eMac and iMac EOL'd?

[Sun Baked]

Single channel DDR memory anyone...

Everybody wants a few memory upgrades in the machine, and single channel memory would give it to you. Though the memory would operate at 1/2 the bandwidth of the PowerMac G5.

Those pesky 4 pairs of DIMMs take up a lot of room in the PowerMac.

 

[chaos86]

eol means they wont make them the same anymore

which means new architechture or form factor which means this isnt a moto speed bump. from what ive seen, emacs have been killing imac sales. i can see them combining the emac and imac (closer to the imac but with a more protected screen for schools) and going back to one consumer desktop (imac), one consumer notebook (ibook), one pro desktop (powermac), and one pro notebook (powerbook). and the serves. and the pods. that would make sense.

now what would not make sense-- having g5 'consumer' imacs that way outperform the g4 'pro' powerbooks. they wont release a new proc to the consumer level until its already used in the whole pro level. they never have and never will.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

which means new architechture or form factor which means this isnt a moto speed bump. from what ive seen, emacs have been killing imac sales. i can see them combining the emac and imac (closer to the imac but with a more protected screen for schools) and going back to one consumer desktop (imac), one consumer notebook (ibook), one pro desktop (powermac), and one pro notebook (powerbook). and the serves. and the pods. that would make sense.

now what would not make sense-- having g5 'consumer' imacs that way outperform the g4 'pro' powerbooks. they wont release a new proc to the consumer level until its already used in the whole pro level. they never have and never will.

man you are clueless, G4 thats way overpriced is killing Imac sales. and by the way they count Imac & Emac sales as Imac sales(Apple spinning the truth) and those numbers still are the same as powermac G5. Dismal. why? old stale technology that apple charges twice what its worth thats why 1.7% of all new computers were macs. Only mac faithful would be dumb enough to buy old hardware at new hardware prices. new buyers flock to the PC world where they can get fast new machines at 1/2 what apple charges for old slow G4s. I also love the logic of cant make a decent Imac because Powerbook doesnt have G5 in it. Brilliant! way to go! Just keep making old crap. with that thinking Apple is sure to hit 1% marketshare or less this qtr. they must have someone like you running Apple.

 

[adamjay]

Only mac faithful would be dumb enough to buy old hardware at new hardware prices. new buyers flock to the PC world where they can get fast new machines at 1/2 what apple charges for old slow G4s.

every Mac user here knows that we aren't spending money on old hardware, we are spending money on 1) SOFTWARE *Hello, OSX!!!, followed by hardware (which may not stack up to the Speed of a PC but both have advantages and disadvantages *see below), support, piece of mind.

and PC's lose their ability to be "fast" once bombarded with Spyware, Worm Attacks, and the lack of BSD. The "Mac Faithful" have faith that their computers will do what they want, when they want, and how they want. Hell that's not even faith, thats logic!

 

[adamjay]

Apple has been doing this for a long time now...

EOL'ed models and others models soon to be EOL'ed are sold for dirty cheap in Brazil. There's a bargain right now. You can buy an eMac (1GHz/256/80/Combo) in 20 monthly payments... They call it "back2school". I am not sure if it's the same over there in the northern hemisphere, but here it's going like this.

how many Reai's is the monthly payment in Brazil for an eMac, iCeb0x ?
Electronics in generaly (even mac's) are very inexpensive in the US compared to the rest of the world. I would jump to say because of the consumerist nature of our culture. Everyone wants the latest, and every company pushes to make the latest, its an endless cycle.

i remember being in Sao Paulo in October, shopping on Avenido Paulista and seeing the prices for even cheap non-brand PC Laptops were outrageous!

would you be surprised if i said you could get a brand new eMac here in the US with the specs you listed above for 2,184 Reai's ??

 

[MarkCollette]

There's a simple rule in marketing: sell people what they want. The pro line should be what pro people want, and the consumer line should be what sonsumers want. That means not keeping the consumer line down to save the pro line. I personally think that everyone else's suggestion of duals for pros and singles for consumers is a sufficient compromise, as long as the clock rates are as high as possible for both.

But, to push my point even further, if for some reason consumers wanted the same specs as pros, then they should have the same specs. Give people what they want. If for some neurotic reason you really really need to separate lines, than differentiate by style, software bundles, system support contracts, etc.

