thevessels said:
I wouldn't worry too much. That blue line proabably costs a lot more than the green line! Thousands more I would surmise.
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.
New PowerMac 1.8GHz Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't worry too much. That blue line proabably costs a lot more than the green line! Thousands more I would surmise.
Macmaniac said:
No one is upset because Apple released a cheaper Powermac. Try for just a moment to stop comparing the 1.8 GHz PM with the iMac G5, and actually compare it with the single 1.8 PM (or even 1.6) from last year. Crippling the FSB make NO sense, and should not affect the price at all. Can you logically explain why Apple did this?
I think it's great that Apple released a cheaper Powermac. Fantastic. However, I think it's incredibly stupid that they release a handicapped version of what would be a formidable processor. This is supposed to be a Powermac, and this latest release does not deserve that title. Period.
What? I'm just calling it like I see it. Am I supposed to be a lemming and say, "Horray! Apple crippled their low-end...again! Go Apple!" Sheesh.
habibbijan said:
If, as you've said, Apple putting a slower FSB in this model is so "stupid" as to move you toward abandoning all Apple products, then no mockery is needed. You will likely have to move on to Linux and Windows--and you'll find those are excellent options, since you say that hardware details are what matter to you (vs. the benefits of OS X), and the details of this model are not the ones you personally demand. You say that making the duals look better ("selling up") is not the reason for the FSB choice--and I'm sure you couldn't possibly be wrong. Therefore you're probably right that Apple is "stupid," as are all the people who already own a display--or want internal flexibility--and prefer this to an iMac for the same price.
If, on the other hand, you come to feel that the FSB in this model doesn't actually harm Apple's OTHER products, then you can leave this model to the people who DO want it, wish them the best since they find a dual not worth the money, and focus instead on the products that interest you
It's also possible that other companies besides Apple sometimes don't put the very top components and specs (like FSB) in their lowest model--even when costs are the same. They might do that to create a spectrum of prices and capabilities where costlier products offer things that cheaper ones do not. This is wild speculation on my part, though--perhaps Apple is the only one to do this.
I just dont get it
I just cant grasp it, get it, understand it... WHY does Apple NOT release a cool little G5-box with a couple of PCI-spaces, an extra harddrive-bay, a slot-load cd-burn-only-thingy, a decent cooling-system, and an On/Off-button?
...WITHOUT a friggin LCD-screen attached to it!?
A small-form-factor-machine. What do IBM call those? SFF?
Why dont they do this!? Can anyone explain to me why this is impossible? I bet I'm not alone in wanting this. And I do NOT want that big, shiny, metal-bunker. No thanks. What I want is a stationary headless machine. Upgradable GPU. The works.
I just cant grasp it, get it, understand it... WHY does Apple NOT release a cool little G5-box with a couple of PCI-spaces, an extra harddrive-bay, a slot-load cd-burn-only-thingy, a decent cooling-system, and an On/Off-button?
...WITHOUT a friggin LCD-screen attached to it!?
A small-form-factor-machine. What do IBM call those? SFF?
Why dont they do this!? Can anyone explain to me why this is impossible? I bet I'm not alone in wanting this. And I do NOT want that big, shiny, metal-bunker. No thanks. What I want is a stationary headless machine. Upgradable GPU. The works.
TorbX said:
oh your not alone!
who remembers on april fools they had that pic of the g5 mini ?!? ( i should dig that up)
that was KILLER!
let me have one of those on my desks and ill be a happy camper
Because this is what Apple wants, its not about you its about Apple. they want to force you into Powermac. they have played this game for many many years nothing new. You want a imac then take the crippling,and poor gpu machine. dont like crippling or a slow gpu then presto you are in the powermac category and this is where Apple wants you. Sorry. They dont want a upgradable imac because that eats into their holygrail called the powermac line. One point though powermac didnt save their stupid arses years ago the iMac line did!TorbX said:
TorbX said:
I'd think that either a compact G5 like you say, and/or a low-end headless that matched the eMac or iBook specs, would sell well--especially with a choice of GPUs. Maybe a small desktop in BOTH G4 (cheap) and G5 (fast) options. And I think it's very likely that Apple has worked on such a thing--after all the Cube's main problem was price. So why hasn't something been released yet?
