Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
eMac G5 put on hold. G4 model back in production
- Thread starter quagmire
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, this thread was about the eMac, right? Not the Powerbook. Away, Powerbook G5 demons! Begone!!
I think that the eMac is due, but, I'm worried about the GPU; Apple's recent record in this department is far from stellar. a 5200 I hope.
After seeing the recent articles about how Apple's stock has been soaring due to increased sales, I'm seeing a connection. Obviously Apple's having some supply problems (G5 chips, GeForce 6800, 30" LCD). But now Apple is faced with a situation where they are having problems meeting there original supply target while at the same time increased demand has made the original supply too small anyway.
I think that the eMac is due, but, I'm worried about the GPU; Apple's recent record in this department is far from stellar. a 5200 I hope.
After seeing the recent articles about how Apple's stock has been soaring due to increased sales, I'm seeing a connection. Obviously Apple's having some supply problems (G5 chips, GeForce 6800, 30" LCD). But now Apple is faced with a situation where they are having problems meeting there original supply target while at the same time increased demand has made the original supply too small anyway.
And your grammar is which English exactly?
May I just make an impartial note that your grammar is quite ... how should I say it - off line as well ;-)
This does not mean I agree or disagree with PB issue I am waiting for an update for a PB as well though.
~Shard~ said:....else you'd know there aren't slow, and are actually very slick machines.....
Thanks for coming out.
May I just make an impartial note that your grammar is quite ... how should I say it - off line as well ;-)
This does not mean I agree or disagree with PB issue I am waiting for an update for a PB as well though.
As long as Dell and other PC manufacturers use integrated Intel Extreme graphics in their low end systems, Apple will prevail with these sorts of graphics cards.MacSA said:
Yvan256 said:
The only reason the iMac G5 got the 5200 Ultra, was because the first four PMG5 have the 5200 Ultra in them.
If they put in the XT in the iMac G5, it would look like a better deal for the money and specs when compared to the PM line from the SP to the 1.8 DP PM.
You can see the whole issue there right.
Now that the iMac G5 is not NEW any longer and the PM are up for an update the XT will make its way to the bottom end and the rev B iMac G5 will also sport it.
That is why I think that is why the eMac G5 is not released yet, since the iMac G5 is selling well with a alright GPU and making a lot of money. If the eMac G5 had the same GPU and a lower price people will buy that and hook up a larger LCD in mirror mode or spanning mode hack, and the iMac G5 will look like a rotten deal considering the eMac has an 8x SD and the iMac G5 a 4x SD.
They can cripple the FSB however people don't buy eMac's for doing they main work in FCP HD, Motion, 3D work. They would use the low cost machine as a server, render machine, or a back up system. That is why the eMac is such a good bargain, one can offload the rendering of 3D space and objects and not have the main workstation get worked up about it.
Heck if they sold an eMac G5 even at 1.6Ghz I would be tempted to buy it take the burden off my main workstation, get more work done for less right.
Plus it will be Tiger compliant so the 5200 will be put to good use indeed.eMac G5 would currently cripple the iMac G5, a Better GPU on the iMac G5 and the low end PMG5 will look like a rotten deal.
So unless the the XT or something other than the 5200 makes it way to the low end PMG5 and the iMac G5 we will not see an eMac G5 since it will have to be Tiger compliant in 2005. The iBook is a student machine for light work no one would be serious to work on FCP HD or any other PRO application for DCC (digital content creation) on any iBook. People who do want to work on such a small screen and trying to save a few pennies here and there are fooling themselves.
This is also good news for the PowerBook line, it might just jump from the current G5 line and use the Power5lite technology, since its pointless to resolve the issues with the current G5 chips and then the Power5lite comes out only to be more effective.
I believe that people have been misdirected in all this PowerBook g5 hoopla, it would seem Apple is focusing on the Power5lite for the PowerBook G5 not the desktop chip. Development of chips are a long way ahead before there is much information released to the public.
