i still don't complain, and here's why.

you get exactally what you pay for.

everyone can complain about comparisons to cars, but good golly. you can buy a kia for under 10k. it has a 10 year warranty, an engine of normal size, and even 4 wheels.
you buy a caddy, you pay several times that. you get a shorter warranty period, a larger more powerful engine, and four wheels.

*cough*

both will get you from point a to point b.

but it's a totally different experience.

so i feel your pain. but that doesn't change too much. i'd love it if we had a 1200 dollar option, other than a stripped ibook...

matt

[MattG]

Well, my reasoning in buying the DP 2Ghz is that it'll be the last desktop I buy in a LONG time, and it's going to be able to do everything I want...and FAST. I want to be able to do things like run iTunes, Word, Safari, and Photoshop at the same time without it dragging (like it does on my iMac and like it did on my old Powerbook). Plus, I want a computer that can run VPC at a decent speed so I can get rid of my Windows PC altogether.

[mkaake]

Originally posted by MattG
Well, my reasoning in buying the DP 2Ghz is that it'll be the last desktop I buy in a LONG time, and it's going to be able to do everything I want...and FAST. I want to be able to do things like run iTunes, Word, Safari, and Photoshop at the same time without it dragging (like it does on my iMac and like it did on my old Powerbook). Plus, I want a computer that can run VPC at a decent speed so I can get rid of my Windows PC altogether.

unfortunately, you might be waiting a while on that last one until emulation programs get a little bit more up to snuff. i don't know if even dual g5's can speed vpc up to a respectable speed...

matt

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by MattG
Does anyone know if there are specs I can download comparing the 3 models of G5's to each other? Like I want to know how, for example, a single 1.8ghz G5 runs Photoshop in comparison to a dual 2.0ghz G5, or how well each runs VPC...It's hard to judge. I realize that 2x the processors doesn't necessarily mean 2x the throughput. Ok, so then how much more throughput then?

That would depend on the application and how well it was written. No system can scale vertically, where two processors is twice as fast as one, they can get close though. If the application is not designed for multiple processors, then it will only utilize one processor.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by mkaake
you get exactally what you pay for.

Not necessarily. If one company has a monopoly, you will pay extra for that company's products relative to the value that you get.

Originally posted by mkaake everyone can complain about comparisons to cars, but good golly. you can buy a kia for under 10k. it has a 10 year warranty, an engine of normal size, and even 4 wheels.
you buy a caddy, you pay several times that. you get a shorter warranty period, a larger more powerful engine, and four wheels.

The reason everyone complains about this analogy is because it doesn't represent the facts. Here's a better analogy. You have one car which has a F1 engine and chassis, but a Kia interior. The other car has a Corvette engine and chassis, but a Benz interior. The F1 costs half the price. Now, as you can see, the more expensive car is not the better car in all respects. For some people, the Benz interior is worth the extra cost, even if the car is slower.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by wizard
Frankly I find it hard to even understand to whom the 1.6 GHz machine is being marketed to. So expect to see that disappearing soon. The 1.8 GHz machine should have the entry level spot single processor at around $1500 and a dually for arround $2000 with extra memory.


Yeah, I agree. For a June release, the pricing seemed relatively reasonable. Still on the high side, but reasonable. But now we are looking at September or October? I'm afraid the value proposition has degraded. The same computer at a later time...well, it is simply worth less than it was before. I was planning to order, but I think I will hold off for price cuts or perhaps this new 1.8 dual.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by vrapan
I think the 1999$ is targeted to cash strapped Mac fans and it is not going to generate "Switchers" although it has the potential....

Yes, in fact I think the whole G5 lineup is targeted to performance-starved Mac users who have suffered long under the dominion of G4 obsolescence. There is a certain amount of desperation factored into the G5 pricing structure. This is one of the reasons I think I will wait a few months before purchasing.

[jocknerd]

Apple seems to have a problem figuring out who their customers are. They run the switch ads trying to get consumers to switch, but they don't have a consumer line of computers that can compete with the x86 platform on performance or price.

Fact is, I didn't switch to Apple for the hardware. I switched for the OS. In the mid 90's it would have been the other way around. They had the hardware but the OS sucked in my opinion.

Then they announce these kick ass G5's for the high end, but only one of them is dual processor. Then they cripple the entry level one bad enough that nobody wants it. Why the slower RAM? Why not PCI-X? There are a lot of people who won't spend $3000 for a computer. This isn't the 80's or early 90's anymore.

Considering that probably 80% of computers sold are under $2000, Apple is really missing out on a lot of potential customers.

Personally, I'd like to just have one PowerMac that is configurable. Choose the processor from 1.6, 1.8, and 2.0ghz. Each dual-processor capable. All with the same type of RAM. Let us choose the size of hard drive. Let us choose the video card. Apple reminds me of car manufacturers and their PEP or cable operators and their channel packages.

And for crying out loud, bring the entry price down. $2000 will keep a lot of people from even looking. Start the price at $1499 or even less for a single processor 1.6ghz with 256MB of memory and a 80GB hard drive.

Don't tell me these are for the professional crowd not the home user. The professional crowd runs Windows. They need to get the home crowd to use Apple.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by daveg5
big mistake on apple's partas the duals barely beat the single g4, i suspect the singles to get clobbered esp in fps games which or not optimized for altivec and duals except quake 3
oh well

Umm...where do you get this? I am sure the G5's will annihilate the G4's in all games.

[Dave K]

Originally posted by Rocketman
If this turns into official Apple policy it is the first hard evidence of a production bottleneck BY IBM similar to what Apple has been experiencing with Motorola,
<snip>

Not necessarily. As was pointed out on Ars, the performance grade distribution for the chips is likely hard coded into the contract between IBM and Apple, and it's fairly unlikely it favoured a 50% shipment rate at the highest grade for a first run Proc. This effectively means that, while IBM can likely meet Apple's needs, the contract forces Apple to eat a bunch of lower grade proc's for each high end one they move.

Now, If your customer feedback shows that the primary reason the biggest box is moving at 50% is because it's the only SMP box and the price is too close to the others, you really have only three solutions to drive sales down to the lower speed procs you've got to take from the supplier:

1) Increase price on the highend box in hope "SMP = nice bonus" customers will find it prohibitive

2) Decrease price on the lowend boxes in hope "Price is close enough, so I might as well get the biggest box" customers will find the low end a better deal

3) Introduce a lower speed DP and hope both the above and the "gotta have SMP" customers will trade a few hundred Mhz for a few hundred $ and balance out your order sheet to more closely reflect your supplier contract.

