eMac G5 put on hold. G4 model back in production

[AidenShaw]

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.

It's about future-proofing, not broadband. Does Apple want to see iMacs in business? iMacs as the second and third computers in the home?

Don't cripple them with old technology, put *current*commodity*technology* in those premium computers. Don't say "don't use an iMac for sharing files, it has an antique network chip".

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.

My point is that 1394b will stay a tiny niche market if computers don't have the ports for them.

There's also a bit of contradiction in your statements - you imply the 100 Mbps is adequate for moving files between computers, but that 400 Mbps is inadequate for moving files between a camera and a computer. (or between a disk and a computer)

...and USB 2.0 along with 64-bit computing that started late 2003 and entered 2004....

Sorry, but 64-bit desktop computing started in November 1992. (And are *you* forgetting that OS X is 32-bit?)

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.

Hmmm, I never realized that trying harder and offering the best thing at the lowest price is actually a bad thing, and that forced obsolescence is really a good thing!

 

[AidenShaw]

Here's the big question regarding future FireWire technologies:

My bet for the future is external SATA drives, not 1394 anything. (For the high end, I mean. 1394/USB 2.0 will still be around for external optical and small expansion/backup consumer drives.)

Why mess around with translators and bridge chips and a whole new protocol when the native disk interface is 1.5 Gbps and inherently supports hot-plugging? For arrays, the NCQ support in SATA would it easy to build high performance low-cost external hardware RAID arrays.

External SATA enclosures are already available from a few places - how long before PCs come standard with a couple of SATA ports on the back panel and the market explodes?

 

[wrldwzrd89]

My bet for the future is external SATA drives, not 1394 anything. (For the high end, I mean. 1394/USB 2.0 will still be around for external optical and small expansion/backup consumer drives.)

Why mess around with translators and bridge chips and a whole new protocol when the native disk interface is 1.5 GBps and inherently supports hot-plugging? For arrays, the NCQ support in SATA would it easy to build high performance low-cost external hardware RAID arrays.

External SATA enclosures are already available from a few places - how long before PCs come standard with a couple of SATA ports on the back panel and the market explodes?

That would be GREAT - I wonder how the hard drive manufacturers will make SATA into something suitable for external drives, though. Right now, it doesn't work all that well externally.

 

[AidenShaw]

That would be GREAT - I wonder how the hard drive manufacturers will make SATA into something suitable for external drives, though. Right now, it doesn't work all that well externally.

True, but look at what is at http://www.macgurus.com/productpages/sata/satakits.php.

The key trick they have is to use PCI bulkhead connectors that have SATA ports, and shielded external cables. The external cable plugs like a USB or 1394 cable into the bulkhead ports.

Also note that standard InfiniBand cables can support 4 SATA drives per cable and plug. (See

at the bottom of http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/pr...tcat=/Cables/Adaptec+Cables/Serial+ATA+Cables, or Tom's Hardware's review of the 3ware controller that uses InfiniBand connectors - 12 drives with only 3 ports on the card.

A couple of other technologies that could show up are InfiniBand drives (already today you can run FibreChannel and iSCSI protocols over InfiniBand, and InfiniBand is now at up to 60 Gbps), or iSCSI on 10 GigE Ethernet. While these would be for higher end systems - it would put the squeeze on faster 1394 at the top and make the potential market for faster 1394 smaller.

The future's so bright you gotta' wear shades!
.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

True, but look at what is at http://www.macgurus.com/productpages/sata/satakits.php.

The key trick they have is to use PCI bulkhead connectors that have SATA ports, and shielded external cables. The external cable plugs like a USB or 1394 cable into the bulkhead ports.

Also note that standard InfiniBand cables can support 4 SATA drives per cable and plug. (See

at the bottom of http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/pr...tcat=/Cables/Adaptec+Cables/Serial+ATA+Cables, or Tom's Hardware's review of the 3ware controller that uses InfiniBand connectors - 12 drives with only 3 ports on the card.