Plus there is no DDR dimm that is over 2gig that is at a competitive price so me thinks they will use DDR2 and SATA. Who knows the engineers at Apple get paid a lot to be advanced and not to sit on they hands and play catch up. I am sure they will WoW is all.
two things: "Choice" and "Choice"
Yes, Dell's entry level is $348, and has a 2.4 GHz CPU, 256 MiB of RAM, 40 GiB hard drive, and a 17" monitor to go with the Intel Extreme integrated graphics.
However, at slightly less than the price point of the eMac you get:
So, don't make statements about the low-end graphics on a Dell box unless you point out both
a) the IE Dell box is half the price of the eMac
b) on other Dell systems in the eMac price range it's a $51 upgrade to go from integrated graphics to 128MiB PCI Express x16 graphics
With the eMac (and iMac) you're stuck with whatever's soldered to the mobo....
johnnyjibbs said:
Yes, Dell's entry level is $348, and has a 2.4 GHz CPU, 256 MiB of RAM, 40 GiB hard drive, and a 17" monitor to go with the Intel Extreme integrated graphics.
However, at slightly less than the price point of the eMac you get:
- $772
- Dimension 4700
- 2.8 GHz Pentium 4, HyperThreading, 800 MHz bus
- 256 MiB 400 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
- 40 GB SATA
- Combo Drive
- 17" LCD Flat Penel Display
- 128 MiB PCI Express x16 ATI Radeon X300 SE (DVI/VGA/TV-Out)
- 5.1 Channel Audio
So, don't make statements about the low-end graphics on a Dell box unless you point out both
a) the IE Dell box is half the price of the eMac
b) on other Dell systems in the eMac price range it's a $51 upgrade to go from integrated graphics to 128MiB PCI Express x16 graphics
With the eMac (and iMac) you're stuck with whatever's soldered to the mobo....
Lord Blackadder said:
If the emac G5 is released in 2004 it will have the old graphic card, and if it is delayed and released in 2005 it will have the 5200 Ultra, yes it will match the iMac G5 and the bottom line of the PMG5 however I see a few updated to the PMG5 line by early 2005. So only the eMac G5 and iMac G5 will have the same GPU until march 2005 when the iMac G5 will be rev B and have a 128 GPU instead. The rev B of eMac G5 will have the same 5200 till late 2005 until its at rev C where it will get a 128 unless Apple is in a happy mood and will stick to they favourite 5200 again. ROTF
2005 is when the eMac G5 will be released with a 5200 and will stay that way for a couple rev. You can count on that. Rev B of iMac G5 will look good with a 128 indeed.
PMG5 running at 3.0GHz will sport a kewl 256 which can be upgraded to 512 and will have PCIe. Wait and See. eMac G5 = ATA 8x 5200 64MB (rev A)
iMac G5 = ATA 8x 128 (rev B)
PMG5 = PCIe 128 - 256 (rev C)
AidenShaw said:
AidenShaw, are we forgetting that there are so many more players in the PC x86 market than there is PPC market. Are we forgetting that in order to make any profit in the x86 market companies and usually the BIG ONES will drop they prices as low as they can go to count the numbers to stay on top. Are we forgetting how many x86 small and medium sized companies selling x86 hardware and software have gone out of business. Are we forgetting that x86 holds a market share of ~95% and can afford to lower prices since to stay alive.
When the day comes that Dell makes the OS and hardware (to some degree) then and then only can they compare to Apple.
When the day comes when M$ starts to make follow in Apples footsteps then it can be compared on the same level. If not then you can only compared the OS EXPERIENCE. If you want to compare OS on the same grounds it both have to be either x86 or PPC compliant.
If you want a cheap looking plastic black case on or under your desk with cheap sliver pain on it then buy a Dell. Yes, some people buy a computer just on plain looks (go to any first time buyer and see what system they make they way too first). If there is an Apple computer in a store people make they way to that first, fiddle around with it, like it and then, look at the price and turn to the lower end PC market.