It's a mystery to me too.
The answer could be that Apple has done the research to know that, in fact, it would NOT sell in enough quantity to justify the cost of creating a new model line. Maybe they know that most of the people who clamor for a headless WILL settle for an eMac, iMac, laptop or PowerMac. Thus, Apple doesn't make that much money with a new headless--they cannibalize current products.
Complicating the demand question is that people want many different things from a new headless Mac... some want mainly compactness. Some want the lowest possible price on a G5. Some want the lowest possible price period. Some want expansion slots. Some want top-end gaming performance. Add up all the demands for a headless and they sound like a lot (at least on forums)... but are they all demands for the SAME thing?
A demand problem would surprise me even so, but that's my only guess. And times can change... Don't stop asking for a true low-end headless, because Apple listens from time to time!
habibbijan said:
Why does one spec (MHz) make it reasonable to compare to a product that doesn't exist any more, instead of to iMacs that DO exist?
Take ANY low-end computer from any vendor. Go back in time a little and you can find a higher-end product with the same Mhz. And yet that old higher-end machine will have some specs/features that are still better than the low-end today. What's surprising there?
900 is better than 600, but I don't see the issue in quite as devastating terms as you may.
TorbX said:
So, your only problem with the new PowerMac is the case? Just buy one then and put it into a smaller case that satisfies your need for SFF.
Lancetx said:
Why do people continually throw this in as if the world has access to Apple's education discount?!?!!?
The reality is its still overpriced for a "low end" G5. Esp when you consider you are spending aprox the same (about $200 more for a PowerMac) amount as a iMac without the screen. I personally think $999 or $1199 would have been the sweet spot. Then there is the whole neutering of the system with 256MB of RAM on a $1500 system not even including Applecare which brings it remarkably close to $2,000 after tax and such.
Im starting wonder if part of Apples so called innovation, that they obviously do, has just as much to do with playing fast and loose with their prices as much as anything else. Lets see add another 256MB stick of RAM. Add a solid video card. (OK so the included card isnt BAD. It aint great though.) Add the ubiquitous Applecare. Well obviously youll need Apple Pro care or whatever that in store option is to get at the Genius bar fast. Wow that price just keeps climbing and climbing.
Why do I get this image of Steve in a pinstripe suit and straw hat rolling into town on a sales wagon selling Uncle Steves iMagic elixir? Guaranteed to cure what ails ya.
*shrugs* I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not in the market for a desktop anyways. Still its irksome to know that Apple keeps putting themselves in this position time and again. I know at least a half a dozen people where I work who want to get a Mac but won't because of price. I can't in good conscience tell them to get an eMac. And most if not all have perfectly fine monitors so an iMac is a waste of money.
Ive only gotten 4 people over the last year and a half to look at and actually get a Mac (All iMacs.) and in their cases they their computers from the monitor on down was in a condition to be replaced in total. Frustration. Thy name is Apple.Overclocking: the eradicator of al complaints
It just dawned to me: this is the perfect gamers machine. The true reason apple crippled the FPS is not because they are stupid, but it is smart.
You can now buy a gaming machine for a low price with the graphics card of your choice. The only problem is that games thrive on (raw singlethreaded) mhz's. If the chip is the 90nm 970FX, the only thing you have to change now, is to overclock the FSB to 900mhz. With the 3x multiplier, can you say: "2.7Ghz Powermac"?
This will probably be relatively easy when you use rev A powermacs as reference designs!
m a y a said:This system would be perfect if it was a:
2GHz with a FSB @ 1Gig.
or
1.8GHZ with a FSB @ 900MHz.
Well someone in the Apple DEV dept has been sleeping.
It just dawned to me: this is the perfect gamers machine. The true reason apple crippled the FPS is not because they are stupid, but it is smart.
You can now buy a gaming machine for a low price with the graphics card of your choice. The only problem is that games thrive on (raw singlethreaded) mhz's. If the chip is the 90nm 970FX, the only thing you have to change now, is to overclock the FSB to 900mhz. With the 3x multiplier, can you say: "2.7Ghz Powermac"?