A couple of other technologies that could show up are InfiniBand drives (already today you can run FibreChannel and iSCSI protocols over InfiniBand, and InfiniBand is now at up to 60 Gbps), or iSCSI on 10 GigE Ethernet. While these would be for higher end systems - it would put the squeeze on faster 1394 at the top and make the potential market for faster 1394 smaller.

The future's so bright you gotta' wear shades!
.

Very cool AidenShaw! I wonder when this killer technology will move to the mainstream...

 

[gekko513]

I haven't quite figured out why you stick around here and complain and haven't bought a Dell computer and moved your discussions to a Dell forum yet, AidenShaw.

You do have some points, though, but I prefer this iMac that starts at $1299 instead of an iMac with gigabit ethernet and FW800 starting at $1399, and I'm probably not the only one. I would suppose Apple is in a better position for weighing the cost of adding a feature vs the demand for the feature than you are. And besides, if I were to choose something that should be improved about the iMac then I would choose the GPU and not ethernet or FW.

 

[AidenShaw]

.I haven't quite figured out why you stick around here...

I actually learn quite a bit about technology while researching the answers that I post here. It's educational, and helps me with my real job.

...I prefer this iMac that starts at $1299 instead of an iMac with gigabit ethernet and FW800 starting at $1399, and I'm probably not the only one. I would suppose Apple is in a better position for weighing the cost of adding a feature vs the demand...I would chose the GPU...

The additional per-unit cost for GigE would be next to negligible had Apple designed it into the chipset (like Intel has with most of their chipsets). Apple should view FW800 as an investment in the success of 1394b, and take a small hit on margins.

I think that your $100 extra is an excessive estimate - the component cost differences are much, much smaller than adding the retail price of a GigE card and 1394b card from Fry's.

The GPU isn't that bad, but the amount of VRAM is pretty small.

I think that m a y a hit the nail on the head - Apple wants to shorten the usable lifetime of each system to encourage future sales. Why else would they be putting only 32 to 64 MiB of VRAM on new models just months before Tiger?

 

[zen_state]

you are talking about CONSUMER machines. not pro. why would you expect a consumer machine to have all this ****?

 

[tex210]

...

I agree wih gekko. I also agree with the way woz saw things. Slow down the madness with the hardware and perfect the software.
Every computer does not need to do the same things. Not everyone cares about fps in halo or half-life. Not everyone will build a cluster in their bedroom. not everyone will buy a studio quality video camera. If you are someone who would, look away from the emac. Look away from the iMac. Hell, even look away from the powerbooks. Each of those have their strengths, but those things are not them. If you are that kind of person, it can only be a powermac, or maybe a few xserves to really make seti@home count.
Really people, g3 is fast enough, 8mb of vram is plenty, and 512mb of ram is good enough for many, many uses. The current iMac and eMac already make my computer look ancient, yet I still use it everyday. I even know a couple of businesses that rely on *gasp* beige Apples running os 9 still. They haven't all run out to buy windows because they are cheap. They just kept using what works for them.

edited because I can't spell....from their to they are

 

[zen_state]

I agree wih gekko. I also agree with the way woz saw things. Slow down the madness with the hardware and perfect the software.
Every computer does not need to do the same things. Not everyone cares about fps in halo or half-life. Not everyone will build a cluster in their bedroom. not everyone will buy a studio quality video camera. If you are someone who would, look away from the emac. Look away from the iMac. Hell, even look away from the powerbooks. Each of those have their strengths, but those things are not them. If you are that kind of person, it can only be a powermac, or maybe a few xserves to really make seti@home count.
Really people, g3 is fast enough, 8mb of vram is plenty, and 512mb of ram is good enough for many, many uses. The current iMac and eMac already make my computer look ancient, yet I still use it everyday. I even know a couple of businesses that rely on *gasp* beige Apples running os 9 still. They haven't all run out to buy windows because their cheap. They just kept using what works for them.

most logical thing said in this thread yet.

 

[gekko513]

The additional per-unit cost for GigE would be next to negligible had Apple designed it into the chipset (like Intel has with most of their chipsets). Apple should view FW800 as an investment in the success of 1394b, and take a small hit on margins.