Obviously there are price point differences between consumer and pros, but if the consumer price point fits with a high end chip, then don't down clock it for some self-defeating reasons.

 

[aswitcher]

SNIP

</rant off>
macs. aren't made for gaming and that won't chance in the near future ...i have no problem with that: i will still switch in the next year and keep my PC for gaming .... PCs & Consoles are best for games... The best for apple would be increasing speed/specs of computers and not concentrating on trying to get more games for the OS that market is already very crowed
(with one of my favourite games civ3 already on mac osx it's not hard for me to switch ;-) )

Mac might do well to push the design of games that aren't FPSs which form the bulk of PC and especially games machines like the XBOX and PS2, to see if they can increase a market share with games that don't rely on expensive graphics cards and top Ghz. Military and construction stratergy games, iSight based games, turn based strategy games of old (reach for the stars was cool) and games that heavily use video and music... just an errant thought

 

[aswitcher]

There's a simple rule in marketing: sell people what they want. The pro line should be what pro people want, and the consumer line should be what sonsumers want. That means not keeping the consumer line down to save the pro line. I personally think that everyone else's suggestion of duals for pros and singles for consumers is a sufficient compromise, as long as the clock rates are as high as possible for both.
SNIP

Yeah, this is a sore point for a number of forum posters. Apple telling us what we want, not building their lines to reflect what the market wants.

Biggest issue (I guess) is the jump from an iMac to a G5PM... at present there is a huge gap in performance. Huge. Its been there for 6+ months, and even before that the jump from a iMac to a Dual G4 was pretty signficant. As for gaming, lack of decent iMac upgrades for graphics and ram has crippled it.

 

[rdowns]

There's a simple rule in marketing: sell people what they want. The pro line should be what pro people want, and the consumer line should be what sonsumers want. That means not keeping the consumer line down to save the pro line. I personally think that everyone else's suggestion of duals for pros and singles for consumers is a sufficient compromise, as long as the clock rates are as high as possible for both.

But, to push my point even further, if for some reason consumers wanted the same specs as pros, then they should have the same specs. Give people what they want. If for some neurotic reason you really really need to separate lines, than differentiate by style, software bundles, system support contracts, etc.

Obviously there are price point differences between consumer and pros, but if the consumer price point fits with a high end chip, then don't down clock it for some self-defeating reasons.

I agree, give the people what they want and stop playing daddy with the damn marketing.

There are plenty of ways to diffrentiate lines other than the processor. Dual vs. single, expansion slots, RAM expanability, video cards, FireWire 800, bundled software, tower vs. AIO.

I just got my Apple 10K in the mail today for the fical year ending Sept. 2003. (Note- that means PM G5 sales are not reflected here) Man, their sales numbers are dismal. Aside of the PB (unit sales up 69% 2003 vs. 2002), all other computers were way down. Here are the numbers

Numbers are unit sales in thousands for 2003, 2002 and 2001 respectively.

PowerMacs (includes severs), 667, 766, 937
PowerBooks, 604, 357, 346
iMacs (includes eMacs), 1094, 1301, 1208
iBook, 647, 677, 596

Total unit sales were down 3% for 2003

You can interpret these any way you want but to me it screams that their desktop line ups are inadequate. The G5 addressed the PM six months ago while the iMac still languishes with almost 3 year old technology. 2001 was a pretty good year for Apple, many of those buyers are ready for an upgrade. Does Apple have what to offer them? I think not.

A 2.0 GHz or faster processor in a revamped iMac would sell like iPods.

rant over

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

interesting numbers rdowns, sure apple is making money but selling less and less. no mater how exclusive people want Apple to be this isnt good news for shareholders or Apple. the whole product line has become current technology, current technology handicapped, old technology,old technology thats handicapped, old technology thats handicapped and then crippled. this philosophey may put money in Apples pockets but its a looser if you want to grow or even keep your current market. Apple had almost 20% of new sales in 1997, today it has 1.7% new sales yet we have people posting even today that this is terrific. I just dont see it. Apple has to market what the market wants. not what Apple wants. consumers will go elsewhere and have.

 

[CrackedButter]

To the person who complained about their emac.

I went from a powerbook (1.25ghz) to an emac (1ghz), the emac is fine for the amount I paid, its the powerbook that was overpriced imo.