But really, this just shows that Apple screwed up their pricing scale by leaving pretty muchso the entire lineup in a $1000 window, which, while factoring differently in other currencies, is quite within the realm of selling up in the US$. Especially when you consider that the kinds of people who tend to have $2K to drop on a computer tend to either have the cash to also drop $3K for ultimate performance or be the type of folk who splurge to buy the fastest machine available every 3-5 years and run it 'till it drops...

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by jocknerd
Don't tell me these are for the professional crowd not the home user. The professional crowd runs Windows. They need to get the home crowd to use Apple.

That is not entirely true--media houses and especially video shops use Macs extensively still, I believe. Still, I see your point. The "professional" single processor G5's are really in the same performance category as consumer PCs, and should be priced accordingly to attract home users.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by MacRETARD
Apple has a history of not offering options that I think they should.

Yes, I'm afraid this is quite true. Apple has a lot of pride, it seems. It's Apple's way or the highway, and you know which way most people choose. :( They say that pride goeth before the fall, and all that rot.

[vrapan]

Stupid question but what SMP stands for?

[jaedreth]

Symmetric Multi Processing

Say a computer has 4 processors. Symmetric Multi Processing is basically for using all supported processors to process the same batches of data, as opposed to an assymetric layout, where Processor One does some things, Processor Two does others, etc...

Jaedreth

[visor]

Originally posted by giffut
The usage of 9 fans results in low noise levels in general, even when the machine is running fulls peed, lull load. That´s why they have controlled fans, and so much of them.


Well, I'll belive it when i hear it.
Controlled fans are all nice and well, but if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans, and hight rpm fanns -> more noise then low rpm spinning fans...

[gregorypierce]

Originally posted by redAPPLE
i hope this does not backfire! imagine this, people start buying the dual 1,8 instead of the dual 2,0. :(

and losing 500 $ per computer

this should only be offered to pre-ordered computers.

If Apple would consider selling it - I highly doubt that they would lose any money on the sale. Apple has demonstrated that they have no issues putting people on a waiting list for machines so while this config (if real) isn't something that they would have originall intended - I highly doubt they aren't making money off it. They may in fact make more money as some people who were planning to buy something cheaper might spend a little more to get the dual 1.8.

[vrapan]

Thanks Jaedreth... knew the principle but i had no clue of the name of it or what smp meant :)

[billyboy]

It is amazing to me that the greatest processor offering ever from Apple has not even been released, yet already there is a feeling being whipped up that they have got it wrong on prices.

Maybe they have, maybe they havent, but who can really double guess the public to the nth degree? Besides, price is not the over-riding factor in the marketing mix. Important, but not the be all and end all. I say this based on others´research, but my personal situation sort of backs it up too, in that I had money available for any Powerbook I wanted, but I chose the 867 instead of the 1Ghz. Why? Because within the range of excellent laptops available it seemed to me to be plenty sufficient for my needs, one of those needs being a computer that would survive a few years of upgrades.

So, whilst some of those Mac fans that have $2000 for an entry level computer probably have $3000 for an all singing dual processor, it is no less likely that many with $limitless wont go for a mid range. And most importantly, those with $1000 for a PC may well stomp up an extra $500 to go with the "basic" G5 - if they can be convinced that there is something a bit special on offer that gets them looking and seeing beyond the extra $500 up front.

It is that aspect of their marketing that Apple have really got to get exactly right if they are to shift G5s of all shapes. Debating whether someone is going for a $1500 1.6 or a dearer 1.8 is the easiest part of the battle, getting them debating in the first place with their fingers leafing through their wallets is the crunch.

[3.1416]

Originally posted by billyboy
It is amazing to me that the greatest processor offering ever from Apple has not even been released, yet already there is a feeling being whipped up that they have got it wrong on prices.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased with the G5. Any of the three models is a huge improvement over the G4s they replaced. But that doesn't mean I won't criticize Apple for failing to take full advantage of their opportunity because they configured and priced the models illogically.

Maybe they have, maybe they havent, but who can really double guess the public to the nth degree?

You didn't need to be a genius to predict that the dual 2.0 would be the overwhelming favorite, for reasons I mentioned before. If Apple is surprised by this, they shouldn't be.

I had money available for any Powerbook I wanted, but I chose the 867 instead of the 1Ghz. Why? Because within the range of excellent laptops available it seemed to me to be plenty sufficient for my needs

Sure, but the difference between the 867 and 1GHz PBs is far less than the difference between the 1.8 and dual 2.0 G5s. If the high-end PB had dual processors for the same price, what do you think the sales of the 867 would be?

[ffakr]

Originally posted by visor
Well, I'll belive it when i hear it.
Controlled fans are all nice and well, but if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans, and hight rpm fanns -> more noise then low rpm spinning fans...
That's a pretty simplistic view of the situation.

Your logic hinges on the statement "if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans". This is not factually correct. The speed of the system has nothing to do with the speed of the fans. Variable speed fans generally rely on current draw, heat or both to determine how fast to spin.

The reality is....
a) more fans means more air flow at lower speeds. more air flow means cooler and lower speeds means quieter. more fans means quieter.
The G5s aren't silent, but they are pretty quiet. At least they were when I used them.
b) The G5 is a relatively low wattage processor, compared to chips like the Athlon and P4. There is no compelling reason why a G5, even a dual G5 needs to be any hotter, or require any more cooling than a current PC. In fact, the intelligent design of the G5 case pretty much ensures that it will be signficantly quieter than just about any mid-full size fast PC.
c) Apple actually said that the total power consumption of the G5 is significantly less than a Mirror Door G4. I believe that they said it was about 1/2 of the G4.

[DavidThornberg]

I would love them to offer a lower end dual but I just don't see an over supply of chips as a good reason to modify the lineup prior to release. The iMac line will be going to the 970 soon and they can use any over supply in those machines.

It is no suprise to me that the 2.0 Dual is selling well. Many of us have been sitting on our money for a few years waiting for a reason to update to a new machine. I had to sit at an angle for so long I don't remember know how to sit up straight. :D

My guess is that if Apple finds that the 1.6 and 1.8 are not selling after they ship then I think we will see them update the lower end of the line to duals.

Someone earlier said that 'dual' should be an option in the store. Is this feasible? I'm not sure of the production process enough to say that this lovely option would be cost effective. Anyone know?