You don't really know these things. You don't know how much it would cost to research and change the chipset to use GigE. At that scale it's not comparable to retail and it's not really comparable to Intel either, because they have chip production in house.

I suppose it would be something like Apple negotiating a deal with some chip/chipset manufacturer asking for quotes on let's say 1 million units of chips for 10/100 vs chips for 10/100/1000. If the manufacturer already has capacity to mass produce the 10/100 it could be a lot cheaper than 10/100/1000 if that requires additional research or production equipment or any of the other factors that I won't pretend that I know a lot about.

My point is that it's impossible for us to say that the additional cost would be negligible for Apple on basis of facts like that the retail price for add on cards with 10/100 and 10/100/1000 isn't very different or that Intel has built it into their chipset.

If the cost was negligible, don't you think Apple would have included it?

On the FW800 issue, you're giving advice to Apple on how they should best make FW800 a success. What if Apple doesn't really care so much about the success or failure of FW800. As far as I know, the original Firewire wasn't very successful until Apple had to give it away basically for free. If they don't see any possibility to profit on FW800 it doesn't really matter if it's adopted or not. And anyway, that is a business advice you give even if you don't know any of the details concerning the cost, licensing, long time strategy, partner relationships and all other business factors that Apple have to consider when making this decision.

You're basically just guessing.

 

[Jetson]

It's amazing, all the techno-whizbang that people post here - quite educational.

However in regards to the original issue - what might Apple do to upgrade the eMac?

The first Mac that I bought was a Mac SE over 25 years ago. I still have that great-great grandaddy of Macintoshes and it STILL works, though I don't use it. I loved the all-in-one computer concept and to me that's what the eMac represents. I regret that Apple has decided to make the eMac less upgradable than the earlier all-in-one desktops. Nonetheless, the eMac is a BEAUTIFUL machine - elegant, functional, iPod white and it never crashes Well only once every 6 months or so.

And the eMac IS beautiful. The front of the machine is mostly flat CRT screen, so what's not to like. When I compare it to the beige PowerMac 5400 I previously had, the eMac looks like a butterfly after emerging from it's crusty old cocoon. Talk about ugly, those old 5200/5400 machines broke the mold.

I was thrilled when Apple decided to make the eMac available to consumers as well as the education market. What would be great is if they would give it an even wider array of price/performance choices. A better, faster graphics card, faster processor (dual-core G4 or G5) and significantly faster frontside bus, a quieter fan, and user-upgradeability would make this great machine an even better value. I would definitely buy a new one and consider giving one as a gift.

As far as the Powerbook people are concerned, I couldn't care less about that issue. I'm sure Apple will do right by that machine since it is quite popular and gets a lot of product placement exposure on TV and in the movies. However the idea that progress on the eMac should be held back so that it doesn't outshine the powerbook is ludicrous. There is no basis whatsoever in the assertion that a laptop must outperform the eMac. As many have already pointed out, from an engineering standpoint it's simply a matter of fact that the desktop has more room for components and therefore has greater potential for performance than a laptop. All this moaning and groaning from the powerbook crowd is just "sibling rivalry" and jealousy - at least that what it sounds like to me. Don't worry powerbook people, you'll get your day in the sun

 

[macnulty]

I agree wih gekko. I also agree with the way woz saw things. Slow down the madness with the hardware and perfect the software.
Every computer does not need to do the same things. Not everyone cares about fps in halo or half-life. Not everyone will build a cluster in their bedroom. not everyone will buy a studio quality video camera. If you are someone who would, look away from the emac. Look away from the iMac. Hell, even look away from the powerbooks. Each of those have their strengths, but those things are not them. If you are that kind of person, it can only be a powermac, or maybe a few xserves to really make seti@home count.
Really people, g3 is fast enough, 8mb of vram is plenty, and 512mb of ram is good enough for many, many uses. The current iMac and eMac already make my computer look ancient, yet I still use it everyday. I even know a couple of businesses that rely on *gasp* beige Apples running os 9 still. They haven't all run out to buy windows because they are cheap. They just kept using what works for them.

edited because I can't spell....from their to they are

On point, the masses ( the market, where the money is ) could give a flying about anything other then can I email granny or chat with kids at school. To them vram is vroom miss spelled.