No big surprise people look at a computer as an Appliance these days, they will spend more on a Plasma TV, LCD TV or even an HD plasma or lcd TV and to some extent a CRT TV. The resolution is bad however it comes down to mindless entertainment and the TV will always see more dollars then a computer. Since you know people only surf the web and email from time to time and maybe type a document or print something on a rare bases, who wants to spend 1000 or more on a computer unless you are in a professional bases whatever it the bare minimum to get the work done right for the lowest cost. Time what is that, Time is not money to these people, Cost is everything and the lower the better, headaches what is that we will deal with that when it arises just like the problems in daily life.
Now I am confused...
Look at this from Apple insider:
"... PowerBooks and eMacs are approaching the end of their life cycle, recent Apple inventory data has revealed. Stock of both product-lines remains high, while demand for the computers almost ceases to exist. Both products are likely to see refreshes in early 2005, sources said"
So, if the stock is far exceding the current demand, who is re-activating eMAc G4 production (Original subject of thi thread)?
Look at this from Apple insider:
"... PowerBooks and eMacs are approaching the end of their life cycle, recent Apple inventory data has revealed. Stock of both product-lines remains high, while demand for the computers almost ceases to exist. Both products are likely to see refreshes in early 2005, sources said"
So, if the stock is far exceding the current demand, who is re-activating eMAc G4 production (Original subject of thi thread)?
gmanrique said:
Could explain why some heads at Apple got sacked.
Same issue happened with the iMac G4. Apple has Bozo and his family working no wonder all the delays and problems.
if an eMac G5 is around the corner then the eMac G4 will be reduced in price, one of my relatives was interested in a Mac however if the price is below 800 CAD she might buy it, add the EDU discount and she might look at paying 750 CAD not bad for a Mac that can burn DVD's at 8x.
m a y a said:
Not forgetting (or debating) those points....
I replied to a possibly snide comment about the low-end embedded Intel Extreme graphics.
It is relevant to the earlier comment that those low-end boxes even including a CRT monitor are half the price of the eMac - and for the price of the eMac Dell will give you a 17" LCD and a 128 MiB PCI Express graphics card.
Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here consider Cupertino to be their favorite charity - they love to send their money to Apple.
(and BTW, I'm in with the crowd that thinks the eMac is bug ugly...I'll take the black plastic case on the floor under my desk anyday!)
AidenShaw said:
LOL, I believe people do feel Apple is a charity. However it also is respect that they have stuck around for so long playing against all the big players in the computing industry. Its like the "little engine that could".
Apple technology feels outdated at times since they update only 1-2 times a year, while the PC world updates every few months. That is one of the other reasons why they sell cheaper and faster since its almost outdated by years end. Apple on the other hand once it is updated it will be outdated by 2 years time or less at the rate the industry is going.
Anyhow it seems Apple needs to start wowing up all and take a leap to hold its position, since at the rate of advancement it will fall back quite fast. Look at the PowerBook and iBook line they look outdated and the emac line as well along with the iMac line. They have the design thing down no problem there however they cripple they machines look at the 5200 why not 128 MB why only 64 MB. That is just retarded IMHO.
There are other things as well however I am sure you get the point.
m a y a said:
This brings up two questions.
First, many of the complaints about the graphics on the iMac G5 were that it was already outdated when it was introduced. When Apple is soldering everything onto the motherboard on the consumer systems, you don't want them to be using trailing-edge technology at introduction. (IMO, not using FW800 and GigE in the iMac G5 was incredibly stupid. The Dell 8400 ($934 for 3.2 GHz + 17" LCD) has GigE - the $1900 iMac doesn't!)
Second, Apple can't "stop progress" just by having a slow release cycle. Advancements in the rest of the industry can make the current "latest and greatest" from Apple quite outdated.
For example, Apple's slow embrace of USB 2.0 didn't mean that the USB 1.1 systems that Apple was selling weren't outdated. It isn't "up-to-date" just because it's the best that Apple offers....
AidenShaw said:
apples only real competition is themselves now. they can do whatever they want as I see it. may I remind all of you that its apple's lowest system and more than powerful enough for its market intended use. apple is the way it is and always will be. accept it and stop crying.
zen_state said:
I do accept it, and therefore I buy elsewhere.