David

[Sheebahawk]

Beggining to wish they charged a dollar per megahert... at the current priceing scheme, theres no way I'd ever be able to get a g5 until I win the lottery or go out of my current debt, But if the single 1.6 was around fifteen or sixteen hbundred dollars, it would be a different story completely. definately need to replace that old B&W g3, but I have to suffer for a while yet until I can afford it. If the low end tower fell closer toward the lower end of the 1-2000 dollar range, well that would be a much more reachable range to me, and I'm sure many potential customers.

[visor]

Honestly,
who would want to buy a 2.3 grant single processor, if he can have a more than twice the speed for not even half the price more.

Especially in a market segment that needs a lot of speed...

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by soggywulf
That is not entirely true--media houses and especially video shops use Macs extensively still, I believe. Still, I see your point. The "professional" single processor G5's are really in the same performance category as consumer PCs, and should be priced accordingly to attract home users.

You're right:D but also for music production, Protools on the Mac is the #1 Daw in the world. This whole thread is silly, you can buy over $2000 sony pcs at sams club and the software on those are nowhere near as usable as the Mac stuff but people see what they want I guess
:rolleyes:
Hey it would be nice if Macs were less but I could say the same thing about some of the guitars I want;)
daniel

[scan300]

Originally posted by Sheebahawk
Beggining to wish they charged a dollar per megahert...

So where will that leave you when 3, 4, 5 GHz machines come out?

[ae86_16v]

I just got an email from a company called eUnitek and they are offering the Dual 1.8 for $2,399. I check on the Apple's site and there wasn't anything there. . .

512MB DDR400 128-bit SRAM, 160GB Serial ATA, Superdrive

[pellucidity]

...Nothing on eUnitek's site either....

[Dahl]

If you are a AAA member, they have 10% off on selected products. You can save on iBooks, iMacs, G4's etc but I do't see any discount for G5's. :(

[slipjack]

1.8 dualie would rock! I'd buy it in sec... I cancelled the 2.0 when I finally got over the 'must buy now' high... It's just too expensive.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by jaedreth
Symmetric Multi Processing

Say a computer has 4 processors. Symmetric Multi Processing is basically for using all supported processors to process the same batches of data, as opposed to an assymetric layout, where Processor One does some things, Processor Two does others, etc...

Jaedreth

Jaedreth, there's a grain of truth there, but not a lot more....


There are no truly "symmetric" multiprocessing systems in widespread use - every successful system has a few things that can only be done on the "master" processor.

So, "SMP" really means "mostly Symmetric Multi Processing" - and often the difference between "completely Symmetric" and "mostly Symmetric" is too small to notice.

On earlier ASMP systems, it was often the case that the system (kernel) code could only run on the master. For some workloads, like I/O bound apps where the kernel I/O took a lot of CPU, you'd get poor scaling because 1 cpu would be overloaded with I/O, and the others would need to wait for the overloaded master.

More modern systems have multi-processing kernels, so that each CPU can run most of the kernel code. This gives pretty good scaling.

At the innermost hardware interrupt level, however, pure SMP can be counter-productive. When a device signals for attention, you don't want every CPU to stop what it's doing to handle the device. It's better that one CPU be designated as the master to field interrupts and other hardware events (like clock ticks and power failure events).

Modern operating systems spend very little time in the hardware interrupt context - the interrupt routine's main job is to take the device attention message and package it up into a task that can be handled by normal kernel routines (normal routines that can run on any processor).

====

But anyway, today "SMP" simply means the same thing as "multi-processor". None of the common systems today are anything but "symmetric", in the "mostly symmetric" sense that I've described. "ASMP" was a weak solution even for a dual processor, and a failure at trios, quads and higher.

Twenty years ago the distinction between "SMP" and "ASMP" was important - today "ASMP" in an historical footnote.

[actionslacks]

Originally posted by visor
Well, I'll belive it when i hear it.
Controlled fans are all nice and well, but if a system is running at full speed, so do the fans, and hight rpm fanns -> more noise then low rpm spinning fans...

Stood right next to it at the Pixar Demo at SIGGRAPH yesterday. It was whisper quiet.

[job]

Originally posted by Sheebahawk
But if the single 1.6 was around fifteen or sixteen hbundred dollars, it would be a different story completely.

Are you in college/university?

With the new education discounts you can drive down the price of the 1.6Ghz tower easily.

Without a Superdrive and a $200 educational discount, the 1.6Ghz suddenly looks very attractive.

Heck I can spec out a 1.6Ghz tower with 512MB RAM, a 160GB HD, and a Radeon 9600 Pro for $1,889.00. That's a $511 difference from the retail 1.8Ghz tower and a $311 difference from the edu. discounted 1.8Ghz tower. And that's with a better graphics card in the 1.6Ghz tower to boot! All that money for an extra 200Mhz and a slightly faster bus? Not worth it IMO. Personally, I don't need PCI-X slots. I can deal with the slower (although not by much, and cheaper!) DDR SDRAM. You may want the PCI-X slots as a 'future proofing' precaution, I don't know. To be honest, I really don't see why everyone's ragging on the 1.6 tower for. I'd much rather have one than my iMac DV.

[nagromme]

Don't forget, on all G5s, you can save some money (about US$30) by removing the modem BTO, and even more (about $180) if you can settle for a Combo Drive. And the recent education price drops for individuals include the G5s.

The cheapest G5 is therefore $1770.

Or for edu individuals, it's now $1593.

At those prices, I do find the 1.6 tempting! You can always save up and add RAM later on.

[oingoboingo]

Originally posted by job
I don't know. To be honest, I really don't see why everyone's ragging on the 1.6 tower for. I'd much rather have one than my iMac DV.

I agree. The 200MHz drop in CPU speed (ie: only 11.1% of the 1.8GHz's core clock and FSB clock speed lost) and the use of DDR333 instead of DDR400 will probably make a smaller impact in many real-world applications than people think. The 1.6GHz system still has a damned fast FSB (800MHz), it still has substantial memory bandwidth (dual channel DDR333), it still has fast Serial ATA disks, AGP 8x graphics slot, FireWire 800 plus FireWire 400 USB 2.0, optical audio and gigabit ethernet. *And* it still has a HyperTransport bus linking it all together. The infrastructural improvement over the previous generation of G4 systems is still nothing short of astounding.

Seriously (not trying to start a flamefest here), but what are people planning to put in their PCI-X slots? I can only really think of large disk arrays (ie: SCSI and Fibre Channel controllers) or maybe high-end video capture and encoding equipment. That's probably more an illustration of my naivety than anything else, but I'd be interested to hear what people are planning to use their slots for, and what the PCI-X slot will give them above a regular 64-bit PCI slot (which in itself still offers higher bandwidth than all but the high-end 'workstation' class PC systems, which are still using 32-bit, 33MHz PCI slots).