 

[AidenShaw]

you are talking about CONSUMER machines. not pro. why would you expect a consumer machine to have all this ****?

I've been quoting specs from Dell's home systems, not Dell's pro workstations.

The Intel side of the store doesn't have an artificial distinction between "consumer" and "pro". You have the choice of what you want.

Don't like the Intel integrated graphics on a Dell system - just tick the box and for $51 more you get a 128 MiB PCI Express x16 Radeon card. Want fast CPU, but low-end graphics and small disk - go for it. Need a huge disk, but a slower CPU is fine - it's called "build to order".

Choice - and not in the sense that Cupertino chooses what to offer you....

My point is that the iMac G5 is not a cheap system, yet its component list reads like a $500 Dell box in places. That's the odd thing - that cheap stuff is *soldered* into a non-expandable box with a mid-range price tag.

 

[AidenShaw]

You don't really know these things. You don't know how much it would cost to research and change the chipset to use GigE. At that scale it's not comparable to retail and it's not really comparable to Intel either, because they have chip production in house.

You don't understand the basics here.

The "Shasta" south-bridge chip in the iMac is a cut-down version of the K2 south-bridge from the PowerMac.

The Ethernet is on the chipset - not some ancillary chip purchased from the outside, but on the Apple-designed big chunk of silicon.

Apple had to go to the expense of changing the Shasta chip to remove the GigE capability that was already in the original south-bridge.

It's much more about market segmentation and forced obsolescence than it is about component cost...



Look at the component layout of the PowerMac, particularly at the direct GigE link into the K2:
http://developer.apple.com/document...rMacG5/2Architecture/chapter_3_section_2.html


Now look at the layout of the iMac, particularly at the direct 10/100 link into the Shasta:
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/ Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/iMacG5/iMacG5.pdf

Note that the "PHY" is more-or-less an electrical driver piece - it matches the tiny signals on the chip to the higher voltage and higher current needs to drive the Cat5 cables. The "PHY" on the Shasta is actually internal according to the text, although it's shown as a separate component on the graph.

 

[areyouwishing]

AidenShaw,
I know exactly what you are doing. I end up playing quite the game of Devil's advocate while at work between the PC and Mac crowds.

Apple functions the way it does because it has to. Someone deciding between a PowerMac and iMac vs. a Precision Workstation and a Dimension system is 2 VERY different demographics.

On the PC side, the person that has to make that decision is most likely part of a very knowledgeable IT dept. On the Mac side its probably a consumer, or at most a production manager for a design agency consulting with a Mac Sales Rep.

Apple makes their decisions about what technology to include, in the lab. Dell luckily has the money to be able to turn on a dime for whatever the consumer needs, making decisions in both the lab and during the consumer purchasing phase. Apple simply doesn't have the resources to do the same.

Dell has Intel making chipsets (and lots of them at that). Apple has itself. Dell uses the Intel platform, that means we have a Celeron, a Pentium, a Xeon, an Itanium, a Pentium M, and now a Celeron M... Apple has G4, G5. Apple delivers their products in a "good enough" fashion. The iMac not having gigabit is "good enough" and will help a consumer (very rarely an informed IT staff member) decide between a PowerMac and an iMac. Could Apple put gigabit in an iMac for pennies on the dollar... yes. But their just isn't this huge need for that... yet. Why only put 32mb of Video Ram on a computer? Once again, to help distinguish between product lines because they don't have the diveristy that the PC world gets, they do the best they can for the consumer, WHILE meeting their sales goals for certain products... is the PC strategy ultimately better for the consumer, probably. But I would still take a Mac for a BILLION other reasons, and I doubt Apple has lost a lot of customers because they don't have gigabit on an iMac. Guess what else apple doesn't have? Viruses, Spyware, Trojans, and the list goes on about the negatives of owning a PC.

 

[oingoboingo]

If the cost was negligible, don't you think Apple would have included it?