It has 640 RAM and it stays on 24/7 for the 3 months I have had it now, it is also folding proteins all the time while I run iTunes, Safari, mail, acqusition + Photoshop CS and mplayer.

To be honest however, safari is a bit on the slow side with scrolling and tabs but thats it.

 

[Naimfan]

The numbers, as they say, don't lie. Apple really does need to revamp the lineup, although I would suggest that the G5 PMs were the first step. Now they need to bump the PMs and they really need to do something with the iMacs. Then again, I was just at the Cherry Creek Apple store, and I saw 3 iMac sales... Along with 4 PBs and 3 iBooks. Not a single PM, but Saturday probably isn't a big PM sales day...

And there were a TON of iPods etc being sold, as well as the last silver mini. And at least two of the laptop sales were switchers, who switched because they got an iPod, so perhaps the strategy of using the iPod to draw people in does have some validity.

Best,

Bob

 

[CrackedButter]

The numbers, as they say, don't lie. Apple really does need to revamp the lineup, although I would suggest that the G5 PMs were the first step. Now they need to bump the PMs and they really need to do something with the iMacs. Then again, I was just at the Cherry Creek Apple store, and I saw 3 iMac sales... Along with 4 PBs and 3 iBooks. Not a single PM, but Saturday probably isn't a big PM sales day...

And there were a TON of iPods etc being sold, as well as the last silver mini. And at least two of the laptop sales were switchers, who switched because they got an iPod, so perhaps the strategy of using the iPod to draw people in does have some validity.

Best,

Bob

I wish I could sit in an Apple Store and watch that kind of stuff go on.

 

[MarkCollette]

2001 was a pretty good year for Apple, many of those buyers are ready for an upgrade. Does Apple have what to offer them? I think not.

A 2.0 GHz or faster processor in a revamped iMac would sell like iPods.

On the PC side of things the industry average is to upgrade every 3 years. I have no idea what the Mac average is. But anyway, you raise a really good point, that we're reaching a timeframe where Apple has the chance to make a grand slam, if they simply don't fumble.

And I fully agree about the 2 GHz thing. Whether or not it's what people "need" (as others mention), it just so happens to have a huge psychological factor to it. People want 2 GHz, just like how 1 GHz was a major point, years ago.

 

[de_construct]

Skipping the PPC 7447A, straight to PPC 970 FX?

I am thinking Apple may ditch the G4 entirely, as it did with the G3s ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/35749.html ) This has a precedent, as Apple unexpectedly went G4 with the iBook line, even though IBM had the PPC 750GX ready to go past 1GHz, and despite having both multiprocessing capabilities and AltiVec added, it went with hand-me-down PPC 7455 instead. I am thinking that the megahertz myth still holds sway in Apple's marketing, it would have looked stupid if the iBooks with G3s were out-megahertzing the PowerBooks. I always considered the G4 line as a bad egg, the G3 always held its own, Moto's financial problems probably negatively impacted the G4's development. Now if IBM could make enough G5s...

 

[aswitcher]

I am thinking Apple may ditch the G4 entirely, as it did with the G3s ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/35749.html ) This has a precedent, as Apple unexpectedly went G4 with the iBook line, even though IBM had the PPC 750GX ready to go past 1GHz, and despite having both multiprocessing capabilities and AltiVec added, it went with hand-me-down PPC 7455 instead. SNIP

Well I think we would all like to think that in 2005 all machines will have a G5...

 

[yamabushi]

Well I think we would all like to think that in 2005 all machines will have a G5...

Except of course the dual G6 PowerMac in Fall 2005.

 

[edenwaith]

Mac might do well to push the design of games that aren't FPSs which form the bulk of PC and especially games machines like the XBOX and PS2, to see if they can increase a market share with games that don't rely on expensive graphics cards and top Ghz. Military and construction stratergy games, iSight based games, turn based strategy games of old (reach for the stars was cool) and games that heavily use video and music... just an errant thought

Personally, I'd like to see more adventure games, and I don't mean slide-show crap like Myst or The Crystal Key. But these days aren't real bad for Mac games. Certainly not everything makes it to the Mac, but there are a decent number of games, at least. Enough to keep me busy. Lately I've been slugging my way through the original Diablo (yes, I haven't completed this one yet, same with Warcraft 1).

