(and why I have little right to complain)
Here's a little rant about what I believe to be Apple's marketing psychology to get people to pay the big bucks for the new dual-1.25ghz machines:
Last Tuesday, as you no doubt know already, Apple released their new line of Powermacs, replacing the Quicksilvers. It was a long wait for people like me, who were finding their old machines unreliable and have been holding out as long as possible for improvements like DDR RAM and a faster system bus.
At last, here were the new Macs, complete with DDR RAM, faster bus, and improved architecture. But then two potential bubble-bursters emerged: 1) Some questionable specs from barefeats.com, which showed the benchmarks to be about equal b/t the old and new dual-1ghz models. 2) A half-sized L3 cache, compared to the previous line of Powermacs.
Now, the first point (barefacts.com) has been debated ad nausea, so let's go right to the L3 cache thing...
Have you noticed on Apple's write-up about the new line of Powermacs just how much emphasis they put on the L3 cache, the "Cache advance". They tout it as the all-important performance-booster, calling our attention to it repeatedly. But why, if it is half the size, do they want us to notice?
Before I get to the juicy part, let us please try to put aside our differences in our opinions about the credibility of the barefeats.com benchmarks and the actual importance of the L3 cache. This rant is meant as a comment on marketing strategy and psychology - how Apple presents things, not how they actually work. That said...
My theory is that Apple dangled a big juicy carrot in front of us (DDR RAM, new architecture, faster bus, etc), but then pulled it back, showing us that it is all sort of undermined by the smaller cache speed. Undermined, unless you get the dual-1.25ghz "fastest" model, with a full 2MB L3 cache, for a premium price. Then they raised the price by $300 on the "fastest" model, for a total of $800 above the "fast" model, which makes it that much more desirable (human nature: we tend to want what we can't have and thus might just buy what we can barely afford).
Now, whether you agree or disagree about the performance logic, it doesn't matter, because that is how Apple presented it. You can argue about the importance of the L3 cache, but you can't argue that Apple presents it as ultra-important and simultaneously cut it in half in all but the most expensive model.
That said, I am still having a great deal of difficulty deciding which machine to get. Should I get the Quicksilver 1ghz-dual, which is quite a bargain at $800 less than its price just over a week ago and has proven to be a reliable model? Or should I pay a few hundred more for the new dual-1ghz, which has some of the sexy new features like DDR RAM, faster bus, new architecture, yet might not be better in terms of actual performance and has yet to establish itself as a reliable machine? Do I go for the dual-867mhz, which is probably fine for what I'd like to do and certainly a great value, but will be obsolete sooner and is the least sexy of the bunch? Finally, do I shell out for the dual-1.25ghz, which is lots of money to have my cake and eat it too?
In the end, I shouldn't complain too much, because the values are all better than they were last monday. I'm just sore about the big juicy carrot.
Here's a little rant about what I believe to be Apple's marketing psychology to get people to pay the big bucks for the new dual-1.25ghz machines:
Last Tuesday, as you no doubt know already, Apple released their new line of Powermacs, replacing the Quicksilvers. It was a long wait for people like me, who were finding their old machines unreliable and have been holding out as long as possible for improvements like DDR RAM and a faster system bus.
At last, here were the new Macs, complete with DDR RAM, faster bus, and improved architecture. But then two potential bubble-bursters emerged: 1) Some questionable specs from barefeats.com, which showed the benchmarks to be about equal b/t the old and new dual-1ghz models. 2) A half-sized L3 cache, compared to the previous line of Powermacs.
Now, the first point (barefacts.com) has been debated ad nausea, so let's go right to the L3 cache thing...
Have you noticed on Apple's write-up about the new line of Powermacs just how much emphasis they put on the L3 cache, the "Cache advance". They tout it as the all-important performance-booster, calling our attention to it repeatedly. But why, if it is half the size, do they want us to notice?
Before I get to the juicy part, let us please try to put aside our differences in our opinions about the credibility of the barefeats.com benchmarks and the actual importance of the L3 cache. This rant is meant as a comment on marketing strategy and psychology - how Apple presents things, not how they actually work. That said...
My theory is that Apple dangled a big juicy carrot in front of us (DDR RAM, new architecture, faster bus, etc), but then pulled it back, showing us that it is all sort of undermined by the smaller cache speed. Undermined, unless you get the dual-1.25ghz "fastest" model, with a full 2MB L3 cache, for a premium price. Then they raised the price by $300 on the "fastest" model, for a total of $800 above the "fast" model, which makes it that much more desirable (human nature: we tend to want what we can't have and thus might just buy what we can barely afford).
Now, whether you agree or disagree about the performance logic, it doesn't matter, because that is how Apple presented it. You can argue about the importance of the L3 cache, but you can't argue that Apple presents it as ultra-important and simultaneously cut it in half in all but the most expensive model.
That said, I am still having a great deal of difficulty deciding which machine to get. Should I get the Quicksilver 1ghz-dual, which is quite a bargain at $800 less than its price just over a week ago and has proven to be a reliable model? Or should I pay a few hundred more for the new dual-1ghz, which has some of the sexy new features like DDR RAM, faster bus, new architecture, yet might not be better in terms of actual performance and has yet to establish itself as a reliable machine? Do I go for the dual-867mhz, which is probably fine for what I'd like to do and certainly a great value, but will be obsolete sooner and is the least sexy of the bunch? Finally, do I shell out for the dual-1.25ghz, which is lots of money to have my cake and eat it too?
In the end, I shouldn't complain too much, because the values are all better than they were last monday. I'm just sore about the big juicy carrot.