Aboslutely not. Take a look at www.lowendmac.com and read through the commentary on the machines Apple has built over the past 20 years or so. Deliberate 'crippling' of machines to artificially segment their product lineup is almost as old as the company itself. My personal favourite: the disabling of the built-in display spanning capability of the iBook via Open Firmware.

It's the way Apple works, for better or worse. You can certainly expect in the future to see mid and low-end Macintosh systems have low cost commodity priced features left out, delayed or disabled for no other reasons than to impose barriers between items in a contrived product-positioning matrix.

 

[aswitcher]

Aboslutely not. Take a look at www.lowendmac.com and read through the commentary on the machines Apple has built over the past 20 years or so. Deliberate 'crippling' of machines to artificially segment their product lineup is almost as old as the company itself. My personal favourite: the disabling of the built-in display spanning capability of the iBook via Open Firmware.

It's the way Apple works, for better or worse. You can certainly expect in the future to see mid and low-end Macintosh systems have low cost commodity priced features left out, delayed or disabled for no other reasons than to impose barriers between items in a contrived product-positioning matrix.

This sort of thing really bugs me about Apple. The marketing guys must have duped Stevie into accepting this sort of thing over good reason which says make the products as good as you can. I hope Apple grow out of this.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple functions the way it does because it has to....

Take a look at www.lowendmac.com and read....

Thank you for these two posts, they do help explain why Apple can behave as though it had no competition.

 

[maya]

AidenShaw, as you know we both as well as others that Apple cripples they machines. Yes everyone knows Apple has good designs and uses good quality even experimenting with clear and colour plastics (past and present). Other PC makers do not compare and fall short when they try to mimic it due to cost.

The complaint here is, when all the components are cheap why is Apple being even cheaper and putting yesteryears technology and charging prices of tomorrow machine and calling it NEW or Cutting Edge. Marketing Yes, however they do cripple they machines since people or Mac people as I am one as well do not upgrade for years unlike the PC side and that can hurt the bottom line. Plus they have other problems with fewer vendors and software makers.

The problem here is with both sides the x86 and PPC, the PPC has a smaller market share big deal. the x86 well has a domanante market share since it was been on an incline road for years will the PPC was on the reverse.

Dell is going to always undercut all the other x86 makers and sell more for less, that is how they work regardless of quality items in they boxes, people do not see that. Sony on the other hand CAN be compared to Apple however with the exception of they do not make they own OS. When you compare Sony and Apple the prices are the same. Both companies have fine looking products and like to innovate on its design. (Now I know some people dislike sony here including myself ::bad experiences:: however I see no reason to bash them in any regard).

I am sure when you compare Dell to Sony, Dell's prices look better. However Sony has the design over Dell.

Apple has always marketed that they systems are better, however have inferior technology or dated technology in a minimal upgradable machine. There is a good reason for that since one they allow they eMacs, iMacs to be upgradable people will have problems with compatibility and then complain that Apple products do not work as they advertise and here comes some lawsuits.

Apple is realizing upgradability however it is coming on a slow path, don't hold your breath. That is the only way Apple will stay stagnate offering yesteryears technology at top prices today.

I say lets have a petition and send it to Apple, they have to listen to they small user base (and Apple does listen, as they have noted in regards to software and some hardware). Lets tell them what a baseline eMac and iMac G5 should have, and if it is not delivered boycott. A few hundred even a thousand NO SALES they will listen.


Sorry people I do not see Apple as a friend or foe, they are a business and if I do not get my moneys worth there is no point complaining when you don't plain to act to do something about it, since Apple will always throw outdated technology at high prices if the customers say nothing.


by the way its maya, no spaces

 

[gekko513]

Apple had to go to the expense of changing the Shasta chip to remove the GigE capability that was already in the original south-bridge.

That's just silly. They didn't change the Shasta chip just to remove GigE. If you look at the iMac architecture, you'll notice that the hypertransport bus is only 800Mbps, too, so the whole chain is slowed down when you compare to the PowerMac. This probably reduces both cost and heat production. Although I cannot be sure about that at neither can you AidenShaw. Don't pretend that you know so much about this when in reality all you do is look at some charts and jump to conclusions just like the rest of us.