This will probably be relatively easy when you use rev A powermacs as reference designs!
Dont Hurt Me said:
No its about what sells and I don't think Apple has a freaking clue as to what really sells. Oh sure that iMac is going to fly off the shelves and is going to make some serious bank for Apple. But how many NEW, not repeat but new customers are they going to get? Yes. The iMac looks freaking sweet. But sweet doesn't always == a sale esp when you are talking switchers. Apple thinks about the all in one package. That's great for those who are looking for a complete upgrade. Too bad there are A LOT of people out there who don't fit into that category and consequently Apple is all but saying my way or the highway which is so Jobs-ian.
my prediction:
in a matter of weeks, someone will write to xlr8yourmac.com with a photo essay about how to de-underclock the FSB of the new 1.8 single Power Mac. then it will be empirically proven that the motherboard is identical to its forebears, except for one or two pesky resistors.
in a matter of weeks, someone will write to xlr8yourmac.com with a photo essay about how to de-underclock the FSB of the new 1.8 single Power Mac. then it will be empirically proven that the motherboard is identical to its forebears, except for one or two pesky resistors.
It will be interesting to see how this machine performs next to the original single 1.8 or even the single 1.6.
They obviously took a look at the PowerMac sales numbers and realized that they were losing sales because not everyone wants to drop 2g's on a Dual, when not every program uses both. This is a great machine with two flaws... it should be 100 less, and there seems to be no logical reason to scale back the frontside bus... unless their chipsets/processors can't hit the 900mhz mark for the yield, so they scale them back to get better yields.
This is still a nice *big* computer, that fits a lot of education users budgets. You can configure the machine for $1233.00 that is really nice.
They obviously took a look at the PowerMac sales numbers and realized that they were losing sales because not everyone wants to drop 2g's on a Dual, when not every program uses both. This is a great machine with two flaws... it should be 100 less, and there seems to be no logical reason to scale back the frontside bus... unless their chipsets/processors can't hit the 900mhz mark for the yield, so they scale them back to get better yields.
This is still a nice *big* computer, that fits a lot of education users budgets. You can configure the machine for $1233.00 that is really nice.
Over a year ago apple released a single 1.8ghz G5/900mhz bus/160GB HD/5200Ultra/etc/etc... and it cost 2k edu
NOW, in the present, apple releases a single 1.8ghz G5/600mhz bus/80GB HD/5200Ultra/etc/etc... and now it costs $500 less.
Is it just me? or is there something wrong with this picture? Ah, i just figured it out... THEY'RE MOVING BACKWARDS! so much for technological advancements. I guess that's nitch marketing for ya in a nutshell... we get screwed. We should be getting AT LEAST the year old model for 1.5k. This is irritating.
NOW, in the present, apple releases a single 1.8ghz G5/600mhz bus/80GB HD/5200Ultra/etc/etc... and now it costs $500 less.
Is it just me? or is there something wrong with this picture? Ah, i just figured it out... THEY'RE MOVING BACKWARDS! so much for technological advancements. I guess that's nitch marketing for ya in a nutshell... we get screwed. We should be getting AT LEAST the year old model for 1.5k. This is irritating.
isgoed said:
Nobody buys a Mac for a gaming machine. Period. If you do you're delusional. Macs have their streignths. A lot of them actually. Gaming is NOT one of them.
How much does this stuff ACTUALLY cost?
Without knowing that, we're just indulging in speculation, which will cause tempers to flare but not provide answers since we don't have the facts (and Apple won't tell).
And to those who seek a "headless" Mac, I fear that the only ones we'll see are the G5 towers. Apple has a history of all-in-one desgins, and I think that for the forseeable future all-in-ones will anchor the bottom end of Apple's product line.
After thinking about it, I believe that the single 1.8 is a good thing. It's a brand new $1500 G5 tower. With a BTO video card upgrade it will run anything you can throw at it, and 5 years down the road people will be upgrading them with HDs, video cards and processor upgrades and still running the latest software, just like those of us with G4 towers now.