[daveg5]

Originally posted by daveg5
they should have all been dual from the start with an october release date and all the same motherboard.
2x1.6+2x1.8x2x2.0 at the same prices.
big mistake on apple's partas the duals barely beat the single P4, i suspect the singles to get clobbered esp in fps games which or not optimized for altivec and duals except quake 3
oh well

[job]

Originally posted by oingoboingo
Seriously (not trying to start a flamefest here), but what are people planning to put in their PCI-X slots?

That's something I'd like to know as well. I'm sure there are people out there who will use them to their fullest, but I don't know if the majority of the users out there (barring the professionals, scientists, etc) will use them. It may be that people are 'future-proofing' themselves.

I think once you look at the 1.6Ghz tower as a whole like oingoboingo did, you'll see that the 1.6Ghz tower is quite an improvement, even over the old 1.42 towers.

Originally posted by nagromme
The cheapest G5 is therefore $1770.

Or for edu individuals, it's now $1593.

Yep. I'm drooling over that educational price, as my family is eligable (my mother is an adjunct faculty at a local community college.)

At those prices, I do find the 1.6 tempting! You can always save up and add RAM later on.

No kidding! You can even spec the 1.6Ghz tower with 512MB RAM and the 160GB hard drive and the Radeon 9600 Pro card and still come up with a price which gives the 1.8Ghz tower a run for it's money, even with the educational discount. Heck, I didn't even use the PCI slots on my old 7200, and since the G5s have optical audio, I have no real need for them anyways. I had actually entertained the idea of buying the Revolution 7.1 sound card when I get a new computer, but with the advancements on the G5 mobo, that isn't neccesary anymore.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Hey it would be nice if Macs were less but I could say the same thing about some of the guitars I want;)
daniel

That is so true!!! :D

groovebuster

[The Reaper]

you guys got it all wrong!

if apple had their way, all of the powermacs would be duals, but IBM would not be able to keep up with production: they would need to make double the ammount of chips for each lower end computer sold. wait until supply is plentiful: THEN, you will see lower end duals. even now, demand of the dual 2GHz machines exceeds supply, forcing apple to delay shipping dates.

remember, apple did this at the beginning of 2001, with the 733 MHz machines. they were single processor, even though they used to have Dual 500MHz g4s before that. Steve explained this by saying "if we made them duals, you'd have to wait 3 months for them to ship because of production speed."

from a marketing perspective, apple has done a surprisingly GOOD job in light of these production issues. the current pricing structure is designed to make people look to the next model up, driving sales towards the dual 2GHz (apple's highest margin machine).

if someone looks at the 1.6, then they check out the 1.8, they will see that it offers far more technologies, for just a little more money. so now, all set to buy the 1.8, they look at the dual 2GHz and realize that they will get more than DOUBLE the performance for just a little money. see how it works?

in any case, as someone pointed out, apple would probably have a contract with IBM that basically says: if apple wants to use IBM's latest and greatest chips, they have to also buy some lower end chips. apple doesn't really want to sell lower end duals: some people have mentioned that the Dual 2GHz has sold 5 times better than the other models. i think that rather than many customers being LOST because of the lack of lower end duals, they have instead shelled out a little more cash and gone for the 2GHz model. given a choice, they would probably paid a little less for a dual 1.8, but from a profit perspective, it's better for apple if the customer buys a 2GHZ dual.

just my thoughts on the matter.

[pianojoe]

Originally posted by groovebuster

Again, it depends on the voltage... Here in Germany we have only 6A circuits. Since we have 230V and not 110V, it is the same regarding used power.
[/B]

That's a typo. He meant to say 16A, not 6A.

I just wanted to point that out for the benefit of those who still believe that VWs are welded together by dwarves in the Black Forest. ;-)

Just kidding.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Hey it would be nice if Macs were less but I could say the same thing about some of the guitars I want;)

This isn't quite the right way of looking at it IMO. Sure, we'd like everything to be free. But in the absence of that, we should look for good value. Monopolies drive value down, and there is simply no getting around that. The question is, is the value driven down by too much in this case. That is an individual decision, but I think it is clear that the vast majority of individuals unfortunately see Apple's value proposition as poor. It would be nice if this wasn't the case.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by pianojoe
That's a typo. He meant to say 16A, not 6A.

Oops! The "1" is making trouble since a while now on my PowerBook... It's getting old I guess...

I have to talk to the dwarfs to maybe repair it!!! ;)

groovebuster

[Black Badger]

Going a bit off-topic but anybody noticed that the applestore is currently quoting a delivery time for G5s of 7-10 weeks, that upto mid October, so much for August shipping.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by soggywulf
This isn't quite the right way of looking at it IMO. Sure, we'd like everything to be free. But in the absence of that, we should look for good value. Monopolies drive value down, and there is simply no getting around that. The question is, is the value driven down by too much in this case. That is an individual decision, but I think it is clear that the vast majority of individuals unfortunately see Apple's value proposition as poor. It would be nice if this wasn't the case.

Well, it is for me:D The value of anything is in the eye of the beholder. If you want a less expensive computer buy an emac, they are faster than the new Imacs and you can get real work done with them, right out of the box.
If you want to worry about a MOnopoly, why doesn't the way MS does business worry you? Macs work the best for what I do but I do also like that they are not an MS box:cool:
daniel

[Lanbrown]

Originally posted by Black Badger
Going a bit off-topic but anybody noticed that the applestore is currently quoting a delivery time for G5s of 7-10 weeks, that upto mid October, so much for August shipping.

That is probably if you ordered one now; not if you ordered one last month. If you have 10,000 orders and only 5,000 machines and can produce 1,000 a week. The ten-thousandth person will have to wait 5 weeks before they received theirs. Person #1 would get theirs immediately.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
If you want a less expensive computer buy an emac, they are faster than the new Imacs and you can get real work done with them, right out of the box.

No thanks . I have the money, and I'll get a G5 (probably).

The issue is not "you" or "me", but rather the vast majority of people--who may not see the G5 (or any other Mac) as a good value.

Originally posted by fourthtunz
If you want to worry about a MOnopoly, why doesn't the way MS does business worry you?

It does worry me, of course. But two wrongs don't make a right, and my point stands independently: Apple's vertical monopoly makes Macs more expensive. MS's monopoly is bad too, but at least you can still get cheap PCs with or without Windows.