Edit: The 800Mbps hypertransport seems to be a typo, because the another article on the hypertransport bus says that it's 800MBps. It still doesn't change the fact that the Shasta chip is modified in more ways than just GigE.

 

[AidenShaw]

They didn't change the Shasta chip just to remove GigE.

I didn't use the word "just" - don't change the meaning of my post by adding that word. The Shasta is definitely cost and heat reduced compared to the K2.

I think that it's likely, however, that removing GigE had a very minor impact on cost and heat, and was done for market segmentation (a better word than "cripple", although the effect is the same).

I also would not be surprised to find that in fact the Shasta can support GigE, but that it's disabled in firmware for segmentation. Maybe the firmware block will be removed for the "improved Rev B".
______________________


Anyway, there have been lots of interesting comments, and I'll rest with my initial opinion that I think that it is odd that a premium system like the iMac doesn't have a commodity feature like GigE, or even the option to add GigE.

 

[V.A.Toss]

My point is that the iMac G5 is not a cheap system, yet its component list reads like a $500 Dell box in places. That's the odd thing - that cheap stuff is *soldered* into a non-expandable box with a mid-range price tag.

I would just like to point out to you that in a Dell, Tiny, Time, HP box, many of the components are actually awful. These will be mostly the components that they wont have to talk about in a brochure or an advert, components which cant be an added attraction to the buyer. Like the motherboard, most PCI cards, and even the GPU is more often than not actually generic.

These components will have the latest technology but will be made at a standard which means they will break, short out (in the case of MSI boards), or will not be upgradable thanks to having a specific northbridge on a Mboard.

So to summarise, you are right, some of the technology in macs lags behind, especially when it comes to the FSB or VRAM. But you miss the point why macs are more expensive than PCs; quality. All components in a mac are designed and made signicantly better than PC components, they are simply more reliable. You are buying a quality product, where every component is designed to last a long time.

You may (or may not) be horrified to know that in many Tiny PCs the motherboard only costs £28 retail, and £20 from wholesale. The general consensus is that on average it only lasts 2 years. A mac is properly cooled, whereas a Dell PC normally skimped on a CPU fan, and the CPU temp can go up to and over 40 degrees. Many Pcs only have 1 extractor fan, and even the sound card which is advertised as being 5.1 surround will be a ****** onboard chip (ofcourse the brochure wont mention that).

You simply would not find this in a mac, despite the small percentage of rev.a mac problems. Which is why my rev.a bondi blue imac has lasted 5 years. My Time Athlon PC lasted 1 1/2.

 

[V.A.Toss]

Ive just read a post that said all ive said, only before me.

But anyway, im forgetting buying a powerbook and im saving for that G5 emac. This is exactly the news i needed to hear as the G4 was putting me off buying one.

Im not gonna complain about apple too much, after all, this bondi bue has served me well. Apple arent perfect, far from it, but after remembering the dark days of the moto 7400 im just glad Macs can keep up with PCs.

 

[AidenShaw]

you were going well, until....

All components in a mac are designed and made signicantly better than PC components, they are simply more reliable. You are buying a quality product, where every component is designed to last a long time.

Like the iBook logic board? (Every company has some duds!)


Actually, you had a good point going until you said "All components" - when in fact we both know that Apple buys their disk drives, graphics cards/chips, optical drives, memory DIMMs, power supplies, wireless chips and other components from the same companies and OEMs that the PC manufacturers use.

Cooling is a good point, though - extra care in designing the cooling system can definitely add to the system life. Selecting good quality components, and designing the system to "care" for them adds life and value.

Be careful, once again, to look at the price points of the systems that you compare. The $348 (w/ monitor) Dell system is a completely different beast from the Dell Xeon workstations. The Dell's 15K Ultra320 SCSI drives are well cooled, as well as the CPUs with their dual 120mm fans that are also case extractors. (Dell uses large, quiet variable speed case extraction fans that are ducted so that all the air is pulled through the CPU heat sinks on the way out of the system - not little noisy fans on the CPUs that just spin the warm air in circles.)

Wouldn't you *expect* your £2500 PowerMac to last longer than your £250 Tiny PC ???