I'm the consumer, I don't need to put up with that attitude from the vendor.
AidenShaw said:
Whilst the money does make the lack of fw800 and gigabit ethernet a bit weird, do consumers really need it? I know I do for network file exchange and with the lacie backup drive, but how many imac users would really use it? I guess Apple dont think many for ever the magical dollar figure is that it would raise the rrp by...
I must say I look forward to the day that the emac has and lcd and is still priced well.
Yeah, 2004 has seen a large rise in USB 2 devices for consumers, and I would hope any new Apple computers sported them in 2005.
When it comes to graphics, Apple's hands are somewhat tied due to the way they organize their product lines. First of all, Apple has to write the drivers themselves. Secondly, Apple doesn't want to make a lower-end product look better than a higher-end product. Finally, Apple would like the price of their systems to stay within certain ranges - that is why the PowerMac G5 comes with the graphics card it does, else it would be too expensive.AidenShaw said:
aswitcher said:
GigE and 1394b are a bit different here....
GigE has reached the pure commodity price range - I see GiGE PCI cards at Fry's for $20 and less, and 5 port GigE switches for $50. Motherboard chipsets now have GigE instead of 100 Mb standard - even the midrange "integrated graphics" chipsets have GigE standard. For a premium product like the iMac not to have GigE is really silly.
On the other hand, 1394b is completely different. It's not on the radar in the PC world. Apple isn't even using it, except at the very top end. If Apple wanted to make FW800 a success, the first thing to do is to do everything possible to make the market for 1394b peripherals as big as possible - in other words, swallow a couple of bucks of profit margin and put FW800 on *every* Mac.
Instead, Apple seems to be doing whatever it can to make sure that 1394b is a failure. They're using incompatible connectors (not like USB 1.1/2.0), they're only putting 1394b on a few high-end systems, ...
On the other hand, I've seen just about everything on the USB side jump to USB 2.0 but the mouses. USB 2.0 flash drives are common...even USB 2.0 Floppy disk drives and USB 2.0 Keyboards!. (I can type really fast, but not *that* fast!)
In order to keep low-end systems from exceeding their position in the product line, it seems that Apple has three bad choices:wrldwzrd89 said:
1. Update the whole product line in one fell swoop, i.e., give everything in the line a technology upgrade at the same time. This is probably ruled out for both technical reasons (human resources, supply lines) and marketing reasons (letting all products get out of date at the same time and lose favor with the marketplace).
2. Use the latest and greatest available technology, for the price, in each product upgrade as they come out. When it's time to upgrade low-end products, this can produce a low-end system that is a much better price/value than a higher choice, such as the period this year when the eMac was a much better deal, for the money, than the long-in-the-tooth LCD iMacs.
3. Purposely limit components to less than state of the art to keep products "in their place" in the product line, which leads to having low-end products that don't measure up to market standards.
None of those choices sound good to me.
When it comes to GPU, lets face it there are not many vendors making Graphic cards for the Mac side. If you look at 3D labs they alrady have a 512 Ram GPU for the wintel work station. Do I see anything close for the mac nope. A 256 Nvidia or ATI yes. I have not even seen the Fire GL line on the Mac. Unless I am missing something. I mean don't get me wrong isn't the Mac supposed to be for creative content creation then why the lack of high end cards.
Why you ask is because of the drivers? Even with the current crop of GPU they have in they PM and iMac G5, the drivers or GPU shall I say is not taken full advantage of. Thus Core Image, and Video. Apple seems to have a tough time since they have to write the drivers in cooperation with Nvidia, ATI and most of the time its a half arsed job at best. Be luck you even get decent frame rates when playing games.
The Mac, suffers from belonging somewhere but does not know where yet. Is it a workstation, a desktop, a supercomputer, a prosumer, an education machine. It has not made its mind up all that is know is that it is meant to be a creative solution to do things differently.