 

[edenwaith]

and PC's lose their ability to be "fast" once bombarded with Spyware, Worm Attacks, and the lack of BSD. The "Mac Faithful" have faith that their computers will do what they want, when they want, and how they want. Hell that's not even faith, thats logic!

Hmm...and I thought PCs lose their ability to be fast once Windows is loaded. Once I have the money, I'll have to try and create a multi-boot PC with Linux and several forms of Windows and experiment from there. Every Windows OS I've used (95 through XP) has had one very critical problem: they get EXTREMELY sluggish and error prone after too much use, especially if a bunch of programs have been put on (and removed) from a computer. My fiancee has two Dells, one is 1.6GHz and the other is a 2 GHz machine. Isn't it funny how these two machines, each with Win XP, and should theoretically be 4 and 5 times faster than my 400 MHz G4 PowerMac, respond much slower than my Mac? Part of it might be Windows' poor handling of multi-tasking. With OS X, I can just hop between my programs, even if one program is highly time consuming or is locked up. Win XP is very sluggish in responding properly, and these computers are much newer than my Mac! My Mac has never had its OS reinstalled. I've upgraded it several times (OS 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2), but that is all, and I don't have any severe speed issues. And if I installed OS 10.3, it might even run a little faster.

What I have mentioned here are my observations, not necessarily facts written in stone. But considering how slow Windows feels to me, in addition to all of the !%@#$ ads and pop ups, I really know that XP isn't for me. The last linux I used (RedHat 8) was shaping up pretty well, but there were still some problems with hardware configurations. So, for me, Macs and OS X are about the perfect combination. Great UNIX tools and legacy, but without the problems of Linux, and all the simplicity of a well constructed user interface.

 

[aswitcher]

Except of course the dual G6 PowerMac in Fall 2005.

Don't you mean Quad G6 PowerMac...

 

[aswitcher]

Personally, I'd like to see more adventure games, and I don't mean slide-show crap like Myst or The Crystal Key. But these days aren't real bad for Mac games. Certainly not everything makes it to the Mac, but there are a decent number of games, at least. Enough to keep me busy. Lately I've been slugging my way through the original Diablo (yes, I haven't completed this one yet, same with Warcraft 1).

Sure, any games that aren't FPS should run ok on Macs...run as they should that is without hiccups.

A few good adventure games would be nice...

On the other hand Halo 2, optomised for use by dual G5 chip set would rock...if I had one...

 

[maxterpiece]

i don't see why apple can't put a g5 in the imac. it is hardly cheaper than the g5 and is much less expandability. I remember back when imacs were the hot item it was because what was built in wasn't much worse than the pro line... it was just the expandability that lacked. Pro users will still need the pro computer.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

i don't see why apple can't put a g5 in the imac. it is hardly cheaper than the g5 and is much less expandability. I remember back when imacs were the hot item it was because what was built in wasn't much worse than the pro line... it was just the expandability that lacked. Pro users will still need the pro computer.

Very true but then Apple got on this idea of not only it will be limited in expansion but we will also hold down that CPU,Bus speed,video but then again they had to cripple it in some way because Moto never advanced and was using G4 in its high end machines so though Imac was a real looker its hardware was not.
This is still just a rumor Imac/Emac being EOL and the better rumor sites like think secret have said nothing on this.

 

[Bendit]

Sure, any games that aren't FPS should run ok on Macs...run as they should that is without hiccups.

A few good adventure games would be nice...

On the other hand Halo 2, optomised for use by dual G5 chip set would rock...if I had one...

I have a 12" PowerBook (second revision, FX5200) and it can play all the new games, including Halo and Ut2k3 (haven't tried UT2k3) very well. If my PowerBook can handle it I am sure all the models (save the iBook and eMac) can handle them too. Including the newest games.

 

[~Shard~]

I have a 12" PowerBook (second revision, FX5200) and it can play all the new games, including Halo and Ut2k3 (haven't tried UT2k3) very well. If my PowerBook can handle it I am sure all the models (save the iBook and eMac) can handle them too. Including the newest games.

For the record, my FX5200 works great as well and does everything I need it to. I agree with some of the above posts that Apple should keep its hardware more current, and not put "older" cards in their machines, however I don't understand where some of the posters are coming from when they say the 5200 is garbage. It's way better than my GeForce 2 I was running before, and like I said, runs things pretty good. Yah, not as good as the 9600/9800, but still, it's a good card and definitely not garbage...