A question for those more familiar with hardware: Are the components relating to the FSB located on the processor card, or the motherboard proper?
Without knowing that, we're just indulging in speculation, which will cause tempers to flare but not provide answers since we don't have the facts (and Apple won't tell).
And to those who seek a "headless" Mac, I fear that the only ones we'll see are the G5 towers. Apple has a history of all-in-one desgins, and I think that for the forseeable future all-in-ones will anchor the bottom end of Apple's product line.
After thinking about it, I believe that the single 1.8 is a good thing. It's a brand new $1500 G5 tower. With a BTO video card upgrade it will run anything you can throw at it, and 5 years down the road people will be upgrading them with HDs, video cards and processor upgrades and still running the latest software, just like those of us with G4 towers now.
A question for those more familiar with hardware: Are the components relating to the FSB located on the processor card, or the motherboard proper?
Converted2Truth said:
That's really funny, but sadly true. There's no way that I could convince someone to switch to a low-end Powermac when Apple makes decisions like this.
So much for "new and improved." This is more like "old and degenerate."
Every time Apple releases a product, it does what everyone has asked from Apple, it's faster, or it's cheaper, or it's better designed... and everytime most people complain they should of done something different. Well go out there and make you own better Mac.
I can think of a range of possible reasons why the fsb is set slower, mostly to do with clock timing and chip quality. I would guess that the batch of 1.8 CPU's in this machine and the iMac are a lower grade than in the Dual 1.8. If the fsb is set at 1/3 the rate of the CPU it would run cooler and not tax the chip so heavily so it can stay reliable. If there have been fabbing problems at Fishkil then you would expect there to be a raft of lower grade chips. This would be a way to put them to good use. Alternatively they could clock the chips at 1.6 and run the fsb at 1/2, but I don't think that would sell as well.
Plus Apple will still be looking to make a margin on this set-up as well as the retailers to make a business out of these machines.
If Apple were to cut margins and sell an $800 headless Mac tomorrow, they might sell a bucket load. But they would need invest heavily in the infrastructure to expand their delivery channels and support base, ie risk more money, work harder for less money. And if people still didn't buy large amounts of these machines because of some other 'it doesn't run Windows' reason, what will they tell the shareholder then when they post their quarterly losses.
15 years ago a Mac cost 2-3 times more than what you can get now. Considering a dollar buys less now than what it did then, a Mac in real terms is more like 5 times cheaper.And hardly anyone thinks this is good enough, only because someone can slap together a system that's even cheaper.
Apple is doing what you want them to do, but not as fast as you want it.
I'll crawl back in my hole now.
I can think of a range of possible reasons why the fsb is set slower, mostly to do with clock timing and chip quality. I would guess that the batch of 1.8 CPU's in this machine and the iMac are a lower grade than in the Dual 1.8. If the fsb is set at 1/3 the rate of the CPU it would run cooler and not tax the chip so heavily so it can stay reliable. If there have been fabbing problems at Fishkil then you would expect there to be a raft of lower grade chips. This would be a way to put them to good use. Alternatively they could clock the chips at 1.6 and run the fsb at 1/2, but I don't think that would sell as well.
Plus Apple will still be looking to make a margin on this set-up as well as the retailers to make a business out of these machines.
If Apple were to cut margins and sell an $800 headless Mac tomorrow, they might sell a bucket load. But they would need invest heavily in the infrastructure to expand their delivery channels and support base, ie risk more money, work harder for less money. And if people still didn't buy large amounts of these machines because of some other 'it doesn't run Windows' reason, what will they tell the shareholder then when they post their quarterly losses.
15 years ago a Mac cost 2-3 times more than what you can get now. Considering a dollar buys less now than what it did then, a Mac in real terms is more like 5 times cheaper.And hardly anyone thinks this is good enough, only because someone can slap together a system that's even cheaper.
Apple is doing what you want them to do, but not as fast as you want it.
I'll crawl back in my hole now.
Because...SilentPanda said:
there's the whole expandability issue
you can put more RAM in the tower
better vid card
more HD space
and a few other quirks