Besides, I am a Mac user. The Apple monopoly is the one that affects my pocketbook.

[Dahl]

Originally posted by Lanbrown
That is probably if you ordered one now; not if you ordered one last month. If you have 10,000 orders and only 5,000 machines and can produce 1,000 a week. The ten-thousandth person will have to wait 5 weeks before they received theirs. Person #1 would get theirs immediately.
That sucks.
So if it's a huge success and it looks like it, if I order in oct, I still have to wait. When I might as well wait for the updated model. :D

I have waited with ordering mine and I thought once they start shipping, the delays will stop. I just want some reviews on them before I decide.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by Dahl
That sucks.
So if it's a huge success and it looks like it, if I order in oct, I still have to wait. When I might as well wait for the updated model. :D

I have waited with ordering mine and I thought once they start shipping, the delays will stop. I just want some reviews on them before I decide.

I feel exactly the same way. I'm not dropping money until they are actually shipping and I can be reasonably sure of getting one within a week or two. And if that time comes in November, why not wait for the Rev B's or price cuts? Maybe by that time Apple will get their supply chain working right.

Plus reviews from all the rest of you guinea pigs here. :D

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Dave K
Not necessarily. As was pointed out on Ars, the performance grade distribution for the chips is likely hard coded into the contract between IBM and Apple, and it's fairly unlikely it favoured a 50% shipment rate at the highest grade for a first run Proc. This effectively means that, while IBM can likely meet Apple's needs, the contract forces Apple to eat a bunch of lower grade proc's for each high end one they move.

..

Thefefore since demand right now is at the very highest end of the chip speed list, Apple has incentive to hurry up and release G5 Powerbooks which presumably use low end chips for temperature reasons so they can increase their allocation of high end chips for desktops! Win, win.

Rocketman

http://www.v-serv.com/-upload/avatar2.jpg

[wizard]

Symmetric Multi Processor

It is a design technique, for hardware, that gives 2 or more processor units equal access to system resources. This includes RAM. [

Note that it is possible to have SMP hardware that is being driven by software that is not SMP aware. Older versions of Mac OS are like this.

In a modern SMP machine, system software is able to assign jobs to the individual processors as required, no one processor has a distincct advantage. Thus with a operating system like Mac OS/X that can have many processes ready to run at anyone time, two of those processes can be running at the same time (on a dual processor). By running I mean actually executing the code. This often leads to a more responsive machine if one process is CPU hungery.

It is also possible on a SMP machine to have both processors work on one problem. This would be parallel programing and is a issue in and of itself.

In general SMP machines offer the user a better experience than going to ultra high clock rates. With in reason, and contemporary technology, at some point on the curve a single processor will bieat older SMP hardware. That though is comparing new to old.

Thanks
dave



Originally posted by vrapan
Stupid question but what SMP stands for?

[Capt Underpants]

I would prefer a dual 1.8 over a dual 2.0 (simply for the fact that I don't need that much power, but would like a dualie). The 1.6 seems a bit overpriced(to me). Others would argue against that. If I had ordered a 1.8, I would switch to a dualie 1.8. Seems like a better deal to me. It wouldn't surprise me if they dropped the 1.8 all together.

-Capt Underpants

[m_gerbik]

Originally posted by caveman_uk
I don't understand why they weren't all dual anyway. Word! I keep thinking that Apple at some point will only offer duals. I think they did it once with G4s for a couple months. My question remains... Why did they make such a big issue about "The real performance gains" can be seen in Dual Processors? And that the G5 was "designed from the ground up for multiple processors." They say this in the same breath as the announcement of the new product line that includes two single processor G5s. What? That's retarded. Of course your going to want the dual when they tell you how your not really gonna feel the power of the chip with a single processor.

[Chisholm]

Originally posted by pianojoe
That's a typo. He meant to say 16A, not 6A.

I just wanted to point that out for the benefit of those who still believe that VWs are welded together by dwarves in the Black Forest. ;-)

Just kidding.

I thought those were elves in the VW plants.....

[tex210]

I agree that some people may not see the value in Apple systems, but that is their loss. I've accomplished lots on my old imac dv se. Sure it would be great if I woke up and the computer fairy had replaced my system overnight ( as long as she synced for me!), but come on! These single G5 processors are still light years ahead of what many of Apple's customers are using currently. Hell an eMac would be light years ahead of what I've been using.
As for Volkswagen, they were Mexican Nationalists building them not dwarves or elves, but now it's just robots. just like IBM. The remaining population not working after all manufacturing, customer service, data entry, and accounting is outsourced to some foreign land or built/managed by robotics will be sent off to war, in order to increase defense budget spending 'til the military is using a majority of robots to fight the battles. Of course we'll be hunting down all the dwarves and elves, offering extravagant rewards for their whereabouts, and any information about their weapons of mass destruction.
Maybe humans will be considered the legendary little people (dwarves and elves).
I'm sorry, I couldn't stop once I started.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by tex210
I agree that some people may not see the value in Apple systems, but that is their loss.

Well... It is this attitude that has brought us down to 2-3% marketshare. I believe Gassee [sp?] once said "you can only have a Mac if you deserve it" or some such thing. To a certain extent, then, perhaps Apple has deserved its fate.

But is Apple concerned about switchers, or is it not? If not, then great--the G5 is much faster than what we have now, and they can charge whatever they want and existing Mac users will pay for it.

And, sad to say, but I get the feeling that this is exactly how Apple sees it internally. Forget long term growth, just milk the existing base as much as possible, just enough so people don't switch away in droves. Which is too bad for me as a Mac user, at several levels.

[Geetar]

Originally posted by oingoboingo
.... what are people planning to put in their PCI-X slots? I can only really think of large disk arrays (ie: SCSI and Fibre Channel controllers) or maybe high-end video capture and encoding equipment.

In my case, I wanted to leave the option of returning to Protools TDM at a later date - there's a bunch of PCI-X Digi cards under development, so the rumors go.

Others like TC and UA may eventually follow just to get comparable throughput. Whether they do or not, I've hedged my bets with the dual 2.0

[vrapan]

Well... It is this attitude that has brought us down to 2-3% marketshare. I believe Gassee [sp?] once said "you can only have a Mac if you deserve it" or some such thing. To a certain extent, then, perhaps Apple has deserved its fate.

But is Apple concerned about switchers, or is it not? If not, then great--the G5 is much faster than what we have now, and they can charge whatever they want and existing Mac users will pay for it.