Do most iMac G5 users or eMac users will use gigabit nope, do they know or care about it nope. Do they care that as long as it works and they get the advertised speed while surfing on a broadband connection YES. To a consumer it makes not difference 10/100/1000, as long as it works. To a computer geek or a fame freak who network they care, however there is the powermac line and guess what it has gigabit. Same with FW 800, currently the video and image electronics are more than satisfied with FW 400 and it is more stable than USB 2.0 that runs at 480MB however it usually do not sustain that speed. FW 800 is great however the market has not caught up yet, since it is still surfing the USB 2.0 craze wave. When you start getting into HD content etc...that is where FW 800+ come into play and that will be 2005.
You cannot have every technology advancement take front and center stage. Wireless G was this years networking prime time thing, and USB 2.0 along with 64-bit computing that started late 2003 and entered 2004.
FW 800 will have its year of fame, if Apple gave you all the goodies now what are they going to upgrade in 6 months time a Processor, HDD, DVD drive, ram. They as any other company are in it to make money, only difference is that the x86 companies have to try harder and offer the best thing at the lowest price to survive. Apple is safe since they live in they own tech bubble. If OS X was running native on x86 that bubble will burst.
Besides no point of having the latest when the other sectors are falling behind. How many games do you know of that can handle the 23 and 30 inch ACD and to some extent the 20 inch ACD.
As long as Apple is a step ahead of the x86 market they don't care since they look like they are falling behind a few months after they introduce a new product, that is the nature of the tech sector.
Why you ask is because of the drivers? Even with the current crop of GPU they have in they PM and iMac G5, the drivers or GPU shall I say is not taken full advantage of. Thus Core Image, and Video. Apple seems to have a tough time since they have to write the drivers in cooperation with Nvidia, ATI and most of the time its a half arsed job at best. Be luck you even get decent frame rates when playing games.
The Mac, suffers from belonging somewhere but does not know where yet. Is it a workstation, a desktop, a supercomputer, a prosumer, an education machine. It has not made its mind up all that is know is that it is meant to be a creative solution to do things differently.
Do most iMac G5 users or eMac users will use gigabit nope, do they know or care about it nope. Do they care that as long as it works and they get the advertised speed while surfing on a broadband connection YES. To a consumer it makes not difference 10/100/1000, as long as it works. To a computer geek or a fame freak who network they care, however there is the powermac line and guess what it has gigabit. Same with FW 800, currently the video and image electronics are more than satisfied with FW 400 and it is more stable than USB 2.0 that runs at 480MB however it usually do not sustain that speed. FW 800 is great however the market has not caught up yet, since it is still surfing the USB 2.0 craze wave. When you start getting into HD content etc...that is where FW 800+ come into play and that will be 2005.
You cannot have every technology advancement take front and center stage. Wireless G was this years networking prime time thing, and USB 2.0 along with 64-bit computing that started late 2003 and entered 2004.
FW 800 will have its year of fame, if Apple gave you all the goodies now what are they going to upgrade in 6 months time a Processor, HDD, DVD drive, ram. They as any other company are in it to make money, only difference is that the x86 companies have to try harder and offer the best thing at the lowest price to survive. Apple is safe since they live in they own tech bubble. If OS X was running native on x86 that bubble will burst.
Besides no point of having the latest when the other sectors are falling behind. How many games do you know of that can handle the 23 and 30 inch ACD and to some extent the 20 inch ACD.
As long as Apple is a step ahead of the x86 market they don't care since they look like they are falling behind a few months after they introduce a new product, that is the nature of the tech sector.
AidenShaw said:
Remember USB 1.0 and then 1.1 were flops, until USB 2.0 was released. FW 400 is still going strong. USB 2.0 is consumer oriented as FW 400 and 800 are consumer and professional oriented. There is also FW 1200 which is 1.2Gigs however I don't see any reason YET for Apple to even implement that since FW has a max data transfer rate of 1.6Gigs or FW 1600, o you really feel that is needed now.