And, sad to say, but I get the feeling that this is exactly how Apple sees it internally. Forget long term growth, just milk the existing base as much as possible, just enough so people don't switch away in droves. Which is too bad for me as a Mac user, at several levels.

You couldn't have said it any better I whole hearteadly AGREE!!!!

But I just have a hope that this is going to be temporary, after they milk the power hungry with hefty premiums on the new machines they will drop the prices. Two reasons for that: They will have machines actually running for people to see the speed difference. Even if they had them cheap PC users wouldn't switch if only cause they haven't seen them running. And then they know that they can make tons of money on overpricing their machines simply cause mac fans will buy them anyway - I am not.

I will buy one at around 1600$ with an Apple screen, before that I am not paying even 1500$ to only have a main unit no matter how fast and gorgeous it is. It is not worth the premium. I will keep buying a new PB every two years. That is it and keep a PC for anything that needs lots of power until I dont have to pay more than 40% extra than a comparable PC. I dont like windows but XP is a decent OS and although OS X is much better that and iApps are not worth 2.5X the price of a comparable PC....

Example

1.6GHz Power Mac 80GB OS X 256DDR DVDR(NOT RW WHY???????), Nvidia 5200FX. + 17" Apple LCD
2000+tax = 2200+ 700$ LCD =2900 (NO DVDR and I am not sure if it is faster than 2.4GHz P4)

Sony 2.4GHz P4 WinXP Home, 60GB HD, 256MB DDR, DVDRW, 15"LCD, yes crappy graphics card. 899$+tax=980$
+250$ for a better graphics card and extra for an 80GB HD =around 1250$ an Extra 150 will get you a good 17" LCD so in all 1400$

So it is more than double. And if you go for something other than Sony the difference might be even bigger. The OS X experience is worth some extra money the better nicer looking higher quality casing and components I assume do too but not an extra 1600$ you buy 2 PCs for the price of one

[yanges]

i saw a post that indicated that you can add a second processor fairly easily to a single processor G5?

i would not think that it would be very easy at all.....

or is it?

what do you think?

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by vrapan
But I just have a hope that this is going to be temporary, after they milk the power hungry with hefty premiums on the new machines they will drop the prices.

Yes, I hope for that as well. We'll see. It is true that demand among existing Mac users is high, just because of the huge jump...so perhaps we'll see price cuts soon. Specifically, I hope that this Dual 1.8 rumor pans out at a reasonable price.

[MattG]

So if this does happen next week, do you all think it'll be on Tuesday like most of their announcements? I'm thinking about changing my DP 2.0ghz order to a DP 1.8ghz if they announce it, and I might even change my order to a SP 1.8ghz if they don't. I just can't get over spending this much on a computer...

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by vrapan

Sony 2.4GHz P4 WinXP Home, 60GB HD, 256MB DDR, DVDRW, 15"LCD, yes crappy graphics card. 899$+tax=980$
+250$ for a better graphics card and extra for an 80GB HD =around 1250$ an Extra 150 will get you a good 17" LCD so in all 1400$



I think you are ignoring the Mac software, I guess you don't do video,dvds,photos or music? The 1 gig $1300 emac would kill that Sony for real work with the Macs INCLUDED software and FULL Version OF the OS.
I have one, it rocks but I'll be getting the G5 too, but I don't need an $800 lcd:rolleyes:
peace
daniel

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by soggywulf



It does worry me, of course. But two wrongs don't make a right, and my point stands independently: Apple's vertical monopoly makes Macs more expensive. MS's monopoly is bad too, but at least you can still get cheap PCs with or without Windows.



Well if you're a Mac user you know they tried the clone thing without much success. Is BMW a monopoly? I guess they have about the same amount of Market share. I guess I don't know what else Apple can do, they have inexpensive models but if they cut the tower prices in half to compete with pcs they die:confused: How do they innovate then?
daniel

[gwangung]

But two wrongs don't make a right, and my point stands independently: Apple's vertical monopoly makes Macs more expensive. MS's monopoly is bad too, but at least you can still get cheap PCs with or without Windows.

If Apple has a monopoly, then why are people comparing them all the time to Windows? By definition, monopolies aren't comparable.... (not to mention the old saw that consumer behavior defines markets, NOT the product).

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by gwangung
If Apple has a monopoly, then why are people comparing them all the time to Windows? By definition, monopolies aren't comparable....

Apple has a vertical monopoly, in a certain sense. MS has a horizontal monopoly, in that same sense.

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Well if you're a Mac user you know they tried the clone thing without much success. Is BMW a monopoly? I guess they have about the same amount of Market share. I guess I don't know what else Apple can do, they have inexpensive models but if they cut the tower prices in half to compete with pcs they die:confused: How do they innovate then?
daniel

Yeah, clones weren't helping Apple, and it is generally thought now that this was due to the fact that they tried it too late. They missed the window of opportunity apparently, and now I guess it's too late. :(

I don't know what else Apple can do at this point either. I guess it's just too bad and that's the way it is. We can take it or leave it.

But I think Apple could cut down the prices some. At this point I don't think Apple is a hugely innovative company. Sure, they make a nice product, but that's not innovation per se.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Apple has a vertical monopoly, in a certain sense. MS has a horizontal monopoly, in that same sense.

Yeah, Apple is out to rule the world with their 3% monopoly,
I wish they stop their cutthroat way of doing business:D
daniel

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
Yeah, Apple is out to rule the world with their 3% monopoly,
I wish they stop their cutthroat way of doing business:D
daniel

Yeah I know you're joking. But speaking of throats being cut, tell that to Power Computing. I think they wouldn't be amused. :)

[vrapan]

I think you are ignoring the Mac software, I guess you don't do video,dvds,photos or music? The 1 gig $1300 emac would kill that Sony for real work with the Macs INCLUDED software and FULL Version OF the OS.
I have one, it rocks but I'll be getting the G5 too, but I don't need an $800 lcd

I see your point. But

Sony does include photos, music and video software with the vast majority of their products.

The eMac is not upgradable and it is not nearly as fast as a 2.4GHz P4. What are you going to do with a full 60GB hard drive? Add an external one? or buy a new Mac specifically for its extra storage? The first solution is inelegant the second is expensive. This is why I prefer to compare the Mac tower to the PC tower - they do have all in one solutions but they do pale in comparison to the Mac offers.

eMac is using a CRT many people dont like CRTs any more. And the PC package would be an extra 150$ cheaper if it did not inlcude an LCD.

Now about the full version of OS. I could see it as an advantage if there is any chance that you could deduce it from the price of your next Mac or something. What more can you do with your full copy of your Mac OSX that you cannot do with your copy of WinXP? You can sell them both as long as you stop using them.

So the price difference remains no matter what. Macs beat PCs hands down on everyday use. This is why I "switched" and this is why I will keep switched for most of my everyday computing life. But in order to attract some more share on the market and not vanish slowly to oblivion you have to pesruade an average PC user that the experience is so much better that it is worth at least double price than what you are paying now or a few hundrends dollars more and a sacrifice to flexibility. In either case you will find it very hard to do. The switchers campaign would have been a success if it could have been accompanied with a couple of entry level low cost G4 or G5 towers. And when I am saying low cost I certainly don't mean 1999$.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by vrapan

Now about the full version of OS. I could see it as an advantage if there is any chance that you could deduce it from the price of your next Mac or something. What more can you do with your full copy of your Mac OSX that you cannot do with your copy of WinXP? You can sell them both as long as you stop using them.



Some pro apps require the full version of windows, which you would have to pay extra for or upgrade to later.
As far as an emac goes how many people do you know that use pci slots? I do but most don't?
I have 4 macs and I bought the 1 gig emac and put it to work right out of the box. I don't know if it will win a shoot out against your pc but out of the box I guarantee you will get more work done. I'm buying the G5 when it comes out maybe just the cheapie for now, but if apple were to sell it at $1500 instead of $2000 as it is now they'd be breaking even.
I don't think they could keep that up for long :D
Hey the tower is a workstation, a pro piece of kit and it competes against others of that type very well.
I wish they were cheaper too but, oh well:)
daniel

[vrapan]

I guess what I was suggesting is to try and pull a DELL :p with a base model in order to lure people and keep their base. Because the problem is not the actual market share as much as the actual number of Mac users. And I am afraid that with such a pricing they are losing not market share because PCs sell more only but because Mac users are fed up paying so high prices.

As far as the 1500$ 1.6GHz you can strip it down - less HD no DVDR, lesser graphics card and you can use it as the crowd pleaser. Lose money on that in order to expand your customer base which will buy the more expensive products after they are hooked.

For my part I dont care how much they sell them for. I bought what I thought it was a decently priced 12"PB and I will buy a G5 when I will think it is worth the price. All I am saying is that I love the Mac platform and I dont want to see it disappearing only because Apple never put a real effort to increase the reach of the platform outrside the core Mac fans.

As far as PC users and their PCI slots goes upgradability is not only a PCI slot. It is a bigger or better HD, an extra or different optical drive,a better bigger monitor a higher processor and so on. There is no Mac less than 1999$ Macs that offera any of these. If you bought a CDRW iMac and a year down the line want a DVDR you have two options: Buy the inelegant and very expensive external drive or the elegant but very expensive solution of buying a different model. I know iMacs are supposed to be used by people who dont care about these things but there should be an option on the same price range for those that do - which are very very very many.


And for me as long as Apple can keep being a somewhat profitable company that can offer a far better computing experience than the competition I dont care if they never switch another PC user. The problem with a shrinking customer base is that you spread your costs in fewer sales. In order to keep being profitable you will have to raise your prices which will make more of your customer base to go away and so on till you fix a computer only for Steve Jobs. Which at the end of the day has a safety net if Apple dies but computer users will lose something very important. A different way of thinking.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by vrapan
I guess what I was suggesting is to try and pull a DELL :p with a base model in order to lure people and keep their base. Because the problem is not the actual market share as much as the actual number of Mac users. And I am afraid that with such a pricing they are losing not market share because PCs sell more only but because Mac users are fed up paying so high prices.

As far as the 1500$ 1.6GHz you can strip it down - less HD no DVDR, lesser graphics card and you can use it as the crowd pleaser. Lose money on that in order to expand your customer base which will buy the more expensive products after they are hooked.



I wonder what kind of market there is for a stripped down tower? You never know, maybe they should be offering a g3 or G4 low budget tower, sorta like a celeron?
Who knows:)
daniel

[panphage]

What's with all these arguments about no upgradeability? Please support your argument. But you cannot, as it's partly false.

What's missing is the pci slots. There is no other difference. I can pop a new HDD or optical drive in an emac or a imac just as easily as you can in you tower. I can't add an ADDITIONAL HDD or optical drive, but I can replace the current one with a better one. I just replaced the HDD on my Cube and I'm replacing the DVD drive with a Combo drive next week. If you know how to crack open your x86 tower to add an HDD you can do the same with a Mac. So all this talk of not being able to upgrade HDDs and optical drives on macs is horse excrement.

Added to this is the fact that other than gaming weenies (me!), the vast population of computer users just plug the damn thing in and start emailing and using Word. And they do it at work, where they use a machine they didn't choose. Then when they buy a machine for their house, they get something similar to what they have at work, Windows at work, Windows at home. The normal computer user is not going to upgrade a processor. For these people an eMac is a great machine.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, it's actually easier to upgrade the processor in a mac than it is in a PC. The way intel and AMD are going, if you want a new proc 6 months from now, you get to shell out for a new motherboard as well. With a mac, you just buy a new processor card. You're not going to get your B&W G3 to take a G5, no, but you can get the newest G3.

[vrapan]

ok didn't know you could anyway new to the mac thing sorry.... i will keep that in mind next time.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by panphage
What's with all these arguments about no upgradeability? Please support your argument. But you cannot, as it's partly false.

What's missing is the pci slots. There is no other difference. I can pop a new HDD or optical drive in an emac or a imac just as easily as you can in you tower. I can't add an ADDITIONAL HDD or optical drive, but I can replace the current one with a better one. I just replaced the HDD on my Cube and I'm replacing the DVD drive with a Combo drive next week. If you know how to crack open your x86 tower to add an HDD you can do the same with a Mac. So all this talk of not being able to upgrade HDDs and optical drives on macs is horse excrement.



I was going to mention this but, for the people who want the lowest priced machine wellll:confused:
I was also going to mention that if you buy an emac with a superdrive you can back up 4.5 gigs for $1 or you can always buy an external drive which comes in handy if you have more than one computer. peace
daniel

[rjwill246]

You can't have your cake and it it too. Apple by definition is not a monopoly any more than Sun is with Solaris. These are proprietary systems and Apple's OS is designed to work on Apple's own hardware. Now, if Apple's hardware and software were doing what MS, with software alone, is doing and they had 97% of the market, THAT would be a monopoly. By practical experience, we all know that Apple is not in that position. With MS making IE available only through its OS and because they have 97% of the market, the Internet will now be in MS's full control unless the regulatory bodies "make" IE become standards compliant, otherwise, no one with any other OS will be able to "log on" without glitches happening. Now, THAT is a monopoly position. We must not forget that Apple's hold on life is tenuous at best... the clone fiasco showed that. As for Apple's margins... look at their bottom line and it's pretty darned clear that they NEED those margins. Really cheap Apple's across the line? No way! it would be the end of Apple. As others have said, the eMac is a superb intro machine and is competitive with any el cheapo Wintel, especially when you consider XP Home!