Doctor Q said:
All Apple does is "filter" the yesterdays technology to the lower machines, nothing new that is how tech business is. If you expect the cutting edge for under 1000 USD you are dreaming. There is no way that anyone can be on the cutting edge since there are more than one person working on technology. If you want advancement why are they even using motherboards with silicone, when there are already experimenting with photon technology that is faster, cheaper, and can be placed in smaller confined places. Can you imagine one day a Super Computer in the size smaller than the G4 Cube. Plus there is no need for a magnetic HDD or Optical discs since all the data is written or stored on crystal sheets. And all the plastic components are "self-healing".
Sure that sounds kewl however you are not going to have that now, technology advancement has an evolution path to follow.
wrldwzrd89 said:
Actually Apple can very well put a 256 MB GPU in the top of the line PMG5 and a 128MB GPU in the low end and even the iMac G5. Why do you say there are not doing it one is as you say drivers, two is they are leaving a safe gap since there is no 512MB GPU on the market available to buy for consumers so they have to top it off at 128MB and give you the option to upgrade to 256MB, since there are here to make money and try to reduce future cost of machine lower it as well.
You are paying a premium NOW, so down the road it costs less for Apple to sell they machines.
Look at the Cinema Displays when they were first introduced they cost a lot now you can have it for a fraction of that price. With demand comes lower prices and at ~2% market share I am quote surprised Apple is able to lower they prices from prior years. By the time Apples machines start reaching sub 1000 USD prices that is the time when PC will be given for free like calculators. Then you would all complain why is Apple not giving me a free computer.
Lets not forget that ones you reach sub 500 you cannot hike your prices up again, the only other place to go is stay the same or go lower and at lower you have to sell more until you exhaust the demand and then go under. I would not be surprised that in 10 years tops Dell will go out of business and they have created a monster out of the PC sector. People are holding on to they PC's for 5+ years (the ones who don't play games) and the ones who do are being pushed to buy consoles. Dell already has a 20 inch wide-screen lcd computer monitor for sale for 550 USD that is crazy, can you imagine the amount or resources that are exhausted. What next we already have 64-bit for consumers, dual core, quad core, 128-bit computing, 10K MP for digital still cameras (which would come 90% to human sight), a 100x Optical zoom, where does the madness stop? Since MHz seems to be slowing down at around 4.0Ghz I wonder what else would a quad core will be the limit, how much power does one really need? 64Gigs of ram, hmm all very interesting question, since we all want the top of the line technology now and yet when we hit a wall we will complain.
oh well whatever as long as my Mac is still working the way it does I don't believe I need to upgrade anytime soon.
AidenShaw said:
Apple had not real reason to upgrade to USB 2.0 since FW 400 was quite good for what it was meant to do. FW 800 was introduced for the pro market and to keep ahead of USB 2.0, and besides only the vendors started to make USB 2.0 products since it was cheaper than FW 400 even though when it comes to video and images it is more stable at transfer rate. USB 2.0 caught on when INTEL made it an issue to compete with FW 400. Same thing with WiFi G with the Centrino.
USB 1.1 is still has a lot of bandwith for Keyboards and Mouse, even USB key drives. at 11MBits its fast for a flash drive, why do you need 480MBits for a flash drive.
Even wireless B, why do you need wireless G to surf the net on a single machine that is not networked. Unless you have more than 3 machines and are streaming movies from one to another or lager data files, 54MBits or even 108MBits is not needed at home.
Notice what is happening the vendors and companies are pushing technology that you will not need or use however want you to buy it to make you think it is the best and that is what you need to be kewl, whatever if you were a PRO you would not complain about prices sine work is worth more than a machines cost. All these people sound like home users who want to have bragging rights.
Here's the big question regarding future FireWire technologies: Will tomorrow's hard drives be able to keep up with tomorrow's FireWire standard? Current hard drives can handle FW 800, but will they take full advantage of FW 1200 or 1600? Somehow I doubt it.m a y a said:Remember USB 1.0 and then 1.1 were flops, until USB 2.0 was released. FW 400 is still going strong. USB 2.0 is consumer oriented as FW 400 and 800 are consumer and professional oriented. There is also FW 1200 which is 1.2Gigs however I don't see any reason YET for Apple to even implement that since FW has a max data transfer rate of 1.6Gigs or FW 1600, o you really feel that is needed now.