[scem0]

I know I am kind of late on this but here are the specs/prices that I would like to see:

fast - single 1.6 - $1,699
faster - single 1.8 - $1,999
fasterer:rolleyes:;):D - dual 1.8 - $2,499
fastest - dual 2.0 - $2,799

$250 less on each machine with educational discounts.

scem0

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by soggywulf
. At this point I don't think Apple is a hugely innovative company. Sure, they make a nice product, but that's not innovation per se.

Hey do you work for intel? There is an article over at maccentral that sounds like you:D
I think the G5 could be innovative, if it pans out as I hope.
I think the Imac is innovative, the cube, the ipod.
Firewire was and is the best on the Mac.
I think the way Itunes,Imovie,IDvd,and Iphoto all work together is innovative. Final cut is Innovative and is quicking Avids butt.
And now apple is bundling soundtrack with it, which is a great app by itself. Panther is looking pretty good.
I'm sorry but I can't think of any other computer maker that is bringing it like Apple, especially for its size and in this economy.
My 2cents,peace
daniel

[soggywulf]

Originally posted by fourthtunz
I'm sorry but I can't think of any other computer maker that is bringing it like Apple, especially for its size and in this economy.

Yeah, I guess there's a lot of stuff I take for granted. I suppose I wish Apple could have been a SW company, but I also suppose ther'e's no point in wishing for something that'll never happen

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by soggywulf
Yeah, I guess there's a lot of stuff I take for granted. I suppose I wish Apple could have been a SW company, but I also suppose ther'e's no point in wishing for something that'll never happen

Yeah, this is all based on perspective I know:)
From my perspective I'm glad that Apple does Hardware, the big draw for me as an AV studio is stability. Having the OS and the box made by the same company is a real plus imo.
I replaced hardware back in 96' with the Mac and I've never regretted it.
I also have a pc but even though I've used PC's longer, I know less about making them work. If you've even opened up your Mac tower, they are very easy to work on compared to most pcs, something that probably won't convert most people I know :cool:
I hope OS X ends up being as stable as 9 was:D
daniel

[yanges]

Originally posted by yanges
i saw a post that indicated that you can add a second processor fairly easily to a single processor G5?

i would not think that it would be very easy at all.....

or is it?

what do you think?

has anyone heard of this??

thanks:)

[daveg5]

Originally posted by scem0
I know I am kind of late on this but here are the specs/prices that I would like to see:
all superdrive and same motherboard except 1.6 pci 4 ddr slots combo drive

fast - single 1.6 - $999
faster - dual 1.6 - $1,499
fasterer:rolleyes:;):D - dual 1.8 - $1,999
fastest - dual 2.0 - $2,499

$250 less on each machine with educational discounts.

scem0
this will increase apples maret share 40-60% but they would probably go out of buisness in a year.

[jaedreth]

Um, yeah. Sell the G5's below cost. And then add a $250 discount to Edu. Um. Yeah. Apple wouldn't last that long.

Jaedreth

[ffakr]

Originally posted by jaedreth
Um, yeah. Sell the G5's below cost. And then add a $250 discount to Edu. Um. Yeah. Apple wouldn't last that long.

Jaedreth
We don't know what cost is on a G5.
$2000 for a single processor computer with fairly standard components allows for a pretty good profit margin IMHO.

Pricing isn't just about cost or margin. Apple prices to make profit AND maximize profit.
Pent up demand for a new tower means a lot of people will buy them irregardless of price (within reason). It is not in Apple's best interest to sell the G5 at low margin right now since they probably wouldn't sell significantly more units if they lowered the price by 25%... at least not at first.
Once the early adopters are done... the people who need the G5 and are willing to pay for it... then Apple will have to adjust for the people who can't afford one yet. Add into the mix the fact they they will try to recoup R&D initially...and that they will gain better economies of scale as the G5 begins to ship in large volumes.

I think that the target prices from scem0 will be feasable in the NEAR future. That doesn't mean it will happen, but it will be entirely feasable and probably optimal when the market dynamic changes and when economies of scale are achieved.

ffakr.

[daveL]

Originally posted by daveg5
this will increase apples maret share 40-60% but they would probably go out of buisness in a year.
Looks to me as though you changed scem0's quoted post. You really ought to mention that when you do it, as someone else may come along and think that's what the original post stated.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by ffakr
We don't know what cost is on a G5.
$2000 for a single processor computer with fairly standard components allows for a pretty good profit margin IMHO.

It is not in Apple's best interest to sell the G5 at low margin right now since they probably wouldn't sell significantly more units if they lowered the price by 25%... at least not at first.
.

Your right, cost would be hard to know. The figure that gets kicked around is 25 % as far as profit margin for apple?
I think the G5's are even faster than apple has quoted, even the cheapie looks good.
Apples do cost more but they also hold their value very well so I'll be trying one as soon as they're available

:D

[daveg5]

Originally posted by jaedreth
Um, yeah. Sell the G5's below cost. And then add a $250 discount to Edu. Um. Yeah. Apple wouldn't last that long.

Jaedreth
my post was meant as sarcasm look at the last line

[daveg5]

Originally posted by daveg5
this will increase apples maret share 40-60% but they would probably go out of buisness in a year.
i edited scemo 's post didnt feel like typing

[Mac Dummy]

I just read the specs for the dual 1.8 and the 2.0 @ Apple's website, and the only things that I could find that were different between the two is that the dual 2.0Ghz G5 has an ATI 9600 Pro graphics card vs. Nvidia 5200 on the dual 1.8; the dual 2.0 has a 1Ghz FSB vs. 900Mhz on the 1.8 (naturally), and of course the 2.0 has the faster processor. I know, duh!

http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

[Tim Flynn]

Originally posted by scem0
on 08/05/2003
snip
fasterer:rolleyes:;):D - dual 1.8 - $2,499
fastest - dual 2.0 - $2,799

scem0

scem0,
Good job predicting price on that dual 1.8 ! :D